A chivalrous view of marriage and divorce.

Pastor Russ Dean* at Baptist News Global asks Why do we continue to label the death of a marriage as a ‘failed marriage’?

The United States remains one of the most religious nations on the planet, and in my part of the world the air remains tainted by a religious-conservatism that once dominated the ethos. Our collective conscience remains stained by a selective biblical literalism that allows us to pick and choose whom to bludgeon and how to bludgeon. You know what Jesus said about divorce, right? Most people do not – but, it’s in the Bible, so. . . “You failed.”

While he blames conservatives, he offers a thoroughly conservative (chivalrous) view of Christian marriage.

So much worse than the end of a marriage is a marriage that dies but is never given the grace of a kind ending – though we seldom acknowledge this reality. How many have stayed in some kind of Zombie Marriage, like the walking dead, occupying one house and one life, long after the intimacy and the companionship ended? Surely this is not what Jesus was encouraging with his words about divorce.

“We did it for the children,” they sometimes say. Really? And exactly what are your children learning from this kind of marriage? “The Bible doesn’t allow divorce, except for unfaithfulness.” Really? And to what exactly are you being faithful in this so-called “marriage”?

*He is co pastor along with his wife Amy of Park Road Baptist Church.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Baptist News Global, Chivalry, Courtly Love, Divorce, New Morality, Pastor Russ Dean, Romantic Love, Traditional Conservatives. Bookmark the permalink.

144 Responses to A chivalrous view of marriage and divorce.

  1. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    Really? And to what exactly are you being faithful in this so-called “marriage”?

    Alex, I’ll take marriage vows for 50$

  2. Novaseeker says:

    Follows logically when the presence of romantic love is what justifies marriage. If/when that goes away, it follows logically that the reason for the marriage goes away, as does the acceptance that it’s a “marriage” at all.

    Marriage is now culturally a certified shared romantic love union for as long as both parties remain satisfied in their shared romantic love. If that fails, then there is no “marriage”, culturally … and “Christians” who follow that cultural approach (which is most Christians if we are being honest) will also think the same way.

    Totally alien to Christ and Christianity, but there it is.

  3. The way this “pastor” so casually twists sacred scripture is appalling. The irony is, by preaching this particular heresy he is also very likely greasing the skids for his own wife to dump him when the day arrives that she is no longer haaaaaaapy.

  4. 7817 says:

    From the article:

    I take you to be my wedded spouse,
    to have and to hold from this day forward,
    for better, for worse,
    for richer, for poorer,
    in sickness and in health,
    to love and to cherish,
    as long as we find true life together,

  5. ““The Bible doesn’t allow divorce, except for unfaithfulness.” Really? And to what exactly are you being faithful in this so-called “marriage”?”

    What a pathetic equivocation. That comment alone qualifies him for an ejector seat.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    Those vows are strangely familiar. Where did I encounter them before?

    Oh, yeah…

    That movie was satire in the 80’s.

  7. Charles B says:

    I’ve had this discussion and it’s Really impossible to bridge the gap when people surely believe that only the feeling of a “real” marriage (read: emotional tingles of the correct type for them) is what makes it valid.

  8. mrbathroom says:

    *pukes*

  9. This story is true, at least as far as I can tell from my father who has no reason to lie about it.

    Long ago, my father tells the story, a friend of his said that he “no longer loved his wife” and was thinking about divorce. My father’s advice was that since divorce was a huge and expensive pain, he should try to go home and “love” his wife for a month, the idea being to act as if he loved her, or act as he used to when he did. A month wasn’t too long to ask since a divorce could be so costly. The guy actually took his advice and weeks later said that my father’s advice had saved his marriage.

    The cure for a bad marriage isn’t to kill the patient but to try and heal him. I actually sympathize a lot for people in bad marriages and it’s hard to maintain motivation when it’s daily struggle for what feels like nothing. But people really, really underestimate how awful divorce is and on so many levels. Even all those women initiating divorces most frequently wind up everything from poorer to lonelier and with a worse conscience (why do you think they swill all that white wine? Because they’re happy?).

  10. Frank K says:

    The irony is, by preaching this particular heresy he is also very likely greasing the skids for his own wife to dump him when the day arrives that she is no longer haaaaaaapy.

    So true. And while I don’t wish his marriage to fail, I hope he doen’t act surprised if it does.

    As to why “pastors” like him preach this tripe, it’s because it’s an easy sell. When over half the adult population has been or will be divorced and remmarried, telling people who remarry after a divorce that they’re committing adultery will drive all those folks, along with their much needed tithes, to the more “seeker friendly” church down the street with the pastor who winks and tells you that not only is it OK to divorce and remarry, but it’s the Lord’s will. After all, He just wants you to be happy.

    That which was satire 30-40 years ago (like the movie Serial) is now the new normal shows that the journey down the toilet bowl has been fast. To be honest, I’m not sure that too many people today understand what a vow is. I’ve attended more than a few “weddings” where the bride and groom read the “vows” that they wrote, and when they are done you realize that they did not make a single promise to each other. Instead, they vomit romantic platitudes, which kind of makes sense as romance is now the cornerstone of modern marriage. And let’s face it, it’s what the women want to hear, because it’s their “Princess Day”.

  11. Shame on you Pastor Dean. If I could I would write this comment on your own blog where you might actually see it but I doubt that it will have any affect on your thinking. Just because the intimacy may be gone, does not mean its a bad marriage and (thus) worthy of ending it. The person who wants out is a failure and that person should be shamed for what they did. Divorce is disgusting in the eyes of God.

    Shame on you Pastor. You are no Pastor. Take another job doing anything else in the entire world. Do not tell me that you are preaching the Gospel as we both know you are not.

  12. Jack says:

    We often hear about the miseries of marriage (i.e. a code for the lack of tingles, and the associated respect for the man) and how to deal with it in various ways (e.g. divorce). But do preachers ever address the fact that premarital sex is what destroys the satisfaction that a woman could otherwise find in marriage? Or is sexual “freedom” a sacred cow of chivalry that no one wants to dismantle?

    Heaven forbid that any Christian should ever participate in slot shaming!

  13. Asaph says:

    Lol that will be a great day

  14. Morpheus says:

    Marriage is now culturally a certified shared romantic love union for as long as both parties remain satisfied in their shared romantic love. If that fails, then there is no “marriage”, culturally … and “Christians” who follow that cultural approach (which is most Christians if we are being honest) will also think the same way.

    Totally alien to Christ and Christianity, but there it is.

    Yup, and this sort of “doctrine” from “authority figures” is what gives a free pass to presumably Christian women to also blow up their marriages when they don’t “feel it” anymore. In the case of my second marriage, my ex-wife was very religious but it was definitely one of these more “progressive” Lutheran churches. In her divorce e-mail she actually wrote “that she takes her vows very seriously”…now I can only shake my head at the surreal absurdity of that statement.

  15. Instead, they vomit romantic platitudes, which kind of makes sense as romance is now the cornerstone of modern marriage. And let’s face it, it’s what the women want to hear, because it’s their “Princess Day”.

    Sadly, I hate to say this but I attended a “Princess Day” wedding just recently. The entire ceremony took half an hour (which is I’d say, 25 minutes too long) and in all those 30 minutes of yakking, not one person, not one, mentioned God or Christ at anytime during their yak. I paid very close attention, not once. The ONLY partnership they made was to each other (I assume for a while) with state government sanctioning the division of resources once it comes to an end. I hope God is the only one to end their marriage 60 years from now, but I fear He will not be the one to pull the trigger.

  16. DrTorch says:

    From their church website, “Amy Jacks Dean, Co-Pastor
    Park Road Baptist Church…Shared Pastoral Leadership”

    Not even shrouded in complementarian language. Outright rebellion.

  17. Not even shrouded in complementarian language. Outright rebellion.

    When my family moved towns in my sophomore year in high school, we also switched churches. The one we started attending had “co-pastors” a husband and wife team. There was ZERO Christianity in that church, zero. I never felt the presence of the Holy Ghost, not once. Eventually the husband-wife team left us for another congregation and then (about a couple years after that) the wife left her husband for, I don’t know, but she divorced him. I actually felt really sorry for the guy, he probably didn’t want her co-preaching with him to begin with but kept telling her “yes” to everything because she had him constantly trapped in Threatpoint.

  18. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Dalrock, DrTorch

    Equalist equalism is bad enough in the workplace and in too many men’s lives, in church leadership it is a fault line just waiting to slide. The blank-slate feminist view of women has zero support in the Bible and science continues to demonstrate just how different men’s brains are from women’s in many details.

  19. feeriker says:

    Shame on you Pastor. You are no Pastor.

    If his congregation buys into his BS, then I’ll assert that they are no Christians, either.

  20. feeriker says:

    Not even shrouded in complementarian language. Outright rebellion.

    This is why these “churches” are spiritually barren, sand and darkness in a world that cries for salt and light, and why they are making ZE-RO progress in the harvesting of new souls for the Kingdom (they almost certainly LOSE infinitely more of them than they ever gain).

    God does NOT bless rebellion. Quite the opposite, in fact.

    “Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.

    Matthew 7:21‭-‬23 KJV

  21. JRob says:

    Anyone notice a pattern? Or a well-traveled road? Cabal?

    Park Road Baptist Church went through the process earlier than most. Sixty-five years ago, the church was born as part of the Southern Baptist Convention, but its founding pastor soon began to become more progressive in his theology. Park Road Baptist sponsored a gay men’s choir by the 1980s and eventually split from the Southern Baptist fold.

    Still, church leaders tread carefully when they were asked to consider hosting gay union ceremonies in the mid-2000s. In the largest church conference meeting in Park Road Baptist’s history, the congregation voted in November 2006 to approve a policy expanding all the services of the church to gay members.

    “I think this is an issue that you have to be patient with,” Pastor Russ Dean said. “People are in different places, and we have to give them time and be deliberate and intentional about our study.”

    https://www.charlotteagenda.com/21139/wwjd-a-year-after-gay-marriage-became-legal-charlotte-churches-take-sides/

  22. If his congregation buys into his BS, then I’ll assert that they are no Christians, either.

    They are old. Members in the congregation are old and (as such) they don’t know what they don’t know. They have always just “trusted” the Pastor because (back in the day) he got it right. Or maybe he didn’t but they didn’t know any better. Now that they are old, they still don’t know any better.

    That is why I always keep harping on the fact that you just have to read that King James Bible. You have to read it AND you have to understand it. If you read it and there is part that you don’t understand, you take that part to the Pastor and have him explain it to you. If he refuses to do so (or maybe gives you some song-and-dance that those words don’t mean what they once meant) then pick another church and find another Pastor. Christians that need a church to be Christian just have to do this. I actually feel sorry for them.

  23. feeriker says:

    JRob says:
    April 12, 2019 at 5:06 pm

    That explains it all.

    No, Russ Dean is no pastor, and no, neither he nor his congregation are Christians.

  24. feeriker says:

    That is why I always keep harping on the fact that you just have to read that King James Bible. You have to read it AND you have to understand it. If you read it and there is part that you don’t understand, you take that part to the Pastor and have him explain it to you. If he refuses to do so (or maybe gives you some song-and-dance that those words don’t mean what they once meant) then pick another church and find another Pastor. Christians that need a church to be Christian just have to do this. I actually feel sorry for them.

    I’m hard-pressed to think of any portion of the Bible that is so difficult to understand that I would need to have (what today passes for) a pastor explain it to me. Odds are that doing so would just destroy what very little trust I have left in them, as today’s typical pastor’s in-depth knowledge of Scripture isn’t much better than that of his congregation.

    No, churchians don’t read the Bible because it’s difficult for them to understand; they don’t read it because they’re too lazy to do so. While not really difficult to read, the Bible takes concentration and not just a little reflection and meditation in order to fully absorb and apply its message, to say nothing of prayer for the wisdom to put it to use. People with one foot halfheartedly planted the Kingdom and the other enthusiastically planted in the World aren’t inclined to expend that kind of effort.

  25. I’m hard-pressed to think of any portion of the Bible that is so difficult to understand that I would need to have (what today passes for) a pastor explain it to me.

    You can say that because you understand it. Because you understand it clearly then you would be hard-pressed to think of any portion that would be difficult.

    You and I have taken red pills. Our eyes are wide open to see the world for what it is. We live in the world of reality. And in that world (a world that is malignant, not benign), the words of God (His rules) those are just far too complicated and convoluted for those who refuse the red pill.

  26. Tyler Cook says:

    This guy is calling himself a Baptist? Yikes. His wife shouldn’t be a “co-pastor,” and he shouldn’t be arguing that Jesus would favor divorce. Yeah, some marriages lose their spark. So what? You keep it going. You made a commitment that God sealed, spiritually fusing two people together. Make it work!

  27. Pingback: A chivalrous view of marriage and divorce. | Reaction Times

  28. Anonymous Reader says:

    JRob that is a very revealing article. These two have been at this game for a long time, their latest advice is just part of a larger picture.

    Perhaps Dalrock will consider updating the OP with the information JRob posted. It would be clarifying to those people who don’t read the comments.

  29. Swanny River says:

    “Jacks Dean.” That looks like she kept her last name. I see that so often now. I wonder, more lady-tats or hyphenated last names in churches now?

  30. Larry G says:

    oookay….why bother getting married in the first place? Just have your girlfriend/wife move in and set up housekeeping…as long as the warm fuzzies continue, all is well, right? Now surely if a string of cool days happens along that MUST mean the relationship with current girlfriend/wife has run it course, time to move on to the next one. No muss, no fuss, no divorce

    Rinse, repeat over and over….

  31. RobJ says:

    Co-pastor Russ asks, “Why do we continue to label the death of a marriage as a ‘failed marriage’?”

    Passive voice achievement unlocked. +500 Obfuscation Power.

  32. RobJ says:

    Why do we label the death of a guy with five bullet holes in his head as a “homicide?” Just celebrate the time when he was alive…or at least seemed life-like on the outside…because really who knows what was happening on the inside…I mean, maybe he’s better off with the holes in his head…anyway, just MOVE ON!

  33. Paul says:

    It is appalling that so-called “pastors” are leading their flock according to God’s Word, but revert to a weak form of emotionalism, in this specific case, a certain view on relationships labeled as chivalry.

    The NT view on marriage is that of the covenant between Christ and His Church. It should be governed by mutual love, which transcends mere feelings, but is an attitude of seeking the good of the other (see the famous chapter on love in 1 Cor 13). Actually, the goal of Christian spouses is to make their marriage a living illustration of the relationship between Christ and His Church, as husband and wife, so that others can learn of thus mystic relationship by lookng at marriages. Marriage should be honored by all. How far has even the Church wandered from that command.

    As for divorce, I don’t think there is any valid ground for a Christian to divorce his spouse. If you cannot even learn to love your spouse by confessing your sins to your spouse or forgiving the sins of your spouse, how can you ever hope to lead an exemplary Christian live?

    The bible gives us Christ’s command:
    “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” (1 Cor 7)

    But even followers of the 16th century Erasmian view on divorce and remarriage (many Protestants), that allow for divorce and marriage in case of adultery to the innocent party, would not be able to recognize the view that marriage is based on only feelings, and when these “disappear”, so does the marriage.

  34. Paul says:

    typo: … “pastors” are NOT leading …

  35. JRob says:

    This man is in no way leading anyone according to God’s Word, beginning with his co-pastor wife. A bit of a sort-of nod to pluck the complementarian guitar string. His “church” is a case study in how systemic perversion have become. It starts with feminism, then homosexuality, then….

    It’s a lie wrapped truth skin. Don’t buy it. Read all the linked articles/text.

  36. Vektor says:

    “The United States remains one of the most religious nations on the planet” LOL…are you serious?!?

    Let me tell you what the previous social and religious constraints against divorce were all about…..they were about convincing women to stay married. Despite boredom with healthy children and a prosperous home…..it was to convince bored WOMEN to stay married because the average woman is too short sighted, naive, and stupid for her own good.

    But…all that is gone now. There is no reform via debate or democracy. It must burn.

  37. American says:

    It’s like trying to swim through a tar pit. Best to just post a no swimming sign and drive around it.

  38. BillyS says:

    Telling the wife to be faithful to her wedding vows and to seek God’s love for her husband would be so far out of bounds, right?

  39. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    “The United States remains one of the most religious nations on the planet”

    It’s probably one of the most religious nations in the West, in the sense of identifying as Christian and going to church. Or at least watching Christian TV.

    I assume most West Europeans don’t even bother pretending. Americans still go through the motions.

  40. feeriker says:

    Telling the wife to be faithful to her wedding vows and to seek God’s love for her husband would be so far out of bounds, right?

    Absolutely unacceptable. That’s making women behave according to a set of standards, which is hateful, misogynistic, and oppressive.

  41. info says:

    The pharisees were the most religious out of all israel. Yet they were not saved.

  42. Hmm says:

    I used to see “Baptist” as a trademark of quality for an evangelical church until I attended a Baptist church in Salem, MA in the eighties. Apparently the American Baptist Church affiliation is one of the liberal arms. Most “independent Baptist” churches are conservative, but apparently not this one.

    What a bundle of tripe! It’s as Paul said in 2 Timothy 4:”For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions, and will turn away from listening to the truth and wander off into myths.”

  43. Opus says:

    I had the pleasure of perusing the web-site and its blog of the Park Road Baptist Church and if there was so much as one trendy left-wing cause that was absent and dear to the hearts of your more extreme Democrats then I missed it. I always thought Christianity was about preparing for things that are not of this world but that does not appear to be the predominant motive of the Park Lane Baptists. I did detect however what to me looked like hypocricy: they are with all the trendy causes yet the photographs gave me the impression of an all-white, middle class prosperity somewhat at odds with what their rhetoric might have predicted – a typical case perhaps of virtue signalling from the security of white-flight heterosexual land. In one part of their site they say that all theologies are welcome and yet I rather doubt I (or you) would last ten minutes before being turfed out for heresy. I also wondered exactly what the theological qualifications other than running the church the Pastor and his wife have – I could not see it advertised and felt that if they were indeed Doctors of Divinity they would have said so. I have never visited Charlotte N.C. (twice changing planes there en route to Chicago does not exactly count) and I must say from Google Maps, Park Road looks green and spacious and the church itself a fine building.

    I do however have just a little sympathy with The Pastor on the subject of failed marriages. No one ever talks of the Roman Empire as a Failed Empire or The United States of America as thirteen failed Colonies and no one ever describes Roman Catholics who have abandoned the Faith as other then lapsed – rather than failed. The term failed-marriage does however appears to pre-suppose that somehow the marriage failed with out any human input. My Hi-Fi may fail and my Motor Car when it fails to start also fails but the blame will not attach to me for the defects of a machine.The same cannot be true of marriage and of course we also know which of the two sexes is more than likely to responsible for the said failure.

  44. Nathan Bruno says:

    I am certain he is just as much against perpetual alimony as he is against perpetual union, right?

  45. Scott says:

    oookay….why bother getting married in the first place? Just have your girlfriend/wife move in and set up housekeeping…as long as the warm fuzzies continue, all is well, right? Now surely if a string of cool days happens along that MUST mean the relationship with current girlfriend/wife has run it course, time to move on to the next one. No muss, no fuss, no divorce

    Rinse, repeat over and over….

    I will probably go to my grave not really having reconciled the fortunate life I have lived in this regard. What you have described here is what Rollo identifies as “women’s preferred sexual strategy,” that is, serial long-term relationships on the way to marrying “the one.”

    It is a quirk of my own personality that I never really resonated with the supposed male preferred strategy which is essentially some form of poygyny or plate spinning. Never apeealed to me at all. But serial monogamy was, I have to admit, fun. Every 3 months to 2 years or so, you just move on and find someone new until you are ready to settle down and have kids. If you hit a dry spell, just have a ONS or a FB until such time as you come in contact with another compatible mate. And with the exception of my 6 year “trial marriage” from 1994-2000 (no kids) that’s exactly what I did. I don’t feel like it messed me up psychologically, don’t have any bonding issues with my wife.

    Reading blogs of the manosphere helped me jettison the blue-pill conditioning I had like a weight around my neck (which probably substantially lowered my SMV during those years–bummer.) Imagine what I could have done without it!!

    Anyway, I know all this is morally ambiguous at best. It just is what it is. What really matters is, what can be learned from it now, for my boys.

  46. Lost Patrol says:

    In just the last 30 days we’ve been introduced to the Baptist co-pastor and his pastor wife putting forth a concept that divorce is actually ok. People change you know. She grew and he didn’t. Whatever.

    The right reverend Allberry scolds us for viewing homosexuals with suspicion, just because there is verbiage in the bible that seems to be against it; but times change and we all need some gay people in our church congregations and hanging with our children. This is backed up by the once a lesbian but now a heterosexual wife and mother Rosaria Butterfield, Matt Chandler, Tim Keller and other prominent religious figures. Keller himself being essentially a kind of bishop or cardinal of the evangelical churches, who carries enormous clout with other pastors and laymen, who can and do quote him often.

    Pastor Sam Parkison tells us that “single Christian moms are as pure as the sinless Son of God, which is more than you deserve in a wife”.

    To recap, religious leaders are telling us:

    – Single moms have transcended into more than a man deserves (so be happy she is willing to allow you to marry her, I guess).
    – Divorce ain’t nothing but a thang, don’t worry about it. Marriages have a life span same as anything else.
    – Every church needs more gays on the membership rolls, and maybe working in the children’s ministry.

    How far and how fast can these trends move? Are these ideas coming down the pike at an accelerating rate, or have they been around for years and I simply wasn’t paying attention?

  47. Novaseeker says:

    I don’t feel like it messed me up psychologically, don’t have any bonding issues with my wife.

    Right. I mean this is the thing. We pontificate about how it creates bonding issues, but when I look around at the couples who are long-term successful around me in highly educated professional land here, almost every single one of them did the same thing — serial monogamy followed by an eventual marriage, and no real problems seeming to result from it.

    This is why arguments against this based on “it leads to bad results” fall on mostly deaf ears — too many people know that it doesn’t always lead to bad results. The impact is indeed disparate depending on how stable and “together” individual people themselves are, but that’s the case with any behavior (drinking, etc.) that is widely engaged in. Arguing against it for everyone because it gets bad results for some people will not convince a lot of people that it should be de-normatized.

    The only argument we have is really a moral one, based on our religion. And that’s enough of an argument, as we know, because many Christians themselves also disagree with it. But we don’t really have an argument apart from that in the secular world … they know that when we say it leads to bad results that this isn’t always the case, because they know mostly people in good marriages who never got divorced but who did serial monogamy to beat the band for years before they married.

  48. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Novaseeker, the arguments for seeking a wife with a low N-count (preferably none) is not just religious or moral. There’s the argument from statistics. Hard numbers don’t lie.

    If you had to play Russian roulette, would you prefer to use a six-shooter revolver with one chamber loaded, or two chambers, or three, or four, or five?

    The higher a woman’s N-count, the more likely she is to frivorce. Sure, a few women with very high N-counts remain faithful to their last husband. And some people who play Russian roulette with five loaded chambers walk away with their lives. But odds are against it.

  49. Bee says:

    Scott,

    “If you hit a dry spell, just have a ONS or a FB …..”

    “Anyway, I know all this is morally ambiguous at best. ”

    I strongly disagree with you on this Scott; fornication is sin.

  50. Frank K says:

    How far and how fast can these trends move? Are these ideas coming down the pike at an accelerating rate, or have they been around for years and I simply wasn’t paying attention?

    These “values” have been preached in ‘main line’ Protestant churches for decades, they aren’t new. What is new is that what we know as the Evangelical Church is now starting to go down the same rabbit hole. Since the skids have been greased for them by Episcopalians, Presbyterians, Methodists, Lutherans, etc. these trends will move forward quickly, until the evangelical and main line churches are indistinguishable, except for their rubrics.

  51. Frank K says:

    why bother getting married in the first place? Just have your girlfriend/wife move in and set up housekeeping…as long as the warm fuzzies continue, all is well, right?

    It’s not just housekeeping. The new normal is for couples to pair up, play house, and even have a kid. Then when the tingles fade, he leaves and she replaces him with another “partner”. Lather, rinse, repeat.

    My wife used to work at the local library, and she said it was not uncommon for a woman to show up with a few children in tow, and they would all sign up for library cards. The woman would identify herself as the mother of the children, all of which had a different last name. And this wasn’t in some large metro area, this is in a smaller urban area of about 200K people, and one that is 90%+ white.

  52. Joe2 says:

    This is why arguments against this based on “it leads to bad results” fall on mostly deaf ears — too many people know that it doesn’t always lead to bad results. The impact is indeed disparate depending on how stable and “together” individual people themselves are, but that’s the case with any behavior (drinking, etc.) that is widely engaged in.

    True, but even society places warnings and restrictions on widely engaged behaviors because they can lead to bad results. Think of DWI laws, warning labels on cigarette packs, warning labels on alcohol consumption by pregnant women, warnings about prescription drug abuse, warnings about unprotected sex, etc.

    Probably millions of people ignore such warnings and restrictions and have not experienced any real problems, but at least there are warnings and restrictions in place.

  53. BillyS says:

    Novaseeker,

    I bet your “seem to be successful” measure is not tracking far enough. I bet many would have thought my marriage “seemed to be successful” until it wasn’t after quite a long time. Measuring success after only a decade, for example, is not sufficient.

  54. John says:

    I met my first wife in Sunday School at a Southern Baptist Church and by all indications, from a Southern Baptist perspective, she had walked the aisle, said the Sinners’Prayer, went to youth group, etc, she was a believer. I was a naïve fool, conditioned by a lifetime of lukewarm Southern Baptist cultural churchianity. After thirteen months of marriage (and mercifully, no children), she moved in with a guy who she also met at church, but when she was much younger. They married and stayed together 25 years until the nanosecond their youngest child turned eighteen. Between filing and the divorce decree, I heard she became Roman Catholic. Two weeks after being granted her freedom, she married a man of middle eastern descent, possibly a Muslim. I fear for her soul, and pray for her salvation. She was counselled to follow her heart and that “God wouldn’t want her to be unhappy” by many church folk.
    The breakup and divorce forced a deep examination of my own salvation, the relationship of man to God through Christ, the doctrine of substitutionary atonement, eschatology, the doctrine of marriage and the church. My present wife and I have been married 27 years and it has seldom been perfect and the feelings were never what was advertised by churchianity. We realize that neither one of us is the perfect spouse, but our marriage isn’t based upon our ability to fulfill the roles or have the feelings, but on Christ’s ability and desire to sustain his children and their marriages as long as they are willing to obey. Just as our salvation isn’t based on any form of romantic love, neither should our marriages. The past six years have been hard; in 13 I nearly died and was disabled for several months and during that time, her mother passed away. Then in 14, shortly after I went back to work, she received a cancer diagnosis. We’ve dealt with that since, with some close calls, but we both know how things will end for both of us, in Christ. With cancer, there is little romance, no game, but no chivalry either; just a deep, abiding dependence on Jesus, his power and strength, grace, presence and finished work on the cross. The Gospel is all that sustains us. Churches that don’t preach this and uphold marriages through this should have their lampstands removed. Dependence on romance demeans marriage and indirectly demeans the Gospel.

  55. Expat Philo says:

    I have asked it before, and I will ask it again: what is a man to do? The problems are evident to the commentariat, but nary a word of possible solutions for the average joe who may actually be able to implement some scheme. Too many “solutions” leave men prey to sin.

  56. Anonymous Reader says:

    @Expat Philo

    What’s a man to do? It comes down to each man. The social and economic forces are huge, there will not be any National Organization of Men (that’s already been tried) rolling back laws, there will not be any massive “March on Washington” demanding justice (that’s been tried also).

    It’s like being at the beach in a rip current: swim out of it on your own. The current is stronger than you are, and it doesn’t care.

    Perhaps read philosophers such as Viktor Frankl (“Man’s search for meaning”, 1947 or so) or the Stoics. Take care of himself and learn to control his own space both physically and mentally.

    Have a mission (in the broadest sense) and make that mission the center of his mindset. The mission is more important than any given woman; “Make Herself Haaapy” is not a mission. Religious men, especially Christian men in the Anglosphere, have a ready-to-hand book that gives them a mission.

    I would suggest you go read Deep Strength’s blog and when possibly purchase his book.

  57. Anonymous Reader says:

    Lost Patrol
    How far and how fast can these trends move? Are these ideas coming down the pike at an accelerating rate, or have they been around for years and I simply wasn’t paying attention?

    These ideas have been bubbling around for years, but they have for sure gained momentum in the last 5, 10, 20, even 25 years. One disorienting thing is the acceleration in the rate of change. It’s not just obvious things such as homosexual “marriage”, but more subtle things such as open hypergamy. I haven’t watched much TV for years, but when I do I wear The Glasses.

    Take the SJW converged church in the OP for example, the Deans have been pushing their part for years. Like the United Church of Christ (not to be confused with the independent Church(es) of Christ) the social agenda is the real religion.

    In my own not very well informed opinion, part of the acceleration of change is generational. That’s a whole different topic.

  58. Anonymous Reader says:

    Novaseeker
    We pontificate about how it creates bonding issues, but when I look around at the couples who are long-term successful around me in highly educated professional land here, almost every single one of them did the same thing — serial monogamy followed by an eventual marriage, and no real problems seeming to result from it.

    Your sample error is obvious, and we’ve discussed this before. Not everyone in society has the same worldview as the Upper Middle Class, and assuming that what “works” for them will “work” for everyone else is not only false, it’s prideful and even arrogant. The diesel mechanic who used to live down the block had a different time-horizon than the retired professor across the street, and that played out in various ways – such as the prof owned his house, while the mechanic was renting.

    The concept of neuroplasticity, of a brain that is constantly training and re-training itself in response to both external events and internal (“mind”) events is very important, I hope that it works its way deeper into societal thinking. My go-to reference would be Biology of Desire which is about chemical addictions, but the focus on the amygdala, anterior cingular cortex, etc. is valuable far beyond the realm of alkies, meth-heads, junkies, etc.

    People who engage in serial monogamy form the neural pathway of “getting out” rather than “fixing up”. When we do that we are like renters rather than owners. If the go-to response to unhaaapiness or “she’s really become a bitch” is to just walk out, what happens when there are children involved and / or theology involved?

    Analogy: if I form the habit of ignoring all traffic regulations because I’m Joe Richguy who can always buy off the local judge, then if I move to Big City land I am likely to lose my driving license in fairly short order, because I habitually (neural pathway) ignore the traffic regs, but in Big CIty the judge won’t care who I am.

    I suggest that the damage done by serial monogamy to women & to men to a lesser extent to men is not always obvious. It can be quite subtle; how does a person handle arguments about emotional issues (sex, money, relatives as a rule)? By just packing up and leaving, or some other method?

    The work done by Slumlord using the GISS and by other sources shows the probability of divorce increases for each man above N = 1 that a woman has sex with. Neuroplasticity can explain that.

    Serial monogamy seems to train us in ways that make monogamy more difficult. Some people can’t handle it at all, and the social cost is visible alll around us. More so outside of the uMC, to be sure.

  59. 7817 says:

    what is a man to do?

    There’s not a one size fits all remedy that doesn’t sound trite.

    If you’re asking for resources that have helped some of the guys here, maybe everyone can mention what’s helped them.

    For me:
    The Mindful Attraction Plan by Athol Kay: This is about as close to a general plan as you can get.

    16 commandments of poon by Roissy: Even if you disagree morally, you have to study until you understand why the rules work.

    The Red Queen by Ridley: Helped with the understanding that all of creation is cursed the same way. He attributes it to evolution, but if you realize it was caused by the Fall and read it anyway it helped me accept the brutality of it all was real.

    The Rational Male books, all 3 by Tomassi: Fundamentals. Not easy to accept.

    The book of Pook by Pook: This is great for having the proper mindset.

    No more Mr. Nice Guy by, can’t remember. Nice guys finish last.

    Gorilla Mindset by Cernovich: Take the good, throw away the bad. The good is simple and helpful especially if you are a pessimist.

    The Way of the Superior Man by David Deida: Cheesy but similar to the Book of Pook as far as mindset.

    48 Laws of Power by Greene: The world closer to as it is, and not as we’d like it to be.

    The Way of Men by Donovan: A small reset in thinking about being a man. Don’t try to be a good man anymore.

    The Art of Worldly Wisdom by Gracian: The 48 Laws of Power from about 500 years ago written by a priest or
    monk.

    Practical Female Psychology by Franco: Helpful kind of like the rational male.

    Alphagameplan.blogspot.com, anything about Gamma

    Finally, the worry that everything is a sin is unmasculine. There are things that are and things that aren’t, what helped here was reading as much Old Testament as New Testament, and ceasing to read any modern religious writing.

  60. Anonymous Reader says:

    @7817
    Extremely comprehensive list. Very much worth saving. Thanks for posting it.

  61. Expat Philo says:

    While I appreciate the bibliography and the broadly practical advice, these all fail to deal with fixing the problems–in the macroscopic sense. Having a mission is useful regardless of the age or the conditions of the world, for example.

    Let me be clear: when I ask “what is a man to do?”, I am asking what he can do to fix the problem NOT how he can function within the faulty system. If we here are incapable of devising a systematic solution, there won’t BE a future worth living in.

  62. Novaseeker says:

    Your sample error is obvious, and we’ve discussed this before. Not everyone in society has the same worldview as the Upper Middle Class, and assuming that what “works” for them will “work” for everyone else is not only false, it’s prideful and even arrogant.

    Yes, as you are well aware I have pointed that out myself before, but the key point is that this is the class that creates public opinion, and that enforces public morality. This is the class that “changed the rules” for everyone, and they do not see the damage because in their class there largely isn’t much damage in the form of divorces. Yes, the divorce risk overall increases based on prior sex partners, but this is very disparate based on education level — highly educated people are having 5-10 sex partners before marrying, then marrying and not getting divorced. I agree that they can handle it better than the people down the socio-economic totem pole can (and they also handle divorce better, generally, as well for the same basic reasons), but, again, these are the people who need to be convinced in order for the “rules” to change. And you’re simply not going to convince them based on a “harms” analysis because they do not see the harm reflected in the many couples around them, and in their children (who are generally in the same educational/social class), despite having more than 1-2 prior sex partners before marrying. They do see the harm in the lower classes, but that is blamed on economics, and it’s hard to say that they are wrong, because the impact appears to be rather disparate based on socio-economics: that is, the people who are UMC and have 8 prior partners aren’t getting divorced at anything like the rates of divorce in the WWC with the same number of prior partners, so people look at that and say that the partner count isn’t the issue, something else is, and it’s not obvious that they are wrong in a way that you can convince them of.

    Basic problem: unless and until the social problems/harms start to show up in droves among highly educated upper middle class people who make public opinion and forge and enforce social mores, you won’t convince them that the harms are related to prior partners, because they raise example after example of how this isn’t a problem in their own socio-economic class. Do I think they are stupid for thinking like this? Yes, but you still won’t convince them by saying “hey, you’re being stupid, not everyone can recover from this like highly educated upper middle class strivers!”. ANd if you don’t convince them, the social mores remain unmoved, because that is the class that makes the social mores and that enforces them.

  63. Novaseeker says:

    these all fail to deal with fixing the problems–in the macroscopic sense.

    There isn’t a fix on the macro level available right now. Best you can do? Forge your own little slice of something better, and hope it spreads somewhat, and wait for the cultural Zeitgeist to change enough so that it becomes more receptive to changes in these areas — but don’t hold your breath on that being soon. Likely we are not going to see massive changes on a macro level for generations.

  64. 7817 says:

    AR, kind words. Similar lists are common in other parts of the manosphere.

    If we here are incapable of devising a systematic solution, there won’t BE a future worth living in.

    Whole world is fallen. There is no systematic solution able to be implemented by man that would not be corrupted. The individual fix is foundational, followed by helping those portions of the world you have dominion over. This is not Simcity, it’s more like trying to stay alive after a shipwreck.

  65. Anonymous Reader says:

    Expat Philo
    Let me be clear: when I ask “what is a man to do?”, I am asking what he can do to fix the problem NOT how he can function within the faulty system.

    I appreciate and understand this point of view. You won’t like my answer.

    Suppose that you were living in some part of the Roman empire around the time of the Emperor Constantine. What would you do about structural problems within Roman society, not to mention those little troubles up north along the Rhine?

    If we here are incapable of devising a systematic solution, there won’t BE a future worth living.

    What did Christians in western Europe do in the 4th century? 5th century? Look at some of the villages and monestaries built in those years for a clue.

    Please note that I do not endorse, or approve of, blackpilling because despair leads men to paralysis, to giving up. The 20th century is full of situations where men who despaired died (concentration camps of any of several evil regimes just for a start). But I also don’t agree with tilting at windmills [1] Searching for a grand solution to [collection of social ills] doesn’t seem to lead anywhere. Taking care of myself, improving myself, doing the same for people under my authority, lending help to men around me, etc. is something that I can do.

    Told you that you wouldn’t like the answer.

    [1] A Mexican co-worker once urged me to learn classical Spanish solely to be able to read Quixote in the original language. I have not yet taken him up on that, but really should read the Don in a translation, just because the characters in that book have become part of Western culture.

  66. Oscar says:

    Off Topic: Chicks get all the credit.

    https://bigleaguepolitics.com/woman-who-media-claims-created-black-hole-image-contributed-0-26-of-code/

    As the mainstream media attempts to give researcher Katie Bouman credit for the first “photos” of a black hole, it appears her role may have been mostly supervisory, and that other researchers did the majority of the leg work.

    According to data provided publicly by GitHub, Bouman made 2,410 contributions to the over 900,000 lines of code required to create the first-of-its-kind black hole image, or 0.26 per cent. Bouman’s contributions also occurred toward the end of the work on the code.

    In contrast, contributor Andrew Chael wrote over 850,000 lines of code.

    Yeah, but Andy’s a dude, so his work doesn’t count.

    Oh, and in case you’re wondering, the black hole they’re talking about is not your mom.

  67. Jake says:

    @expat philo

    What is man to do?

    Render unto caesar what is caesars, render unto God what is God’s. You have to follow the rules in place while remaining unspoiled yourself. There is jack shit “man” can do to fix anything. That’s God’s job. And one day, when the enemy’s victory seems total, our king will return, and destroy this world, replacing it with one that follows the law of God. In the nonce you are commanded to obey God, and to love your neighbor as yourself. Salt and light. Leave the worrying about matters so far above your head to someone equipped to the task.

    Pay attention to what God puts in your path and power, fulfill those duties as a man of God, and remember that in this life we are promised only the cross. The joy of the Lord is our strength. Remember that as you navigate crazy upside down land.

  68. Anon says:

    Expat Philo :

    Let me be clear: when I ask “what is a man to do?”, I am asking what he can do to fix the problem NOT how he can function within the faulty system.

    Read this about External vs. Internal solutions :

    https://blackdragonblog.com/2017/07/13/the-stupidity-of-looking-for-external-solutions/

    Now, some men would say you should get a bride from overseas, but that has only a somewhat better chance of working than marrying an American woman, and the odds worsen over time (the pressure on a man increases the longer the marriage). Many foreign women worsen quickly when they come here.

    You could expatriate to a non-Western country, but that might be too much of an adjustment just for the chance to marry a decent woman. Plus, it points out that men are doing the heavy lifting to make the pairing happen. Whenever I hear of men advocating this, I wonder why more marriage-minded women aren’t coming to the US? A pretty 8 in Russia, Ukraine, VietNam, Colombia, or Brazil has the choice of marrying a local man who makes $20,000/yr, or coming to America and marrying a man who makes $400,000/yr, AND live in a country where the Federal govt. takes, on average, $40,000/yr from men and transfers it to women (individual results vary widely). That more women haven’t figured out that women, not men, have the most to gain from immigrating from a middle-income country to America just shows how ignorant women are. US immigration ought to be 80% women. Heck, Venezuela alone has enough pretty but poor women to completely destroy the power position of over-entitled US women, if the Venezuelans came here.

  69. Gunner Q says:

    Jake @ 6:36 pm:
    “@expat philo, What is man to do?

    Render unto caesar what is caesars, render unto God what is God’s. You have to follow the rules in place while remaining unspoiled yourself. There is jack shit “man” can do to fix anything. That’s God’s job.”

    +1. Well said.

  70. Expat Philo says:

    Tending our own gardens is arguably what got us into this mess. It’s not my business to correct a pastor, etc.

    Cervantes is correct to hate chivalry, but he still felt the need to include Marcela.

    The world is indeed fallen, there is clearly no way for men to address the terrors of other material woes like plagues or famine. Never happened.

    Revelation 20:7. Even the Second Coming does not free us.

    The lesson of History is clear: burn the heathens or the holiest places will be profaned, see the Hagia Sophia. Obviously, that is not a viable solution for a host of reasons.

    All I’ve been able to devise is a closed religious community like the Amish, but I do not have the force of personality to make such a thing, and there are probably issues with the implementation of it outside of my understanding anyway.

    I apologize if my tone offends, I am simply frustrated with what appears to be unnecessary resignation.

  71. Novaseeker says:

    I wonder why more marriage-minded women aren’t coming to the US? A pretty 8 in Russia, Ukraine, VietNam, Colombia, or Brazil has the choice of marrying a local man who makes $20,000/yr, or coming to America and marrying a man who makes $400,000/yr, AND live in a country where the Federal govt. takes, on average, $40,000/yr from men and transfers it to women (individual results vary widely). That more women haven’t figured out that women, not men, have the most to gain from immigrating from a middle-income country to America just shows how ignorant women are. US immigration ought to be 80% women. Heck, Venezuela alone has enough pretty but poor women to completely destroy the power position of over-entitled US women, if the Venezuelans came here.

    Because our immigration system is dumb as doornails. They can’t just waltz in, unless they try to walk in from Mexico, or fly here and overstay a visa. Plenty do the latter, but it’s still a small number. This is why there are websites for women in Ukraine and Brazil and so on to hook up with American men for marriage — they want to get into the US and use the marriage angle to do it.

  72. Novaseeker says:

    I apologize if my tone offends, I am simply frustrated with what appears to be unnecessary resignation.

    Well you can try all you like to find a macro solution — noone is stopping you. What we are telling you is that countless have walked the exact path you are on, with the same question, and ended up even more frustrated than they were when they started out. But that doesn’t mean your attempt won’t be different, right?

  73. Emperor Constantine says:

    OT

  74. Oscar says:

    @ Emperor Constantine

    Samson was not just a Hebrew – and therefore not allowed to marry a pagan woman – but also a Nazerite who violated every part of the Nazerite vow. He’s a great example of what to not do.

  75. Emperor Constantine says:

    @Oscar

    I’m frankly not even remotely as deep in Scripture or theology as 99% of you guys.

    What I don’t understand is why, if as common sense suggests and as you point out Oscar, Samson was such a fallen guy, why is he also such an archetype of Christ as per St. Ambrose:

    “However, both New Testament and the Church Fathers saw things differently. There is more to this Hebrew Hercules than meets the eye at a first reading of his story. The author of Hebrews names Samson among the great heroes of faith in salvation history, “And what more shall I say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and of SAMSON, and of Jephthae; of David also, and of Samuel, and of the prophets:” (Hebrews 11:32, KJV).

    Church Fathers such as St. Ambrose praised him for being filled with the Holy Spirit and even found in his various predilections the guiding of this anointing in spite of Samson’s guilt for his sins. The bishop of Milan begins his extended meditation on Samson with this paragraph, “Samson, born by the divine promise, had the Spirit accompanying him, for we read: ‘he Lord blessed him, and the Spirit of the Lord began to be with him in the camp. (Judges 13:25) And so foreshadowing the future Mystery, he demanded a wife of the aliens, which, as it is written, his father and mother knew not of, because it was from the Lord. And rightly was he esteemed stronger than others, because the Spirit of the Lord guided him, under Whose guidance he alone put to flight the people of the aliens, and at another time inaccessible to the bite of the lion, he, unconquerable in his strength, tore him asunder with his hands. Would that he had been as careful to preserve grace, as strong to overcome the beast!” (On the Holy Spirit, Book 2.5).

    So we see from St. Ambrose that many of the details of Samson’s life was a “foreshadowing of the Mystery” of Christ. Let’s compare his life with that of Christ and see what other types we can find.

    Samson’s birth was foretold by the Angel of the Lord (Judges 13:3); Jesus’ birth was foretold by an angel as well (Is. 7:14, Lk. 1:31). Samson was sanctified unto God from the womb (Judges 13:5); Jesus was as well (Lk. 1:31-32).

    Samson began to deliver Israel out of the hands of the Philistines (Judges 13:5); Jesus, the Author and Finisher of our faith, shall delivers the New Israel from its oppressors and from sin and death (Lk. 1:32-33).

    Samson was blessed of the Lord as he grew and the Spirit began to move him (Judges 13:24); Jesus “grew and waxed strong in Spirit” (Lk. 1:80).

    Samson’s first great test of strength was that he rent barehanded a lion that roared against him (Judges 14:6); Jesus’ first test was His temptation in the Wilderness for 40 days when He defeated the Devil who like a roaring lion sought to devour Him (Mt. 4:1-11; 1 Peter 5:8). Just as sweet honey came from Samson’s lion later so our Lord has provided us the sweet honey of His victory over the Devil.

    Samson desired to take a wife of the uncircumcised Philistines (Judges 14:2-3); Jesus has taken a Bride from the uncircumcised Gentiles in the Church (Jhn. 1:11-12).

    Samson “sought an occasion” against the Philistines ( Judges 14:4); Jesus “sought an occasion” against Satan and Sin; so He might subdue and destroy them both.

    The Jews came to Samson desiring that he allow them to bind him and deliver him to the Philistines; their reasoning: “Knowest thou not that the Philistines are rulers over us? what is this that thou hast done unto us?” (Judges 15:11); the Jews wished to bind Jesus that they might save themselves from the Romans (John 11:48). Samson allowed himself to be bound by the Jews, although no cords could hold him if he desired to break free. In Gethsemane, Jesus went forth to meet the Jews and willingly allowed them to bind Him although He could have called legions of angels to His aid (Mt. 26:53).

    There is a type of the Resurrection once Samson is handed over to the unbelievers: his bonds melt away and he slays his enemies (Judges 15:14). In the same way, when Jesus was handed over to Death it was unable to hold Him, He rose victoriously and the graveclothes fell from Him.

    Just as Samson slew his enemies with the Jawbone so Jesus conquered with the Word of His mouth. Having achieved a great deliverance in slaying the Philistines Samson cried out unto God, “I thirst” (Judges 15:18-19); Jesus, having achieved a great deliverance, cried unto God, “I thirst” (Jhn. 19:28). Samson’s thirst was quenched when water sprang from the ass’ Jawbone (Judges 15:19 Septuagint); Christ’s thirst was quenched by the Living Waters that resulted from the instrument of His victory, “When thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed. He shall see the travail of His soul, and shall be satisfied.” (Isaiah 53:10,11).

    Another metaphor of Christ’s victory over Death, Hades, and the Grave are found in Judges 16:1-3, “And Samson went to Gaza, and saw there an harlot, and went in unto her. 2And it was told the Gazites, saying, Samson is come hither: and they compassed him, and laid wait for him all night in the gate of the city, and were quiet all the night, saying, Let us wait until the sunrising appear, and we shall kill him. 3And Samson slept till midnight, and arose at midnight, and took hold of the doors of the gate of the city, with the two posts, and lifted them up with the bar, and laid them upon his shoulders, and went up to the top of the mount that is before Hebron, and laid them there.” They “compassed him” and said, we shall kill him” as the Jews did to Christ. But then “Samson slept till midnight, and arose at midnight” just as Jesus slept in the tomb but arose in the early dawn on Pascha morning. What does Samson do then? He breaks down the gates meant to hold him captive- posts, bar, and all- and carries them to Hebron where Abraham had built an altar, a dwelling place for Isaac and Jacob, a royal residence of the ancestor of Christ King David. When Jesus He “led captivity captive” (Eph. 4:8), He “spoiled principalities and powers, he made a shew of them openly, triumphing over them in it.” (Col. 2:15). Having born the cross on His shoulders as Samson had the gates Jesus shows His victory on a hill of sacrifice.

    Samson was betrayed by Delilah who had pretended to love him with her kisses; Jesus was betrayed by one who pretended to love Him with a kiss. Delilah conspired with the Philistine lords and betrayed her husband for silver; Judas conspired with the lords of the Jews and betrayed the Bridegroom for silver.

    Samson foreshadowed Christ’s suffering before Golgotha: The purpose of the Philistine lords was to “prevail against him; to bind him to afflict him.” (Judges 16:5). As for Jesus, “the Jews took Jesus, and bound him.” (John 18:12). “Pilate therefore took Jesus and scourged Him. The soldiers smote Him with their hands.” (John 19:1-3).

    Samson reminds us of the God forsaken cry of Jesus upon the Cross: “Delilah. . .began to afflict him. . .he wist not that the Lord was departed from him” (Judges 16:16-20). Jesus cried, “My God. . ….why hast Thou forsaken me?” (Mt. 27:46).

    Samson is led before the shearers; the locks of his hair are shaven off (Judges 16:19): Jesus is led before the shearers, willingly allowing Himself to be shorn and afflicted. Christ became “Sin for us” (2 Corinthians 5:21). “He was oppressed, and He was afflicted, yet He opened not His mouth: he is brought as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before her shearers is dumb“ (Isaiah 53:7).

    Samson’s strength went from him (Judges 16:19); Jesus, speaking prophetically through the Psalmist also said, “My strength faileth me” (Psalm 37 [38]:10a). The Philistines “put out his eyes” (Judges 16:21); Jesus, again through the Psalmist, declares, “as for the light of mine eyes, it is also gone from me” Ps.37 [38]:10b and “Mine eyes fail while I wait for my God.” Ps.68 [69]:3.

    Samson was bound “with fetters of brass” (Judges 16:21); Jesus was “bound” with the fetters of the nails of the Cross.

    Samson is placed between two pillars (Judges 16:26); Jesus, on the Cross, is placed between two thieves (Mt. 27:38).

    Samson was mocked and reviled as the unbelievers gloried in their apparent victory (Judges 16:23-25); Jesus also is mocked and reviled (Lk. 22:63).

    Samson extended his two hands to the pillars as Christ would do on the beams of the Cross and he prayed, “Let me die with the Philistines.” as he wrought one last deliverance for Israel (Judges 16:30); the prophet Isaiah foretold of Jesus, “And he made his grave with the wicked.” (Isaiah 53:9) thereby giving His life as a ransom for many (Mt. 20:28).

    Samson’s “brethren and all the house of his father came down, and took him, and brought him up, and buried him” (Judges 16:31); Nicodemus and Joseph, Jesus’ brethren in faith, come and take the body of Christ to bury it (Jhn. 19:38-42).

    Christ is risen from the dead while Samson sleeps in his tomb at Tel Tzora in Israel. Now the typology has changed. With the Resurrection, Jesus now becomes a type of Samson- and not only of Samson- but of all believers…..”

  76. Emperor Constantine says:

    I really sympathize with Samson and a lustful sinner myself, and someone who essentially married two Philistine women (feminists) who lied about their faith and betrayed me, I find solace in the fact that he was such a fighter against the enemies of Israel, and an archetype of Christ.

  77. Anon says:

    Novaseeker,

    They can’t just waltz in, unless they try to walk in from Mexico, or fly here and overstay a visa. Plenty do the latter, but it’s still a small number.

    I mean even AMONG the 1M/year that arrive legally. It is male heavy, but should be female heavy. It is no longer a big secret that a woman of a modest background gets a lot more out of coming to America than a man does. A woman can get a student visa at a Podunk, just like the few who come here as single women do.

  78. Anon says:

    I apologize if my tone offends, I am simply frustrated with what appears to be unnecessary resignation.

    No one is saying you shouldn’t do an Internal solution. The point is, don’t waste your life on an external solution. See my link above about why you should focus on an Internal solution.

  79. Novaseeker says:

    I mean even AMONG the 1M/year that arrive legally.

    Ah, well women almost always (barring the high educated go-girl outliers you and I are both familiar with) have a very strong local bias in terms of staying put .. if not in their exact town, then in their own country within reach of relatives. For a woman to come from Russia or Brazil to the US on her own requires a kind of outlierish mindset.

  80. Oscar says:

    @ Emperor Constantine

    I really sympathize with Samson and a lustful sinner myself, and someone who essentially married two Philistine women (feminists) who lied about their faith and betrayed me, I find solace in the fact that he was such a fighter against the enemies of Israel, and an archetype of Christ.

    Maybe, instead of sympathizing with Samson, you should learn from his mistakes.

    Samson is far from a type of Christ. Christ suffered because He submitted to the Father and kept the covenant. Samson suffered because he rebelled against the Father and broke his covenant.

    Nor was Samson nearly the fighter he could have been. Given the strength with which God blessed him, Samson could have delivered Israel – which is what God called him to do, and Jesus actually did – but instead, Samson chose to go boozing and whoring.

    Samson demonstrates God’s grace (unmerited favor) and faithfulness, even in the face of man’s unfaithfulness. Did Samson demonstrate great faith? Yes; in the way that he ended his life. But Samson’s life is one long story of wasted potential, until he finally repented in the end, when he’d been completely humiliated and had nothing left to lose.

    Anyway, Piper was right to point out that Samson had no business chasing after pagan women, and Rollo was wrong to dismiss Piper’s point.

  81. Anon says:

    For a woman to come from Russia or Brazil to the US on her own requires a kind of outlierish mindset.

    Hence the problem. I see Chinese career chicks, Russian gold-diggers, etc., but these are not that numerous.

    Above and the beyond the immense marriage prospects for any woman who is a 7.5 and has a pleasant, gender-normative personality, most American women in high-paying jobs are in jobs that just don’t exist in middle-income countries, since they don’t have AA and a massive apparatus to create them. This very obvious and massive arbitrage opportunity is not correcting due to innate female inertia.

  82. 7817 says:

    Piper’s reliance on vetting is a lot like other churchgoing people’s advice. You can’t vet your way out of the Fall though, and over reliance on vetting as a solution reveals a serious madonna/whore complex. There are girls that fall more towards the good girl side and girls that fall towards the bad girl side, but they all have the potential for betrayal within them. The Reformed crowd relies heavily on vetting too, to the exclusion of Game or practical advice on masculinity. They have a madonna/whore problem too.

  83. Oscar says:

    @ Expat Philo

    Tending our own gardens is arguably what got us into this mess.

    You got that exactly backwards. We’re in this mess because so many Christians in the past failed to tend their own gardens. Parents, especially fathers, failed to bring up their children in the admonition of the Lord (Eph. 6:4). Older women failed to admonish the younger women (Titus 2:3-5). Pastors failed to teach any of that, and much more.

    I apologize if my tone offends, I am simply frustrated with what appears to be unnecessary resignation.

    It’s not resignation. It’s recognition that there are some things we can realistically accomplish, and other things we can’t, and must leave in God’s hands. You’re frustrated because you’re trying to change things you can’t change. If you want to alleviate your frustration, you could try redirecting the energy you’re wasting on things you can’t change. You could redirect that energy toward the things you can change.

    Besides, tending your own garden is Biblical. See Jeremiah 29 and 1 Thessalonians 4.

    None of that means that we can’t ask a brother for advice, or for help, or that we should refuse when asked. That’s what it means to live in a community, which is what the Church is supposed to be.

  84. Frank K says:

    most American women in high-paying jobs are in jobs that just don’t exist in middle-income countries, since they don’t have AA and a massive apparatus to create them

    True, most countries cannot afford the well paid government bureaucracies we have (then again our budget deficits indicate that we can’t afford them either), though they often do have sprawling bureaucracies, they just aren’t well paid. I remember one time I went to a driver’s license office in Mexico City: they had tip jars. Pay the tips and your license processing would proceed much faster, you might even be able to skip the tests if you’re were generous.

  85. Jake says:

    26 Look at the birds of the air: they neither sow nor reap nor gather into barns, and yet your heavenly Father feeds them. Are you not of more value than they?27 And which of you by being anxious can add a single hour to his span of life?28 And why are you anxious about clothing? Consider the lilies of the field, how they grow: they neither toil nor spin,29 yet I tell you, even Solomon in all his glory was not arrayed like one of these.30 But if God so clothes the grass of the field, which today is alive and tomorrow is thrown into the oven, will he not much more clothe you, O you of little faith?31 Therefore do not be anxious, saying, ‘What shall we eat?’ or ‘What shall we drink?’ or ‘What shall we wear?’32 For the Gentiles seek after all these things, and your heavenly Father knows that you need them all.33 But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.34 “Therefore do not be anxious about tomorrow, for tomorrow will be anxious for itself. Sufficient for the day is its own trouble. – Matthew 6:26-34

    I would dismiss pipers point about vetting mainly because i suspect squid ink. I’m sure it was not on point for whatever discussion they were having. Finding a woman who will be loyale who takes moderate good care of herself showing she is not a mental child is a fricking miracle. You have all guns pointed at you in this struggle, with even the trad con evangelariat encouraging their daughters to delay marriage which is ipso facto telling them to go get pounded. They also regard a 2 year engagement as normal or healthy. Anything under a year is too fast. I mean beginning of dating until marriage.

    I link this verse because it applies to your sexual needs as well. I trust my father to find me a good match. I shouldn’t need to say this but i don’t believe she will descend from a cloud clothed in white. I submit that that would be a better wife selection process than what the churchians espouse, because dying alone is less harmful than frivorce theft and single motherhood.

    But just like with my quitting drinking, i know i can’t do it myself. Need help. Not gonna come from any temporal quarter.

  86. seventiesjason says:

    was in cool a men’s clothing store yesterday afternoon here in downtown Santa Rosa. Not a “suit shop” but def a place that deals from dress shirts to the more casual. The owner, a man my age who built this business from the ground up, and has a solid clientel from famous locals like Huey Lewis, Tom Waits and the para-professional crowd who like the service, and we’re proud that a city of this size can support a decent shop like this.

    When he opened the shop in 1993, he was told by every naysayer in the north bay that, “With Macys, Nordstroms, and other chain stores and like you’ll never make it….and you should have a womens section because they spend more money than men…..and men don’t like stores like this”

    He’s proved them all wrong. About six of us in the shop having a bull session on a gorgeous Saturday afternoon. The younger guys with sleeve tats, to the old man gettting a new tie…….to middle aged men like me who just like wearing a shirt with a collar when going outside……

    Suddenly. A woman comes in. I ignore her. She was pretty above average in the cuteness factor. Every man in there, including the owner suddenly became a “trained trick monkey” even the old man. She was like a spoonge. She sucked every ounce of attention from every man on to her. She was loving every second of it……..owner asks “Hey girly? Can I help you find something?” she states “Oh, just wondering if you carry anything for women….you could really increase you business if you did…..” He just smiles “No, I sell what I know, men’s clothing.” Another few minutes pass, and she leaves. I am thinking to myself……wait for it…….wait for it……and then it starts, two of the younger guys start in with “She was checking me out” thing. I stifled a laugh.The conbversation then turned to who she was checking out…….it was time for me to leave. I brought a shirt to the bar, owner rang me up. He was giving me a look of “You and I know she was just here to get attention, she wasn’t checking anyone out.”

    He folded the shirt perfectly, shook my hand “Always good to see you here Jay” (hate when people use that for my name……but I am not going to correct him). The thirst is deep and real. Most men are not gettin’ anything today, or its that rare once a year thing on their birthday from their wife, or she’s drunk at a party………

    I’ll come again when it’s empty, and its me an just the owner.

  87. freebird says:

    The body is the Temple of God.
    Homosexuals denigrate this temple with sewage.
    THAT church needs some buckets of sewage strewn about their little “Temple” to make it look on the outside how it looks in the inside.

    Now for some Hank Williams Sr.
    Angel of Death
    When the Angel of Death comes down after YOU
    Can you smile and say that you have been true?
    Can you truthfully say,with your dying breath
    that you’re ready to meet The Angel of Death?

    Well can you.Really.
    Thought not.

  88. Jake says:

    As much as i am loathe to reply to Jason i gotta say if a woman is invading a male space the last thing you want to give her is attention. Polite dismissal followed by a begone thot if they don’t get it. You were right to ignore her.

  89. Gunner Q says:

    Emperor Constantine @ April 13, 2019 at 9:57 pm:
    “What I don’t understand is why, if as common sense suggests and as you point out Oscar, Samson was such a fallen guy, why is he also such an archetype of Christ as per St. Ambrose”

    Simple, Ambrose is wrong. The Bible itself documents what a lawbreaker Samson was. That didn’t stop him from being a champion for God, just as human weakness didn’t hold back other human champions from Moses to Peter.

    It’s an important lesson, that God loves us and makes use of us despite our failings, not because we don’t have any failings.

    There have been plenty of Christlike figures in human mythology. That doesn’t give God’s approval to not-Christs.

  90. Joe2 says:

    For a woman to come from Russia or Brazil to the US on her own requires a kind of outlierish mindset.

    I’m aware of many young Russian women who came to the USA. They told me they had visas as “cultural exchange” students and were here to learn about the culture. They were bilingual, but their English was not that good. They were extremely attractive. Probably brought over by an employment agency because they worked in local nudie / gentlemen’s clubs as entertainers. Did they return to Russia, who knows?

  91. Spike says:

    Pastor Dean loses the argument with his first sentence.
    A marriage is not a person. People die, because they have finite lives that are biologically determined.
    A marriage is not biological. It is sociological, or ”man-made”. Because it is sociological, it can break down through neglect – and thus fail. So traditional wording is right and the good pastor, wrong.
    Another error that creeps through the article is this idea, prevalent in post-Millennial society as a whole, that a marriage is an entity that exists apart from the two people in it. Thus, ”the marriage failed”, as opposed to, “I neglected /disrespected/cheated on /etc my spouse”.
    Pastor Dean attempts to shift blame away from people and onto a thing – ”marriage” – that can be blamed for breaking down. In so doing he reflects the thinking of the greater world around him. Unfortunately, it isn’t so: if a marriage dies, and dies it does – it is thae fault of the people in it. One other or both.

  92. Anon says:

    Frank K,

    True, most countries cannot afford the well paid government bureaucracies we have (then again our budget deficits indicate that we can’t afford them either), though they often do have sprawling bureaucracies, they just aren’t well paid.

    Not just that, but in the US, the government transfers about $40K/year from men to women ($30K taken from current men, and the extra $10K under deficit spending). That is before the woman even does anything at all. Men are major net taxpayers, while women are immense receivers. This also does not count child support and alimony, just fiscal allocations of tax and spending.

    If the typical middle class 7 in Russia, Brazil, Ukraine, Colombia, etc. can at best make $10K/year in a job that actually requires work, and can only marry a man who makes $20K/year, the sheer benefit of her coming here is just enormous. If she can get pregnant from a man with a good job, the CS alone (say, $40K/yr if two kids) is higher than the wage she could ever earn from a job in her own country.

    By contrast, a man (say, an engineer) gets a lot less benefit from coming here. The higher salary is balanced against the threatpoint of divorce court, childimony, etc. that is not a perpetual Sword of Damocles hanging over men in his home country. There are few single mothers in his home country.

    The fact that women eagerly respond to market forces in terms of divorce incentives, single motherhood freebies, affirmative action, etc., yet DON’T respond to market forces regarding immigration arbitrage, is not just a reason the current situation is not correcting, but is further proof of how women are inherently anti-civilization.

  93. The fact that feminists eagerly respond to market forces in terms of divorce incentives, single motherhood freebies, affirmative action, etc., yet DON’T respond to market forces regarding immigration arbitrage, is not just a reason the current situation is not correcting, but is further proof of how feminists are inherently anti-civilization.

    FYP. The greatest trick feminism ever pulled, is convincing the world that feminism and women are one and same.

    Women (in general), love civilization and want to preserve it. Feminists, don’t give a f— because they think the entire world is supposed to revolve around them. Moreover, feminists think that when they are dead and gone, that is the end of the entire universe.

  94. Anon says:

    IBB,

    Women (in general), love civilization and want to preserve it. Feminists, don’t give a f— because they think the entire world is supposed to revolve around them.

    After all of these years on THIS blog, this is still what you think? This is THE most typical Republican blind spot.

    Normal women, while they don’t dye their hair blue, are still absolutely fine with all the anti-male, family-destroying laws that are in place. Even churches that think they are totally conservative and Biblical, quickly prove otherwise. That is, incidentally, THE primary theme of this blog.

    You yourself have said that you want your daughters to sample the full carousel and only marry their BB husbands once there was little more they could extract from the carousel.

    Not to mention the fact that you completely missed the much more important point of my comment.

  95. Anon says:

    IBB said,

    Women (in general), love civilization and want to preserve it.

    This is not just emphatically not the case, you yourself used to write great comments about exactly this. Your own understanding of the subject has regressed relative to IBB of four years ago.

    In reality, the more a particular subject advances civilization, the less interested women are in it (just this week, the photograph of a black hole involved about 0.25% female contribution and 99.75% male contribution). YOU used to write great comments about how the brain-gina interface of women is obsolete, and how WOMEN (not merely those that call themselves feminists) are getting angry and confused at how the men they get tingles for are now often incarcerated, even as money is appearing in the hands of men they don’t get tingles for, for reasons they don’t understand.

    Do you want to make the typical millennial woman angry? Tell her to ‘Learn to Code’.

  96. Anon says:

    Your own understanding of the subject has regressed relative to IBB of four years ago.

    Then again, I seem to recall that it was almost indisputably proven by Lyn87 and others that IBB was two different commenters using the same IP address, a husband and a wife.

    These most recent comments must be the wife commenting after a long hiatus. The husband, by contrast, made superb comments about how the brain-gina interface of women was obsolete, and how giving women the right to vote is certain to cause disaster.

  97. Gary Eden says:

    If it seems like the American evangelical church is accelerating into its decline into unGodliness you are right. This is because they have no substance. They’ve been rotten to the core for some time and following the winds of culture. So they’re crumbling like a house of cards. They are not tethered to scripture but to the feelings of women.

    This is because they care more about wealth and the approval of the world than God and their gospel is false.

  98. Then again, I seem to recall that it was almost indisputably proven by Lyn87 and others that IBB was two different commenters using the same IP address, a husband and a wife.

    Oh please. Not this shit again.

    Here let me help you out whoever you are, one of these women is a feminist. The other is NOT. Guess which one.

    Stop getting your panties in a wad just because I corrected you. Not all women are feminists but you are acting like one. We need to cultivate the good women that are out there as they are our allies.

  99. Anon says:

    Good Lord! Mrs. IBB imploded in her Coulter-worship faster than anyone expected.

    because I corrected you

    Corrected?? Hahahaha!!!

    You actually claim that the majority of women are ‘not feminists’, and hence do not support financial incentives for single motherhood, the child support model, affirmative action for women, current divorce laws. It is as though you don’t know what the thousands of articles that Dalrock has written are about.

    Now run along, toots, and go get your husband.

  100. You actually claim that the majority of women are ‘not feminists’, and hence do not support financial incentives for single motherhood

    You are combining issues that are not linked. Stop linking them.

    There are a multitude of reasons why I want the 19th Amendment of the Constitution repealed, not the least of which is that women (in general) think emotionally. It is an emotional response for ordinary women thinking that we must “spend-government-money” to help never-married-moms raise their thug-spawn. Women (generally speaking) can’t help thinking that way. So we need to help them by doing what is right and try to discourage them from voting if they don’t just vote for whomever their husband tells them to vote. Ann is trying to accomplish this in very subtle ways. She is your ally.

    Feminists are dangerous. The danger manifests itself for a variety of reasons. They are dangerous (in part) because they are so LOUD and influential over ordinary women who are too emotional to “think things through.” Spend just 5 minutes listening to feminists lecture beta men and women (who are generally passive and submissive) on how we are supposed to live (and the ridiculous arguments they make when cornered on their foolishness) and it becomes increasingly obvious as to why that is. That part has been obvious to me for a couple decades now even though I only took the red pill about 5 or 6 years ago. But they are also dangerous (in part) because they are so calculating. Feminists are always trying to focus on getting “authority” to make their infernal desires enforced or (if failing that) doing all that they can to remove “authority” from others who intend to stop them.

    You said that women are inherently anti-civilization. Meh, no. No they are not. Feminists, yes, they are most certainly anti-civilization as the feminist is both emotional AND focused on achieving authority. Women (in general), no. Women are generally submissive, generally followers. What women are (with regards to civilization) is limited. They are limited in their ability to help create and maintain civilization. They are limited mostly because their thinking is so emotional (as opposed to logical) that we can’t count on them to do the right thing or make the right decision if doing that might jeopardize any member of their own gender. They are emotional, but not necessarily dangerous (not if they do what they are told.) A good woman can make a good man a great man. A feminist could most certainly destroy a good man.

    Invest the time to think. I have given a very precise analysis of what separates a woman from a feminist. Try not to be simplistic and assuming that they are one and the same.

  101. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    If it seems like the American evangelical church is accelerating into its decline into unGodliness you are right. This is because they have no substance.

    Instead of substance, much of modern “Christianity” is about “feel good” — like a “family values” Hallmark TV movie.

    It’s all about aiming for an attractive family, in an expensive house, with a white picket fence. The family is led by a strong, smart, sassy mom, who has a fun career on the side. Maybe she makes tons of money as an advice blogger. Or maybe she owns a quaint boutique in a quaint small town, where she sells chocolates and trinkets. A store which only seems open a few hours a day, but which still makes tons of money. She also has a handsome, but clueless, doofus dad for her helpmeet.

    Modern “Christian” women think that Jesus died so they can live inside a “feel good” Hallmark TV movie. And if they don’t, it’s because the husband failed both the wife and Jesus.

  102. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    In a discussion with David Horowitz, Milo Yianopoulos praises Christianity for inventing chivalry: https://www.frontpagemag.com/fpm/273448/horowitz-and-milo-discuss-war-christian-america-frontpagemagcom

    “In the Middle Ages, when Christianity was first taking off, it was the ultimate anecdote to racism, and it was Christianity that first invented these principles of colorblindness because people didn’t care in the Middle Ages if you were black or white, merely if you were Christian or not.

    And that’s where the idea of respect for the individual, as well as, you know, the king having to pray alongside commoners, that sort of equality before the law. All these principles are rooted in Judeo-Christian theology.

    And, at the time, it was very radical to say that the king and this peasant were in any way at all the same, especially when it came to being in church, and also consensual marriage.

    I mean, there are all kinds of things that you have no idea come from Christianity. … It’s basically everything. Consensual marriage, before Christianity, women didn’t have to say, “Yeah. Okay.” … Chivalry and codes of treating women nicely didn’t really exist before Christianity, and still don’t where you don’t have Christianity.”

  103. feeriker says:

    Here let me help you out whoever you are, one of these women is a feminist. The other is NOT. Guess which one.

    They’re both feminists. But of course you know that.

  104. feministhater says:

    Here let me help you out whoever you are, one of these women is a radical feminist. The other is just an ordinary run of the mill second wave, career feminist. Guess which one.

    The are both feminists IBB, the only difference is the level to which they are actively involved in the current feminist BS. Ann Coulter has got all the feminism that she needs, it just so happens the other lady hasn’t and wants more.

  105. feministhater says:

    Thinking that because most women don’t align with current modern nth wave feminism and thus don’t label themselves such and therefore are not, is very naive. It works great for pulling the wool over the eyes of unsuspecting victims and generating Youtube views though… look at all the tradcon women now, they have hundreds of thousands of subscribers, earn plenty of dough through donations and have complete and utter devotion of thirsty betas willing to hand onto their every word.

    However, their actions speak louder than their words. They are all first wave feminists. Ask any woman if they would be willing to end female suffrage… we all know that answer.

    They are all mostly second wave feminists. Ask any woman if they would give up careers, contraceptives, premarital sex, affirmative action, preferential treatment in the work place, special admissions in colleges, VAWA, abortion, alimony, child support and the litany of other freebies; and they would flip you off in a heart beat. Never mind telling them that they must submit to their husbands… that would be ghastly and abhorrent. Just thinking about it brings images of horror and emotional abuse to their fragile minds.

    Once you delve further into the mess, you realise that most women simply want their cake and to eat yours too. They want the benefits but not the sacrifices. They want to work less and get paid more. They want you to pay for their maternity leave and to work extra hours to cover for them. They want female scholarships in sports without having to play at the level of their male counterparts to earn it. They want to play three sets of tennis, not five, but still get paid the same amount with the same accolades even though most men only watch tennis to get a glimpse of the hot woman’s ass when her skirt hikes up.

    They want to pretend they make the same sacrifices of men in the military but only serve in a very limited capacity whilst the media and government shower them with words like ‘brave’, ‘courageous’, ‘honour’, ‘dutiful’ and other words used to show respect for those who put their lives on the line. However, we know only a faction of women place themselves in danger to sacrifice for others, we have proof that most will get pregnant when a deployment comes, we know the military covers for them and gives them preferential treatment, we know they weaken the armed forces, the moral of the men, and the effectiveness of a unit in combat… ask these women if they would be willing to admit that men are better fighters, that men serve better under stress and thus deserve our admiration far more than they do and you will hear howls and screams of sexism from the peanut gallery.

    Make no mistake. It is only once you hit intersectional feminism that a majority of women start to disagree with it; and the reason is as clear as a sunny day with no cloud cover…. they only do so because they see it eating away at their privilege in society. It does not cater to women and that’s why they are now all ‘anti’ feminists.

    Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes.

  106. Dota says:

    @ innocentbystanderboston

    Feminism merely represents the baser impulses of women, such as hypergamy, entitlement, narcissism, solipsism etc… These base instincts are anti-civilization. That’s not to say that men don’t have baser impulses, but men do a reasonable job policing these impulses and the product of this collective effort is civilization. Women are sadly quite bad at policing their own behavior and generally tend to set the bar pretty low for their behavior if given even half the chance.

    Also, feministhater is right, the only reason women are rebelling against feminism today is because feminists promised them lots of freebies and delivered nothing. Or, as one feminist told a close friend of mine, “feminism today is basically all about women of color.”

  107. “How many have stayed in some kind of Zombie Marriage, like the walking dead, occupying one house and one life, long after the intimacy and the companionship ended? Surely this is not what Jesus was encouraging with his words about divorce.” Hey look it’s the root of all sin, even original: “Did God REALLY say . . . ?” Same damn question Satan asked Eve

  108. fh,

    The are both feminists IBB, the only difference is the level to which they are actively involved in the current feminist BS. Ann Coulter has got all the feminism that she needs, it just so happens Stephanie Miller hasn’t and wants more.

    Okay I understand what you are saying. And I even agree with most of what you are saying (pretty much all of it.) But what I am saying (at this point) is that I’ve taken the red pill, I see the world for what it is, the world is burning, and for those of us who want to try and save it (like myself), we need allies among women. We can’t do this on our own, not when so much of the other sex is undermining every move we try to make to save civilization.

    Ann (the first wave feminist that she may be) is our ally. She would gladly give up her right to vote if every other woman in the country did the same, she had said as much. She went on the Father Albert show to defend her book that shamed never-married-motherhood and got nothing but lambasted for it. She goes on Bill Maher’s show all the time and tried to talk common sense with the man to his audience. She wants a wall, wants the President to shut down all entry points into the country. She knows that her career is safe (not one of these migrants can write a book the way she can) but that ordinary men have been brought to utter ruin in the USA thanks to immigration and globalization. She sees our civilization dying. She is our ally in trying to save civilization. Lets not lump her in the with rest of the feminists.

    I think (in taking the red pill) WE need to be intelligent about this, need to be a bit more calculating. Lets not let our emotions get the best of us. You think FDR and Churchill wanted to make an alliance with the devil (Joe Stalin) in 1941?

  109. Hmm says:

    The (visiting) preacher in church last evening mentioned Marie Kondo, the home organizing guru. Her motto is, “If it doesn’t bring you joy, get rid of it.”

    I have come to the conclusion that the broad evangelical church is buying into Marie Kondo theology: “If that doctrine doesn’t bring you joy, get rid of it!”

  110. Jack Russell says:

    Here is a pastor who passed away a couple of years ago. Too young. This clip is 1hr 27 minutes long, but you will not hear this kind of preaching in most Churches these days. Title is called: New Christian Feminist: Sisters over everything.

  111. Gary Eden says:

    Also, feministhater is right, the only reason women are rebelling against feminism today is because feminists promised them lots of freebies and delivered nothing. Or, as one feminist told a close friend of mine, “feminism today is basically all about women of color.”

    Exploit that wedge. Not for a nicer white woman loving white knight equality feminism. Bring them into the joy of being under a male ruler.

    They don’t care about principle, only what works for them. They don’t even realize there are joys and benefits to being in radical submission.

  112. Anon says:

    fh said :

    Don’t let them pull the wool over your eyes.

    The typical Republican (such as Mrs. IBB above) who thinks that Republican women are automatically against feminism, and are actively fighting against it, is a huge part of the problem.

    RS McCain is another such cuck. There was a time when I thought he was solidly purple pill and moving in the right direction. But alas, whenever he gets close to seeing the truth, he gets frightened and then doubles down on the tired old belief that ‘feminism’ is just a Democrat meme, and all Republican women are fully and comprehensively against it. Of course, he has no problem with how divorce laws, CS laws, etc. are currently structured (again, a typical blue-pill cuckservative).

    Mrs. IBB here has exactly the views you would expect a Republican woman to have.

  113. feeriker says:

    Okay I understand what you are saying. And I even agree with most of what you are saying (pretty much all of it.)

    So why, then do you continue to insist that Ann Coulter is not a feminist when in all aspects of her behavior and everything but her own self-labeling she very obviously is one?

  114. Hi guys,
    Been awhile since I’ve been in here, been catching up in reading as much of Dalrock’s blogs and the comments as I can and I’ve seen a recurring theme come up concerning divorce and remarriage

    I was wondering, and my question is to everyone here, could you please answer me honestly about something?

    There seems to be a belief shared by a lot of people in here, and I mean a lot, that once you’ve been divorced you cannot get remarried otherwise you are living in adultery, is that correct?

    Ok I want you to consider a hypothetical situation that I will posit and I want your honest opinion:

    Say a man gets married, when he was about 24 for arguments sake, and his wife divorces him after 2 years because she was “unhappy” or whatever garbage excuse women give for their sin. Are you people telling me that this man has to stay single and celibate for the rest of his life, no sex, no visiting a prostitute to get his sex needs met, no sex dolls, no girlfriend on the side, no one night stands, NO SEX whatsoever, not just for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, or 40 years, but he can never have sex again whilst his ex wife is still alive, because if he gets remarried he will be accused of living in adultery.

    Can anyone here tell me that with a straight face and that they believe what I just said…..I don’t want no scriptures being cited, no bible verses explaining away things, I just want someone in here to tell me with a straight face, that if a man gets divorced, he can NEVER have sex ever again, if his wife is still alive.

    That’s all I ask, can you people do that for me?
    I’m not trying to be contentious, I’m just looking for a straight answer to this perplexing problem of mine

  115. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    So why, then do you continue to insist that Ann Coulter is not a feminist when in all aspects of her behavior and everything but her own self-labeling she very obviously is one?

    That is not even the worst thing that Mrs. IBB is doing.

    It started when she insisted that most women are not feminists, and that women love civilization and are productively advancing it. If you pressure her to point out why virtually no women are trying to overturn the preposterous divorce, custody, and DV laws, she will avoid answering the question with extreme dishonesty.

    It is time for her to leave and let her husband do the commenting.

  116. BillyS says:

    A woman can loudly proclaim they oppose feminism, yet still seek its advantages. My exwife regularly spoke against feminism, yet she followed that way when it benefited her and she had lived our marriage the same way, as I have come to realize.

  117. vandicus says:

    feministdestroyer says:
    April 15, 2019 at 11:53 am
    “Hi guys,
    Been awhile since I’ve been in here, been catching up in reading as much of Dalrock’s blogs and the comments as I can and I’ve seen a recurring theme come up concerning divorce and remarriage

    I was wondering, and my question is to everyone here, could you please answer me honestly about something?

    There seems to be a belief shared by a lot of people in here, and I mean a lot, that once you’ve been divorced you cannot get remarried otherwise you are living in adultery, is that correct?

    Ok I want you to consider a hypothetical situation that I will posit and I want your honest opinion:

    Say a man gets married, when he was about 24 for arguments sake, and his wife divorces him after 2 years because she was “unhappy” or whatever garbage excuse women give for their sin. Are you people telling me that this man has to stay single and celibate for the rest of his life, no sex, no visiting a prostitute to get his sex needs met, no sex dolls, no girlfriend on the side, no one night stands, NO SEX whatsoever, not just for 1 year, 2 years, 10 years, or 40 years, but he can never have sex again whilst his ex wife is still alive, because if he gets remarried he will be accused of living in adultery.

    Can anyone here tell me that with a straight face and that they believe what I just said…..I don’t want no scriptures being cited, no bible verses explaining away things, I just want someone in here to tell me with a straight face, that if a man gets divorced, he can NEVER have sex ever again, if his wife is still alive.

    That’s all I ask, can you people do that for me?
    I’m not trying to be contentious, I’m just looking for a straight answer to this perplexing problem of mine”

    Yeah(that’s my belief), on account of a pretty straightforward reading of the Bible(that’s why it’s my belief). That perspective is essentially Catholic though, presumably many Protestants slice the onion differently.

  118. Joe2 says:

    Say a man gets married, when he was about 24 for arguments sake, and his wife divorces him after 2 years because she was “unhappy” or whatever garbage excuse women give for their sin.

    Yes, he can get married again because his first marriage was not a valid marriage.

  119. anonymous_ng says:

    @SeventiesJason, there is a similar menswear store in the city where I live. Well, this place sells expensive suits and all the other kinds of menswear.

    There are usually a couple of women running the register. All the other employees are men. The socio-sexual dynamic is very interesting. The register girls don’t circulate around the sales floor. They don’t offer opinion on clothing. They don’t really talk to the customers. They just ring up purchases with minimal idle chitchat.

    Then, if a man comes in with his wife, even if she gives her opinion, it seems to me that the men who are in the store because of the expense are very successful, and the women are not the ball-busting career women, but are instead the CEO wives types.

    There are only two other places that are similarly male spaces, the barber shop when no women are there, and the gun store when no women are there.`

  120. Expat Philo says:

    Re: the hypothetical question.

    I would contend that he is to remain celibate until the wife engages in sexual activity, as unfaithfulness to the spouse is a valid cause for divorce.

  121. feeriker says:

    A woman can loudly proclaim they oppose feminism, yet still seek its advantages. My exwife regularly spoke against feminism, yet she followed that way when it benefited her and she had lived our marriage the same way, as I have come to realize.

    Economists call this “spillover benefit.” And yes, ALL women enjoy the spillover benefits from feminism (e.g., the franchise, easy [his]-fault divorce, abortion on demand, the right to rack up debt in a husband’s name without his permission and leave him holding the bag for it) and would not see these benefits taken away for all the world – yes, AWALT. Were this not true, we would have seen (non-existent) “non-feminist” women pushing vigorously decades ago for the repeal of their newly-acquired “rights” and a return to the status quo ante.

  122. Daniel says:

    @vandicus Jesus said that if you divorce your woman to marry another (man’s woman?) you commit adultery. In a parallel passage it says you cause her to commit adultery. Jesus was preaching against the practice of serial monogamy, i.e. ex-wife swapping. The sin is divorcing a faithful wife because you want to trade up – this treachery is a form of adultery. Now if she commits sexual immorality, leaves you, or divorces you? You are not under bondage, and you may remarry.

  123. Anon says:

    feeriker,

    Were this not true, we would have seen (non-existent) “non-feminist” women pushing vigorously decades ago for the repeal of their newly-acquired “rights” and a return to the status quo ante.

    Not just that but women are so unequipped for civilization that there is not even a SMALL group of grandmothers fighting against default mother custody, even though many paternal grandmothers (the father’s mother) lose access to their grandchildren when the daughter-in-law takes them away.

    You would think there would be even a SMALL group of grandmothers against default daughter-in-law custody, but there isn’t. This is part of how women don’t grasp cause and effect, but this is particularly acute when civilization stands to lose from female behavior.

    Mrs. IBB showed up for the first time in ages, and got utterly hammered.

  124. Frank K says:

    I don’t want no scriptures being cited, no bible verses explaining away things,

    In that case what you are asking about is state sanctioned marriage, which is entirely another beast altogether. The government will allow you have as many wives as you want, just one at a time.

  125. Mr. Woot says:

    I do body language and text analysis (a benefit of being on the internet for 30 years) once in a while and this this link was fun – https://www.parkroadbaptist.org/russ-amy
    There’s so much Amy that Russ barely registers.
    1. She is far more in focus/sharp in the 1st image and in front of Russ
    2. She is over his hand and knee (ownership)
    3. He is leaning in (active reliance) and limp wristed
    3. She is the object of attention in the top photo (focused attention)
    4. In the video (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0jV0pIxX72c) she is the spokesman.

  126. Paul says:

    @feministdestroyer I just want someone in here to tell me with a straight face, that if a man gets divorced, he can NEVER have sex ever again, if his wife is still alive.

    I believe that. As did most of the Church up till Erasmus and then Luther. Go educate yourself.

  127. Paul says:

    And upon special request, these are some of the explicit NT texts on divorce and remarriage.

    “To the married I give this command (not I, but the Lord): A wife must not separate from her husband. But if she does, she must remain unmarried or else be reconciled to her husband. And a husband must not divorce his wife.” 1 Cor 7

    “For example, by law a married woman is bound to her husband as long as he is alive, but if her husband dies, she is released from the law that binds her to him. So then, if she has sexual relations with another man while her husband is still alive, she is called an adulteress. But if her husband dies, she is released from that law and is not an adulteress if she marries another man.” Romans 7

    ” “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”” Mat 19

    “When they were in the house again, the disciples asked Jesus about this. He answered, ‘Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery against her. And if she divorces her husband and marries another man, she commits adultery.’” Mark 10

    “Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.” Luke 16

    “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.” 1 Cor 6

  128. Daniel says:

    Paul, you missed a couple.

    “Now I am saying to the unmarried and the widows, that it is ideal for them if ever they should be remaining even as I. Yet if they are not controlling themselves, let them marry, for it is better to marry than to be on fire.” 1 Cor 7:8-9

    “You are bound to a wife? Do not seek to be loosed. You have been loosed from a wife? Do not seek a wife. Yet if you ever should be marrying, also, you did not sin. And if the virgin should be marrying, she did not sin. Yet affliction in the flesh will such be having. Yet I am sparing you.” 1 Cor 7:27-28

    Let them marry!

  129. @Paul

    I find your views not only disgusting, and appalling, but they are entirely berefit of any empathy or understanding about men who find themselves in this situation.

    The reason I deliberately asked NO ONE to cite scripture was because I knew the ultra hard core Catholics/protestants would come with their arsenal of pet verses to prove their position, when all I wanted to see was the “human element” to the dilemma of finding oneself divorced.

    It comes as no surprise to me, that amongst even the Christian community, there is NO sympathy whatsoever shown to men. It’s the same ole, “you had 1 chance in life to get married, too bad your wife fucked you over, you can never have sex again, tough luck, build a bridge and get over it, sexual intimacy is not important, you’re a vile sinner for even wishing to have sex, you should have chosen a better wife if you didn’t want to get divorced, it’s your fault, so stop moaning about lack of sex, and grow up”

    It’s these sentiments, of course thinly veiled behind the veneer of scripture cited to prove their position, that has convinced me that Christianity (as currently taught) is the most vile, uncaring, abominable man hating religion ever devised

    But there’s a positive to all this! Thank God, that I don’t believe in Christianity or Churchianity which reinforces this callous view of remarriage. I am a born again believer in Christ and I have a 1 trillion megaton secret weapon that destroys the Church’s position on remarriage!

    Do you want to know what my secret weapon is?

    It is the BIBLE, and it is my final authority in all matters of faith and practice, and it tells me in Mat_19:9  “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, EXCEPT IT BE for fornication”
    This tells me that the very second my ex wife allows another mans penis into her pussy after she frivorces me, a penis that is not mine, I can legally have grounds to divorce her and remarry according to Jesus, and NO SIN will be imputed to my account

    Also my BIBLE tells me in Co 7:15  “But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases”

    If my wife leaves the marriage, and she is an unbeliever I am perfectly free to remarry with NO stigma attached to it….The word bondage in Koine Greek, and even in English signifies the dissolution of a marriage and not being legally bonded to your wife anymore. Those 2 verses trump every verse cited to try and prove a man can never remarry.

    I thank God that I have the BIBLE, and not church fathers, or church history to guide me!!

  130. TheTraveler says:

    @feministdestroyer

    Great post. I share your revulsion at the Pharasaical brutality perpetrated with Bible verses. I get attacked by the same sanctimonious crowd.

    As for me, I’m Catholic, but the Ten Commandments govern my behavior, not the multi-volume catalogs of sins invented by a bunch of sour old men cut off from normal life since their teens. (Evangelicalshave them, too. Just more localized–the Reverend says, so that’s how it IS for a lot of folks.)

  131. OKRickety says:

    I found the following in “Pastor Dean’s” baptistnews.com bio: “Russ is active in social justice ministries and interfaith dialogue.“. Knowing that, I am hardly surprised at his beliefs.

  132. @TheTraveler

    Thanks for the support, it really is encouraging to know there are still compassionate Christians left in this cold world

  133. Robert What? says:

    Since a husband and wife “own” the other’s body, isn’t the frequent and continual withholding of sex (almost always by the woman) a form of unfaithfulness?

    And don’t modern conservative pastors seem to approve of – if not outright recommend – the withholding of sex by the wife to keep the man umder her thumb? (not phrased that way of course, but that’s what it is)

  134. Paul says:

    @FD

    You use a lot of bible verses for someone not willing to hear bible quotes.

    Having your feelings guide your theology is always a bad idea. I’ve studied the topic on divorce and remarriage for over 10 years, from every possible angle, and can only conclude that remarriage after divorce is only allowed if your former spouse dies. The most important reason is that of future reconciliation of the separation of the still intact one-flesh relationship.

    To have your theology build on only one word in one verse (Mt 19:9) which is directly contradicted by explicit instruction in 1 Cor 7:10-11 is very weak. Especially if you know how Luther defended that. You should read it. Really. It’s quite absurd. Furthermore, there is actually a textual issue with the Mt 19:9 “except”, which might not have been in the original autographs at all (see Leslie McFall in https://lmf12.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/divorce_aug_2014.pdf).

    Now I might be wrong, but my conclusion is shared by many people in the church for the first 1500 years, so it’s not really a strange theological invention.

    Remarriage after divorce is called adultery, and adulterers are warned that they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Do you want to gamble on that?

  135. @Paul

    “”Having your feelings guide your theology is always a bad idea””

    _My feelings don’t guide my theology, the scriptures do…..I was attempting to avoid a debate on this issue so I appealed to this topic on “emotional grounds”, but having drawn me in, not only will I engage you, I will destroy your supposition_

    “”To have your theology build on only one word in one verse (Mt 19:9)””

    _It is not 1 verse, there is another in Matthew 5:32, also Mark 10 refers to the same account, and inspired records do not contradict each other, as Matthew being the fuller verse supplements and expands on Matthew’s accounts in Matthew 19:9_

    “”which is directly contradicted by explicit instruction in 1 Cor 7:10-11″”

    _That’s a lie, they do not contradict at all, you just did not read far enough to see the other verses in context_

    “”Furthermore, there is actually a textual issue with the Mt 19:9 “except”, which might not have been in the original autographs at all””

    _Not only is that a blatant lie, but you wouldn’t know what the “original autographs” said if your life depended upon it, as they do not exist. Your fallacy is based upon the Erasmus argument which has been debunked. For example, Jerome’s Latin Vulgate written in the 4th century contains that exception clause and it used hundreds of Greek manuscripts available at that time which predated Erasmus, also early church fathers quoted Matthew 19:9 in it’s entirety like Clement and Tertullian and Novatian_

    _Now ask me how the hell did these guys who lived over a thousand years before Erasmus quote a passage in Matthew 19 if it didn’t exist? Don’t bother answering, as it’s rhetorical. They quoted the exception clause because all the translations that existed at that time contained the clause. A.T Robertson the foremost Greek textual scholar admits that there are hundreds of textual Greek manuscript support for Matthew 19:9
    All attempts to use the textual fallacy in regards to Matthew 19 not being genuine fails under close scrutiny and genuine honest scholarship. Leslie McFall was an idiot_

    “”Remarriage after divorce is called adultery””

    _Quit your lying, Deuteronomy 24 provides a legal provision under the LAW for couples to remarry, and no one is accused of being an adulterer….Not 1 jot or tittle shall pass from the law according to Jesus. Also God divorced Israel twice and remarried, is God living in adultery?
    Divorce severs the legal bond of a marriage, this is why Jesus in John 4 said the woman at the well had 5 husbands, notice he didn’t say she had 1 husband and the rest weren’t genuine, Jesus recognized the validity of each subsequent husband she had_

    “”adulterers are warned that they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Do you want to gamble on that?””

    _I absolutely feel safe gambling on that, because I’m not judged by my adherence to the LAW, my salvation depends upon the imputed righteousness of Christ given to me by faith….But YOU are gambling on your acceptance to the Kingdom of God based on your ability to keep the LAW, do you want to gamble on that?_

    _Put it this way, I wouldn’t want to be in your shoes at the Judgment, for not just adulterers will be barred entrance but also those who have ever told a lie, or coveted something your neighbor has, or if you’ve ever been drunk, or said something that reviled another person…..GOOD LUCK!!_

    _Bottom line is, remarriage is taught in scripture, it is perfectly ethical to do so, and I would not hesitate to get remarried if the opportunity presented itself. I am also reassured from scripture that the moment ANY ex wife allows a cock in her pussy that wasn’t her husband’s after a divorce, that man according to Jesus has a perfect legal right to get remarried, case closed Jesus said it, it’s a done deal….If you have any problems with it take it up with HIM_

    _By the way, according to Deut 24 if your wife fucks someone after divorcing you, you are actually forbidden by God to take her back anyway as that is an abomination, you are not meant to reconcile with her, she has polluted and defiled her body with another man, and defiled the land itself….It is demonic to have your wife back once she has sex with someone else, so why are all you haters of remarriage encouraging spouses to do the 1 thing that is an abomination to God, namely reconcile with your ex….Every teacher I’ve heard on this topic who teaches that remarriage =adultery, also teach that you should reconcile with your ex if possible in blatant defiance to what God said in Deut 24_

    _My experience with all you legalists and Pharisees who teach that remarriage=adultery will not be persuaded to alter your views, no matter what evidence and scriptures I use, so let us agree to disagree on this issue_

  136. Paul says:

    @FD but having drawn me in, not only will I engage you, I will destroy your supposition

    You think one superficial post on a blog is able to not only counter 10+ years of studying, but actually disprove a historical held position? Do you really think you bring anything new to the table?

    What started out as a passive-aggresive question on who of the posters believe in the permanency of marriage, you quickly have turned into a vicious attack. Calling people legalists and Pharisees who disagree with you, while you’re trying to make arguments based on Scripture yourself does not really strengthen your case. I’m not entering in such a “debate”, nevertheless, I will point out some errors in your post.

    It is not 1 verse, there is another in Matthew 5:32
    That is talking that you can’t CAUSE your wife to become an adulterer by divorcing her, if she already was involved in sexual immorality. It does not compare to Mt 19:9.

    And it’s interesting the contrast in that same verse and the previous: “It was also said, Whoever divorces his wife must give her a written notice of divorce. But I tell you, everyone who divorces his wife, except in a case of sexual immorality, causes her to commit adultery. And whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

    Referring back to OT Law on the “bill of divorce”, Jesus make a contrast “BUT I tell you”, showing an exactly opposite approach. And notice the second part of the verse: “Whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery,”

    Now I’ve heard countless “arguments” for the Erasmian/Lutheran view,just to answer the question when exactly this adultery takes places. Usually the adultery is seen as taking place at the wedding ceremony, and nothing more of it. Effectively it is completely ignoring this text.

    As for Mark 10 mentioning no exception at all has been the target for much debate, which I won’t repeat here, but it is enough to say that leaving out a so-called “exception clause” is inspired scripture, and was good enough for people to understand what was meant. The whole Erasmian view hinges on a single word in a single verse, and must explain why the other texts do NOT contain them. Where people supposed to not listen to Mark or Luke? The apostle Paul makes this teaching clear in 1 Cor 7:10-11: Don’t divorce, and if you have done so, reconcile or stay single.

    As for the others verses on divorce in 1 Cor 7, although it recognizes a Christian can suffer a divorce, it never says remarriage is allowed. And the believer is explicitly instructed to NOT divorce an unbelieving spouse. All the mental gymnastics to allow for remarriage have to discard the very explicit and very clear instruction to reconcile or stay single after divorce in the same chapter. And at the end of the chapter the apostle Paul even repeats:
    “A wife is bound as long as her husband is living. But if her husband dies, she is free to be married to anyone she wants — only in the Lord.”

    Notice it doesn’t say she can divorce her husband and marry anyone she wants.

    As for the OT teaching, I agree that is different from the NT teaching. Which is of course not unique. Similarly polygamy is not allowed anymore, nor are we to offer sacrifices at the altar in the temple of Jerusalem for forgiveness of sins. You can fall back to your favorite theology to reconcile that with the tittle and jotta quote. It’s interesting that it were exactly the Pharisees that quoted Deut 24 in response, when Jesus said that what God had joined together, man should not separate.

    And maybe you failed to notice that the text on adulterers not entering the Kingdom of God was given by the apostle Paul and addressed to Christians.

  137. Paul says:

    And for clarification I should add:

    “Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men a nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God. And that is what some of you were. But you were washed, you were sanctified, you were justified in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ and by the Spirit of our God.

    If you keep on sinning, and don’t want to confess it as sin, and repent from it, and persist in such attitude, you have no genuine saving faith.

    Jude : “Though you already know all this, I want to remind you that the Lord at one time delivered his people out of Egypt, but later destroyed those who did not believe.”

  138. @Paul

    “”It does not compare to Mt 19:9″”

    _Seriously, who are you trying to kid?, the passage in Matthew 5:32 is a parallel passage to Matthew 19:9 and BOTH have the exception clause in the Greek and English text. Are you trying to tell me that there is no lexical support now for the passage in Matthew 5 as well? *Facepalm*

    Look we can go around in circles on that 1 point of dissension, but you are a bible disbeliever and I’m a bible believer….the scripture says “ALL SCRIPTURE IS GIVEN BY INSPIRATION OF GOD AND IS PROFITABLE FOR …….”
    I have no interest whatsoever with debating those who dispute which passages should be in the bible or not….The facts are Jesus mentions the exception clause TWICE in 2 different passages, if you continue to doubt the authenticity of those passages we have no common ground for discussion because once a man starts to question which parts of the bible are legit in his eyes or not, he has set himself up as a judge and arbiter of the word of God, and he cannot be subject to it, it leads to rank heresy. I highly suggest you repent of your sin of unbelief and start accepting the bible as inspired scripture

    Right then, lets move on, Jesus clearly states that their is an exception whereby divorce/remarriage is permissible….Now what are you going to do with Jesus’s words?, do you believe Him?

    I notice that you dared not dispute the verses I gave you in my last comment, instead you just vomited up the same points you made before with 1st Corinthians 7 which I’ve already discussed

    “”And the believer is explicitly instructed to NOT divorce an unbelieving spouse””

    _Garbage, that passage clearly says that a believer is free to remarry if an unbelieving spouse departs because they are not under bondage anymore_ 1st Cor 7:15

    “”The apostle Paul makes this teaching clear in 1 Cor 7:10-11: Don’t divorce””

    _No he didn’t , Paul the Apostle used the term PUT AWAY which is NOT the same as divorce, even though modern day pharisees like to pretend they are the same words_

    Just for a second, lets put away the scriptural support for remarriage and focus on the utterly retarded hypocritical mess that the no divorce/no remarriage crowd gets themselves into. Imagine a couple who are legally remarried to someone other than their first spouse, which is extremely common. You accuse them of “living in adultery”? Even though there is no such scriptural term in the entire bible as living in adultery, I’ll ignore that for now, what do you and the no remarriage crowd do with that couple?

    I’m being serious here, what do you do with these people? I’ll tell you exactly what you pharisees do, you tell them that they are living in sin, and living in adultery, and they need to get a divorce to fix the situation….Now I want you to think about how utterly hypocritical, how retarded, how immoral, and stupid that proposition is. You are condemning others for getting divorce because in your mind all divorce is a sin, yet you’re going around instructing those that are in legal marriages, even if it’s their second or third, and telling them to go and get a divorce!!
    By what stretch of the imagination is divorce a sin in your eyes, then it suddenly becomes not a sin if you are remarried?? so in your warped thinking, a couple to avoid the sin of adultery, has to do the sin of divorce in order to fix the first sin. This is so insane it boggles the mind that the no divorce/no remarriage proponents can even say that with a straight face

    And if you’re not telling a remarried couple to divorce but to stay with their current partner, you hold them in bondage with no way out by condemning them with your accusatory accusations that they are living in sin. This is why i have used the term Pharisee to describe you and others who hold this teaching, it wasn’t to be mean to you, it was to identify you as acting exactly as the Pharisees of old did by placing burdens upon people that they themselves were unwilling to lift a finger to help

    In summary, facts which cannot be disputed

    1: God explicitly gives provision and commands a bill of divorcement thereby teaching us that DIVORCE is legal under the law in Deut 24. a wife who has been put away under that Mosaic LAW was free to remarry, so who are you to condemn those that remarry?

    2: An exception clause was granted by Jesus that allows remarriage. Jesus did not change the law, He upheld the law and expanded upon it

    3: Divorce severs the bond of marriage, thereby permitting others to remarry and not be accused of adultery as Jesus shows us in John 4. Jesus also told us that a wife who is put away, but not divorced was still married to her husband that’s why you weren’t allowed to marry a wife who was put away, see Matthew 19:9, because she was technically still married to her first husband

    4: God divorced Israel, Jer 3:8…is God an adulteress because he has now married the church which is the body of Christ

    5: Those who forbid marriage like our modern day no remarriage proponents are teaching a doctrine of DEVILS 1st Timothy 4:1-2

  139. Paul says:

    @FD if you continue to doubt the authenticity of those passages [..] I highly suggest you repent of your sin of unbelief and start accepting the bible as inspired scripture

    Really? In the first place, I did not claim such a thing, and in the second place there’s a whole branch of scientific research to determine what the original texts of the autographs were IN THE FIRST PLACE. You call all these people in one broad sweep unbelievers too, while you do not even know these people or me? Who are you to judge the belief of a follower of Christ?

    Fact remains that in the NT there is not a single explicit command that allows for initiating a divorce by a believer, and there are multiple explicit commands against initiating a divorce. Furthermore it is explicitly mentioned that marriage lasts till death, which a straightforward reading of Scripture reveals. Even Instone-Brewer, who somewhat tries to be faithful to Scripture, while allowing for divorce and remarriage, had to come up with a theory that the early Church somehow “forgot” about the divorce-and-remarriage rules as soon as the first century, to explain why remarriage after divorce was rejected by the Church for the first 1500 years.

    As for your remark on a “divorce” not being a divorce; if “put away” if not a divorce, why did the Pharisees argue:

    ““Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?””

    And if it is a divorce, why is it called adultery by Jesus, if the wife had a certificate of divorce.

    And as for the “exception clause”: in Mat 5:32 it is about not CAUSING your wife to become an adulterer. In Mat 19:9, if it is genuine, it does not necessarily extend to remarriage.

  140. @Paul

    “”Really? In the first place, I did not claim such a thing””

    Of course you did, here’s what you stated “Furthermore, there is actually a textual issue with the Mt 19:9 “except”, which might not have been in the original autographs at all” ….end quote, To express doubts about a textual variant is to express your belief that you have doubts about the reading as it occurs in our English Translations. In fact you even cited church authorities to back up your claim that the clause in Matthew 19:9 does not belong in the bible.
    Hence I am quite correct in stating that you do not believe in the bible

    “”and in the second place there’s a whole branch of scientific research to determine what the original texts of the autographs were IN THE FIRST PLACE””

    I am well aware of what’s called the transmission of the text, I am intimately acquainted with the Textus Receptus, the Majority text and the Alexandrian text, but like Paul the Apostle, I count it all but Dung, because my trust in what God SAID does not rely on Greek or Hebrew scholarship, but on HIS promise to preserve HIS words….Long story short, Greek scholars are wasting their time trying to identify what the original autographs were comprised of as they don’t exist and it’s nothing but a guessing game based on shoddy scientific garbage and personal bias
    Since this topic falls outside the range of what we’re discussing, I refuse to get drawn into debating the merits or lack thereof Greek textual criticism. I have an inspired bible, and that’s enough for me.

    “”Fact remains that in the NT there is not a single explicit command that allows for initiating a divorce by a believer””

    Even If I were to concede that is true, which it’s not, it’s a straw man argument, as you can’t argue a negative…you have to weigh up the entirety of the scriptures to evaluate a particular doctrine…..There is no command in the NT to not get drugged up with Cocaine, but we know that it is a sin

    Anyway, you missed 1st Corinthians 7:15 which grants permission to a believer to remarry if an unbelieving spouse departs

    I want us to not concentrate on the scriptures for a moment and I wish for you to consider something very carefully. Assuming you are correct in your belief that marriage is for life, and nothing and no person can sever that bond, except death, that remarriage is ALWAYS adultery….assuming you are correct in all of this, we have a very serious problem. You see, there is literally hundreds of thousands, perhaps millions of couples Christian and non Christian who are NOW, present tense living with their 2nd or third wife in what you would call an adulteress union

    Based on your interpretation of Galatians 5 and 1st Corinthians 6, all of these souls are damned and will end up in the lake of fire to burn for all eternity. Sounds dreadful doesn’t it? Have you really thought about the implications of your beliefs? are you willing to consign millions of souls to everlasting fire in hell for choosing NOT to divorce their adulteress unions? Because that’s what will happen according to you……..All these couples are not willing to get a divorce and are happy to have a second or third remarriage
    What kind of God do you serve who will end up damning the majority of the human race for their so called adultery??
    Because this is no minor sin here, most people commit adultery, in fact the majority of the human race is living in adultery, and if you want to condemn lustful looks that occur in the heart then 99% of people are going to hell

    In a sense your ultra strict interpretation of divorce/remarriage has made this sin almost impossible to avoid, therefore most people are going to hell when they die, INCLUDING CHRISTIANS

    Thank God I don’t believe the bible teaches that particular view otherwise I would never have become a believer

  141. Paul says:

    @FD Hence I am quite correct in stating that you do not believe in the bible

    No, you’re not. Are you a King-James-Onlyist?

    you missed 1st Corinthians 7:15 which grants permission to a believer to remarry if an unbelieving spouse departs

    No it does not. It entirely depends on the interpretation of what ‘bound’ means, whereas in the same chapter there is EXPLICIT instruction to either stay single or reconcile in case of separation. You must be aware of other interpretations of what ‘bound’ can mean in 1 Cor 7:15.

    What kind of God do you serve who will end up damning the majority of the human race for their so called adultery??

    The God I serve does not depend on my interpretation of Scripture, even if I’m wrong with it. At least it is not wrong to NOT divorce and to NOT remarry. The God I serve does also not depend on how I feel about His rules. He has given us many warnings to live a holy life, a message often missing in contemporary preaching. And unfortunately, it seems the majority of people will not enter heaven, and many who claim to know Jesus, will be not be allowed entry, because they did not follow God’s laws.

    “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. But small is the gate and narrow the way that leads to life, and only a few find it.” Mt 7

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you workers of lawlessness!’” Mt 7

    If more people believed in the permanency of marriage, the church would not be in the easy-divorce situation it is now, which has practically led to the destruction of marriage, even among Christians.

  142. Paul says:

    And even if divorce and remarriage were allowed by Scripture, most spouses have bound themselves by their wedding vows “till death do us part”, NOT “till we divorce”.

    https://www.theknot.com/content/traditional-wedding-vows-from-various-religions

  143. This is good thank you for sharing. Interestingly, we just wrote “we owe it to our kids” to have a loving and healthy marriage. It should never be about the kids – but we believe we do owe it to them, to model a Godly and loving marriage. https://marriedstrong.com/2019/05/20/we-owe-it-to-our-kids/

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.