I want to argue that the war on marriage has many fronts. And while evangelical Christians have done a decent job in resisting some of the more outlandish attacks (e.g. Obergefell), in other areas we have tended to go along with the secular flow completely. One area where acquiescence is evident is when it comes to the age when young people marry.
We do have a pressing problem. According to The Atlantic, right now the average age for a first marriage is 27 for women, and 29 for men. In 1990, it was 23 for women and 26 for men. In 1960, it was 20 for women and 22 for men. This is a grease fire disaster.
The factors driving all this are largely out in the secular world, but the repercussions are very much being felt in the church. Those factors include the availability of sex apart from marriage, the ubiquity of porn, the hostility of feminism to any useful social role for men, and so on. Under this pressure, a number of thinkers in the church have come up with various accommodations which allow us to register our concern about this or that motive, while going along with the general drift anyway.
So here is my suggestion. I think we ought to agree together than young men ought to be expected to find somebody cute and godly by their 23rd birthday. That should be the baseline social expectation, and we will reluctantly make exceptions on a case-by-case basis as they arise. How about it?
Here are seven reasons for believing this.
1. There is no such thing as gift of singleness. That is not a Bible thing. Paul does teach that there is a gift of celibacy. “For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that” (1 Cor. 7:7).
For someone who is gifted with celibacy, marriage would constitute a distraction (1 Cor. 7:33). But for someone without that gift, the absence of marriage would be the distraction. Burning with passion does have a way of distracting.
If someone is single (who very much wants to be married), that condition is only a gift in the sense that every affliction is a gift. Those who are single involuntarily must still worship the Lord, must still love Him, must still live productive lives in the church, and so on. The one thing they must not do is try to talk themselves into the view that singleness is a positive ideal like sunshine and upland meadows. It is a trial, and nothing is served by pretending it isn’t a trial.
If someone is unmarried and the other sex is a distraction, then we are not talking about the gift of celibacy. And if we are not talking about celibacy, and there is no pending persecution (1 Cor. 7:26), then the young men have a duty to initiate marriage, sooner rather than later. Find out what her name is, and ask her.
2. The temptations of porn do not disqualify men for marriage. Rather they qualify men for marriage. God has a solution for sexual temptation for those not gifted with celibacy. That gift is called sex, bounded and surrounded with covenant vows.
Porn can certainly become a disqualification for marriage, but it doesn’t necessarily start that way. There are two major ways that porn disqualifies. If a man despises women, hates his mother and sisters, and seeks out the kind of porn that specializes in degrading women, then no one should be surprised that marriage will fix nothing. Something else is wrong with him — the issue is not self-control of a biological appetite. The issue is malevolence, and the repentance must occur elsewhere. Here the porn is merely a symptom of a much deeper problem.
But the other way porn can become a disqualifier is as catechesis, and this is far more common. We are talking about many years of catechesis and training. Say a young Christian man gets into porn when he is thirteen. Say he marries when The Atlantic says most men do these days, when he is 29. That is 16 years of sex with the best-looking cartoon twinkies on the planet. They make no demands. They are seen and not heard. They bear no children who get sick in the middle of the night. No grocery bills for a teeming brood. Nothing interferes with the weekends of rock climbing or wind surfing. I can’t imagine worse preparation for living with an actual woman.
In short, for most young Christian men who are vulnerable to pornography, waiting for marriage is going to create a bigger problem than it will solve. We ought not to be like those banks that will only loan you money after you prove to them that you don’t need the loan. How many fathers want a suitor for their daughter who doesn’t really need their daughter? In most cases, postponing marriage until absolute purity without marriage is achieved is a bad idea.
3. Men need help, and they need help as soon as they have assumed the full responsibilities of adulthood. Women were given by God to help men because men needed the help, and that help has to do with their vocation and calling. If a woman is called to be the wife of a doctor, she can step into that calling by being the wife of a med student. God does not say “it is not good for man to be alone after grad school.”
4. Marriage is a wonderful way to deal with false ideas of the self. Who we actually are does not unfold out of us over the years like we were unpacking a suitcase. Who we actually are is who we become in long-term relationships with those appointed to us by God. In other words, I am not the same man that I was when I married Nancy, and she is not the same woman she was. We have become who we are now together, and this is the central way that God does it. Put another way, a large part of me was imported from my relationships.
5. Children take a lot of energy, and children are one of the central reasons for marriage. Why did God make them one? Because He was seeking godly offspring (Mal. 2:15). The work that is involved in this is intense, and those parents who are carefully planning to have their eldest hit kindergarten when they are in their mid-thirties are not, shall we say, “thinking ahead.” Delayed marriage is problematic pacing.
6. If we had an expectation for our young people to marry young, this would help head off unrealistic standards from developing. The longer men and women live apart from one another, the easier it is to get crotchety, or even persnickety. This affects many areas of life, but one of them is the area of evaluating the looks of others as though one were a refined and discriminating connoisseur of feminine pulchritude. But you can’t actually become a real connoisseur by walking briskly through every restaurant in town.
An unmarried person should have high standards for their future spouse when it comes to Christian commitments, basic responsibility, compatible personalities, and sexual attractiveness. But this needs to be balanced against the temptation (which comes very easily to men) of not having any awareness of what league they are actually in. “For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith” (Rom. 12:3).
When standards are adjusted in the direction of God’s reality, this is actually raising the standard, not lowering it. Getting your head out your daydreams is a salutary activity. If you actually met a woman who fulfilled all your exacting daydream standards, what on earth makes you think she would have anything to do with you?
7. Feminism is a toxic mess. The best and only complete answer to it is for men to find a woman early, love her completely, feed and educate her children, and bring her as much happiness as you are capable of bringing someone. As one Puritan put it, and man should first choose his love, and then love his choice. Young Christian men should marry in such a way as to make celebration of a 75th anniversary a much greater likelihood.
In the words of the great saints of yore, it is time to shake a leg. Get a move on. We are burning daylight.
I was convinced I had the gift of singleness for a while – most of the first year of marriage.
I was a little troubled by some of your wording on point 2. But I want to avoid over reacting.
So I have a clarifying question:
What do you think a man’s relationship with porn should be before he gets married?
How far must he be in conquering his sin?
A man should have no relationship to porn. That was the point, the man who had a relationship with porn is not prepared for marriage.
I think Doug’s saying just the opposite. Unless “relationship” is doing a lot of heavy lifting here…
I don’t think that’s Pastor Wilson’s point, which doesn’t mean that it’s excused or acceptable just that it isn’t automatically disqualifying. Wilson is pushing marriage as a means to end, break, and render “unnecessary” (not that porn is necessary, but rather that the sinful desires for it are swallowed up by Godly desires for your wife) the motivation and drive to use porn.
And there is not a single man here on this blog who has not had a relationship of one kind or another to pornography. Any male who has not explored their own sexuality with porn and/or found gratification in porn at some point in their lives is lying… or without access. Like drugs and alcohol, do some small percentage of men have a problem with porn? Likely yes. Do most? No. But even so, Wilson’s advocating marriage here as part of a solution to this ‘problem’ with young men and porn is typically sly and self-serving. We have seen this… Read more »
“And there is not a single man here on this blog who has not had a relationship of one kind or another to pornography. Any male who has not explored their own sexuality with porn and/or found gratification in porn at some point in their lives is lying… or without access.”
So you admit that there may be a man here who has not had a relationship with porn.
It is possible but unlikely. Including Wilson.
Yeah, but it doesn’t work that way. Sex as portrayed in porn and real sex in marriage are worlds apart. The desire for a fantasy world where women look like dolls, never need to be aroused, and can bend and twist like Gumby is not driven out by the presence of a real woman who expects a real relationship and is repulsed by acts that porn portrays as normal. The drive to use porn does not go away just because you get married. I would never let one of my children marry someone with a porn habit. Too much grief… Read more »
One of the reasons that online porn is so much worse than the old magazines is that every time a person clicks a link, he/she gets a small hit of dopamine NO MATTER WHAT IS ON THAT LINK. You didn’t get that with Playboys. Have you ever tried to not answer your cell phone and feel this almost compulsive craving to see who it is? Then you do look and feel better? You just had your dopamine hit. That what happens when someone clicks a porno link and that is before or at the same time the sexual stimulation occurs.… Read more »
addiction is bull; ppl are lonely
You do know that the dopamine hypothesis is wrong? That pharmaceutical companies and neuroscientists have moved on?
Start praising men who marry young, and encourage young women to marry and STAY married. Including wifing him enthusiastically up. Because a living breathing person with whom you have a lifetime commitment is what most of us are called to.
“You do know that the dopamine hypothesis is wrong?”
Based on what? Porn is sinful whether the hypothesis is wrong or not, but I’m skeptical about that. The dopamine response is behind many other addictions as well–drugs, junk food, compulsive shopping or gambling, etc.
Part of my job involves prescribing psychotropics. I have to keep up with the current research on brain chemistry and neural networks.
A better explanation is that any habit will lead to a synaptic network that can be reinforced. Including p0rn and Mills and Boon.
Thanks, but I’m not in the least convinced. And FWIW I’m a big opponent of psychotropics and our prescription drug culture. I also know a bit about neural nets, but nothing that would undermine the dopamine hypothesis.
All the best anyway, though.
Well, neither I nor do I think anyone else would present marriage as the sole cure that magically heals all ills in regards to pornography, but Pastor Wilson is at least tacitly referencing Paul In 1 Corinthians 7, and particularly verse 9. Offering marriage as a means of grace to help mitigate burning with passion is in accordance with Godly design and instruction. I’m sure Pastor Wilson would note that it’s not only the sex within marriage that can work to redirect sexual desire–and Scripture does say that’s legitimate–but everything else that marriage entails, i.e. companionship, immediate presence (there’s some… Read more »
Something that I think we should keep in mind here is that we all live in a porn culture. So “porn” can be found on the pages of women’s magazines advertising fashion or it can be found on our TV’s selling cars. Last night there was a very seductive and sensual cow selling some product and using very suggestive language. Hubby and I laughed outright but it was vaguely disturbing because that is the world we live in today.
Uh…do you mean an actual cow with horns and tail, or a woman who is foolish and stupid? :)
Ha! No, the bovine kind that goes “moo.”
Ah, I thought that was the direction, but the state of ads these days… :)
How insensitive of you, Ian.
Yup. I can kiss that date goodbye.
Including Mills and Boon and fifty shades? Wilson is quite biblical here. P0rn and commercial sex did exist in Corinth, and most Greek men were encouraged to marry late and continue to party with the pretty boys and girls. There were haetarae at the symposia.
A “healthy” marriage does heal a problem with porn. Porn addiction is something completely separate.
I’ve found the “gift of singleness” concept among fellow young Christians to be troubling. It seems to derive from a recipe of attempted contentment, misconstrued Bible verses, and (for guys) a retreat from responsibility. In effect: “Relationships are really difficult…and here’s my excuse why I don’t need one!”
I say this as an unmarried 29-year-old, applying the lack of boldness and responsibility to myself as well. But I never had the illusion that “this must be a new spiritual gift”
Still, one might argue that if I get married at 30, that makes me “above average” :D
I got married at 30. It sort of worked out. Still am married. Kids are the best.
Don’t be a fool, but, ” nothing ventured, nothing gained”.
I think what’s lost in the “You gotta get married by 23” argument is waiting on the Lord. Had I found the right person, I would have got married sooner. Rather than rush it, I waited until 29. Many years later, our marriage is proving to be a strong one.
I do think Doug is clear enough that he is giving a general principle, not a hard-and-fast rule. Of course there will be couples that do not marry until later because they haven’t found each other yet. That is not the issue he is addressing. Some of my dear friends didn’t meet their one and only spouses until late in their 30s with one or both having established careers, but they didn’t waste any time getting married once they found each other, either. Nor did they not find each other sooner because they weren’t interested in getting married yet. Young… Read more »
The short version of this post might be “Guys, you could man up to marriage a lot sooner than you think you can, even as you work out your own faith. “
BPG, thanks for your reply. I absolutely agree that we have an social issue, especially with young men, who seemingly wish to remain boys. I’m not certain marriage necessarily solves this. In some cases it may, but not every male will “man up” every time. A young man should be mature enough for marriage by 23. Many are not. I was not. Had I tied the knot, I may have quickly matured, or I may have been the primary cause a failed marriage. “I think we ought to agree together than young men ought to be expected to find somebody… Read more »
Guest wrote: “…we have an social issue, especially with young men, who seemingly wish to remain boys. I’m not certain marriage necessarily solves this. In some cases it may, but not every male will “man up” every time. A young man should be mature enough for marriage by 23. Many are not.” This is true. Many are not, but that doesn’t mean they couldn’t be sooner than they think. The God-honoring marriages that DW is calling for would not be the cure for the societal ills in question but evidence of the cure, namely, repentance. If a young man examines… Read more »
Where are these Christian young men who wish to remain boys by avoiding marriage? I don’t know any who fit that description. The most immature Christian young man that I know is a guy who wants to get married. Is this a problem unique to Moscow, Idaho? I lived there for six months and didn’t meet any young men like that. Do they really exist?
I don’t think it’s young Christian men, just young men in general. I see wonderful men who are being raised told that you shouldn’t even be thinking of marriage until 30, to keep your options open, and “have fun while you can.. there’s always time to get married later” like marriage is something bad and emotionally and financially draining, instead of a loving supportive thing that builds you up.
The basic premise of this article is pretty ridiculous. Who wouldn’t get married if they found a reasonably well matched spouse at whatever age? Sure gangsters and heathens raised in government schools might prefer cohabitation. But, Christian young men? A better article would have been, “Why young men are providentially blessed by God if everything lines up to enable them to marry by age 23.”
“Who wouldn’t get married if they found a reasonably well matched spouse at whatever age?”
Someone not looking for a spouse.
Well, again, Doug is pretty clear what exactly he is addressing. Namely, the kind of young man who doesn’t really want to grow up yet because (fill in lame excuse here) and he is between the ages of 19 and 23. We are talking about the young men who are not married yet on purpose, not the one who, at 28, hasn’t met a good match yet and it isn’t for a lack of looking. I know young men who fit both these descriptions, and the first example could use a swift kick in the hind quarters(although the second description… Read more »
How do you address the man who says, quite reasonably, marriage is a bad deal for me and i’m not interested? Or the other reasonable complaint that many of the millennial females are pretty much useless for anything apart from sex (not able to cook or home make, not interested in starting a family, some useless degree and a bunch of college debt, heaps of credit card debt, questionable purity, likes “travel” etc). Not to mention the ridiculous entitlement mentality and pickiness of so many of them. All criticisms I have seen leveled. Before anybody accuses me of being bitter,… Read more »
One protest at a time: “marriage is a bad deal for me and i’m not interested” Most of my answer to this hypothetical young man is questions. Why do have such a low view of marriage? Why are you not interest? Neither of these views are informed by scripture and the young man who lacks all sexual desire is extremely rare. What is the culture of your church congregation like? Do you have older men in the faith you respect mentoring you in any way? What are their marriages like? How are you impacting the Kingdom now and how will… Read more »
“Neither of these views are informed by scripture” Im pretty sure nowhere does scripture command a man to behave in an obviously foolhardy manner and would suggest it councils strongly against such actions. Keep in mind the reason marriage is a bad deal are because there is no enforcement of biblical marriage norms today. 1. Marrying a virgin can be difficult and is no guarantee of anything anyway (Assuming she doesn’t simply lie about it). A non-virgin greatly increases the risk of all of the following. 2. She can have him ejected by the state on her say so with… Read more »
To be fair, Doug is mostly preaching to the choir here, but I’m sure some in Evangelical mega-churches probably teach that stuff. I can picture a hipster pastor with a cool haircut and t-shirt saying “You should plug into our singles group, spend your 20s finding your heart (whatever that means) and maturing spiritually (yeah, right) and wait until you’re really ready for marriage. For some that’s 25, for others 30, for still others 40…”
I’m so far away from that world that I’m just guessing, but it wouldn’t surprise me. They tend to mirror the broader culture.
I remember how you were trying to figure this out when you had daughters of courting age. You were wondering and trying to figure out how professionally established a Suitor should be. You need need to do an article on this subject. You need to write something on courtship and wrecking ball when divorce is present with the parents.
As a late-twentysomething who has found it challenging to become professionally-established, and who is still single, I think this would be a valuable article to write. Also, what are some people’s insights on inter-denominational marriage? For example, some Christians believe in infant baptism, while some don’t. Some believe that children should be taught they’re non-Christians until they make a one-time “Decision for Christ,” while others look upon the preexisting state of believing what they’ve been taught all along about Jesus as sufficient. There are many other differences among the Christian churches, some of which (like the ones I just mentioned)… Read more »
I was 22 when my wife and I got married. My wife and I matured together. We had many hardships with neither of us being ready for marriage when we first started. I tend to agree with young marriages – not because of my personal success. I generally support youg marriages because that is the normative pattern we see in scripture. As for interdenominational marriages, there will be some issues – some SERIOUS issues – to be discussed before marriage. I think a serious discussion on systematic theology should be gone through before marriage as well as financial matters, family… Read more »
The biggest reason for delayed marrigE isn’t on this list. Most American young adults grew up in divorced households and or households when’re their mother and father was living with someone who she wasn’t married to.
Certainly that is damaging to the children who grew up in such a household.
On the other hand, one can only blame one’s parents for so long, before it becomes an mere excuse for inaction.
In addition to this, there is the false implication from media, and feminists, that women can have children at any age. What isn’t told is how high profile actresses etc are most likely not using their own eggs when they become pregnant in their 40s. A woman’s chance of getting pregnant decreases quickly as she ages, and I don’t think most girls are raised to clearly understand this, or to embrace proudly, and joyfully their hopes of motherhood.
I am so happy to see you here again. I have been wondering about you for ages!
Thanks so much. I was afraid you would be worried about me. All is well again, and I am going home to the old country for the summer. Hope to be able to resume some of our wonderful discussions! I can’t believe I missed a Jane Austen debate!! :) How is your daughter?
Not very well, I am sorry to say. Please remember her in your prayers.
I will of course. I am very sorry to hear this Jill! I will be praying.
Based on my experience this instruction: “Find out what her name is, and ask her.” Is going to be the most difficult point to marriage at the best age. I tried asking out young women in my church in my 20s and received a 100% rejection rate. Now in my 30s I’ve switched to using an online site for Christians and happened to begin messaging a woman who’s in another church in the same denomination in the same city I’m in. Without the internet site we would never have met. If you’re going to encourage marriage the church needs to… Read more »
This is very true. The marriage/dating/courtship environment has changed so drastically in the last 20-40 years that it’s rare for older men to be able to effectively advise younger men how to make connections that can lead to marriage.
Thanks Doug for denouncing the so-called “Gift of Singleness”. It needed to be said. To your points I would add an 8th one…
wanting to be married is a GOOD thing and marriage SHOULD be pursued. It is NOT a sin nor are you idolizing marriage if you are wanting it (much to the chagrin of a certain sassy author).
Good Post Doug!
I married at 27. I simply wasn’t ready at 23. Yet I fully agree with this article. Why? Because if the church was operating as God intends her and parents were operating as God intends them then the secular nonsense of “adolescence” isn’t even a thing and a young adult is actually an adult who is young and is ready to accept the full weight of responsibility that God has given His image bearers. Yet what we see is the church failing to minister to parents and instead bypass them and minister to the children because children are easier and… Read more »
As a guy who marred young (at 22) to a woman I met at a reformed christian college and badly (my wife left me 11 years latter) I approach this subject from a different angle. I am convinced if I had more knowledge of my self and other woman I would not have made such a serious mistake. To further compound my regret, I am now happy married to a woman I met at that same school a few months later but with whom I did not pursue a relationship because I felt it was wrong to “date around”. We… Read more »
We’re all with you.
And so don’t you still agree with Doug, but find the burden even heavier to instill that maturity somehow into your kiddos?
With a 50% divorce rate among Christians, this is no joke. At least some sort of professional education. You don’t want your daughter staying in a bad mRriage because of money.
Give me a chance to cite , but the 50% stat. Is not quite correct. It is the equivalent of saying 50% of conservatives support Trump.
Here we go!
Dr. Wilcox finds that “active conservative protestants” who attend church regularly are actually 35% less likely to divorce than those who have no religious preferences.
In all cases, notice the active element of the faith commitment.
“Nominal” Christians, however, those who simply call themselves Christians but so not actively engage with the faith, are actually 20% more likely than the general population to get divorced—perhaps there is a link between putting on a show in the religious and relational context.
Of course the no-shows are kind of putting on no show. ;)
Perhaps the link is simply low commitment to anything at all.
That’s actually the best recipe to guarantee your daughter doesn’t get married or divorces her husband.
Love protects. A father would be foolish to not provide his daughter with some professional education.
Why not provide her with a trust fund?
Agreed. My sister and I ran into this problem. Our parents expected us to marry young, so we weren’t raised to think about a career outside the home. When we turned 18 and there were no suitors in sight, we were rather lost. We both ended up married at about 25, but I wish I’d been better prepared for seven years of single adulthood.
Oh, I’m not saying a woman’s career should conflict with possible marriage. There are lots of useful things to do, as you point out, that don’t require six years of schooling. Nursing, for example, or medical transcription. It’s just that a girl should have a plan of some kind in place.
I highly disagree. It has been my observation that woman that approach their education as an insurance policy against the possibility of their husband turning out to be a dirt bag end up not being very careful or wise in the choosing of their husband, almost a self-fulfilling prophecy. Sure, they are thankful to be able to continue to feed themselves and their children after their husband proves unwilling or unable to be the husband he should be, but it usually wasn’t that hard to see before the marriage that he wasn’t a good pick in the first place.
You missed my point. A FATHER makes sure his daughter has this education for this insurance policy. Love protects.
Actually, I understood your point perfectly. I can’t imagine the daughter wouldn’t know the purpose her father intended for her education. I knew that was the purpose my own father intended for mine, and it is a terrible reason to get a degree. As Ken pointed out:”That’s actually the best recipe to guarantee your daughter doesn’t get married or divorces her husband.” I’ve watched that play out over and over with my peers. I am not arguing that our daughters ought not be well educated (they should) but that the attitude we train them to approach it with ought to… Read more »
The 50% divorce rate is a fallacy that is almost impossible to refute at this point in history due to its constant regurgitation. Here is where the misquote originally came from- the statistic came from counting the number of marriage licenses issued in one year compared to the number of divorces in the same year. The correct way to state the statistic is “50% of NEW marriages end in divorce” because the number of EXISTING marriages is not factored in. The misinterpretation is “50% of ALL marriages end in divorce.” Factoring in the existing marriages, the percentage is far, far… Read more »
That is only because the culture is moving toward higher divorce rates but the 20 year average lags behind, by 20 years. If things continue as they are, the absolute rate will be 50% or higher within another generation. So you are straining at a gnat here.
The divorce rate is dropping, even when the dropping rate of marriages is taken into account. Peak divorce rate was 1979. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/12/04/upshot/how-we-know-the-divorce-rate-is-falling.html?_r=0
I hope “marred” was just a typo and not a Freudian slip. ;^)
Is there anything more pastoral than to get in the weeds of this stuff?
I agree Doug. My husband and I married when I was 22 and he was 23. This year we celebrate our 20th anniversary and we will encourage our kids to marry young. http://www.faithreboot.com/2015/01/12/10-reasons-will-encourage-kids-marry-young/
“We do have a pressing problem. According to The Atlantic, right now the average age for a first marriage is 27 for women, and 29 for men. In 1990, it was 23 for women and 26 for men. In 1960, it was 20 for women and 22 for men. This is a grease fire disaster.” Why is this a problem? What makes it a disaster? Your entire post hinges on the belief that getting married later in life is somehow dangerous.What is the evidence that this is the case? But beyond that, the 7 reasons you cite for getting married… Read more »
Not going to bother with most of your points, but I have to point out for your response to 7:
If we’re going to advise young people on when to marry based on “statistical rates of divorce” I think we’ve already completely missed the boat of wisdom and are currently flailing about in the Cesspool of Rather Absurd Probabilities…
Not going to bother? Why not? Is it because you also don’t have any evidence to support Doug’s silly ideas?
As to your comment, isn’t it better to base it off of statistics then some purely subjective notions that aren’t supported by anything? I’m not saying we should choose marriage ages based on data, but the data is at least worth considering. Doug is saying 23 is good. Where does that come from? The Bible? Hardly. It is opinion, and every single point he brings up is not supported by a single shred of anything.
Sorry Spike, I’m guessing you are not married?
And on point 7, yes Bill Clintons and Hugh Hefners do cause feminism.????
Why would you guess I’m not married? And you are suggesting that it is only a-holes among men that lead to feminism? I would suggest that perfectly loving men that still manage to subjugate women (by saying they can only be doctor’s helpers, for example) have an effect as well.
Sorry, I missed the part about the two daughters! The know it all aspect of your comments must be counter balanced by some other fine qualities!????
And yes, a-holes are the base cause of feminism. No one here said women can only be Drs. Helpers. No one said anything about subjugation either. Life is a team sport. Not everyone can be the QB, not everyone can be the center. In all healthy relationships, sacrifices are required from everyone, healthy benefits are often the result!????
Ha. I’m not sure how pointing out that Doug doesn’t support any of his silly opinions makes me a know-it-all. Besides, you seem to enjoy Doug’s posts, so you must not mind know-it-alls. Also, like it or not, there is plenty of subjugation going on here. The notion that a-holes are the only reason that women feel the need to push for greater independence/equality glosses over the larger issue: that conservative Christian culture subjugates women. You might call it different roles, and many of the women that go along with this notion of gender roles might be perfectly happy, but… Read more »
Spike babe! Thank you for your completely sound and statistically supported point of view on this and all other topics at hand! You remain an inspiration! However, your issue might be with God, rather than Wilson. Here is what God says about the creation of the fuller sex and, following that, what God says abbout the true nature of service. I would not be surpirsed in the least if you serve your wife and daughters as Luke 22:25-27 instructs. ; – ) Genesis 2:18 The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to bealone. I will make… Read more »
You are welcome. I have no problem with God. The story of creation is just that: a creation story. We aren’t meant to take verbatim lines from it and treat them like facts or treatises on male/female dynamics, just like we don’t accept that there are waters above the dome of sky and if you open a window in the dome water will come out. As for Luke, who can deny that humbling oneself and leading through service is a good thing? You are dancing around the issue, which is that Doug’s interpretation of Scripture is very much limiting to… Read more »
Wow! You are the Holy Spirit too??!!??
Defining how the Word speaks to people!!?
Dismissing the plain meaning of it!
Man Spike! You keep getting better and better! ; – )
Whew! for a minute there I thought I would die for my sins!
I’m not the Holy Spirit, but the Spirit is within me, as it is in all believers. And the beauty of that is that we have the mind of Christ. It gives us the ability to think for ourselves and discern truth (in more places than just the Bible, by the way). You clearly accept the doctrine of inerrancy, which is a man made doctrine not in itself supported by the Scripture itself. That is your choice, of course, but keep in mind that it brings with it a host of problems, not least of which is your need to… Read more »
Jesus: “heaven and earth will pass away, but my word will never pass away.”
Spike: “inerrancy is a man made doctrine not supported by the scripture its self.”
Sorry spoke, The Spirit is telling me to go with Jesus on this one!????
Finally I read The Word Naturally, where it speaks in metaphor, I take it as such. The metaphor and direct quotes are often inter mingled!
Anyway, it’s always amusing to speak with someone who thinks they are smarter than God!???? Thanks for the giggles!????
“A” Dad, the Greek is plural “words”. Not “word”. Not a huge deal, but let’s be accurate. Jesus says that his words will not pass away. Is he talking about the entire Bible? How do we know he’s not simply talking about what he is saying? You can’t take one verse and use it to support a doctrine as significant as inerrancy. Regardless, the verse you’ve cited, if you take it literally, only refers to the words that Jesus is speaking. Could he mean “the entire Bible”? Could he mean the books of the NT that hadn’t been written yet?… Read more »
John 8:58 “Jesus said to them ” I assure you, before Abraham was, I am.”
You see spoke, being timeless and eternal does have some unique advantages!
But am I wrong? Is God somehow not eternal because you say I can’t support that truth?
You know spoke , I have noticed that you are becoming a remarkably good sport!????
And thus, nicely amusing!????
Also, do revisit “Bill and Ted’s excellent adventure”. It’s actually pretty informative on being timeless!????????
There’s no Scriptural reason to believe women should be treated equally to men. There’s a reason this post is addressed to young men, not young women.
Of course there is no evidence supporting scriptural claims at all.
there’s no evidence you should keep posting
ba-boom ladies and germs.
Except when Paul proclaims this: “For all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither slave nor free man, there is neither male nor female; for you are all one in Christ Jesus. And if you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s descendants, heirs according to promise.” Being an heir according to promise is the job of a man–the first born SON. But here Paul is saying that EVERYONE becomes an heir. Paul is clearly influenced by his own cultural worldview in other places in his… Read more »
“Being an heir” isn’t a job, it’s a status. Since you don’t believe the Bible is factual, your opinion on its application is worthless.
“Since you don’t believe the Bible is factual, your opinion on its application is worthless.” Do YOU believe the Bible is factual? How do you deal with Genesis 1:6-7? We read this: ” ‘Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.’ So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.” This description of creation, taken as FACT, would mean that above the dome of the sky there is a whole bunch of water. Is this true? If we fly up high enough we… Read more »
I don’t have any problem with that as a description of the pre-Flood earth. Why do you?
Be honest about the distinction between “was” and “is” in what you say the Bible says pertaining to the waters. And your translation of 2:5 leaves out the modifier that is usually expressed as plants “of the field.” Ch. 2 is about cultivation, as the Garden context also makes clear.
What do you mean: that this was the way it WAS but it IS not anymore? God changed the way he created things? I’m not following you here. As for chapter 2 being about cultivation, you can make that argument as far as crops are concerned, but the order is still different. The animals clearly come after the creation of man. God makes them because he wants to find a helper for the man But after they have all been formed and named, God still sees that there is no one for Adam. However you slice it, the order of… Read more »
If I told you there WAS a blue tarp over my rafters (there was), and you found that there IS not a blue tarp over my rafters (also correct), would you assert a contradiction (he changes the way he says he created the house …)? Or could you believe the tarp had a purpose that was fulfilled later? If I wanted to show my son a dog, a fish, and a bird, would I need to bring every individual existing dog, fish, and bird to do so? Also, it is Adam, not God, who got educated by these events in… Read more »
That’s what I thought you were saying. So your argument is that God once created a dome in the heavens to hold back the waters. But then he changed this arrangement? Let me ask you this: do you, yourself, make a distinction between was and is in this case? Or do you think there is still a dome holding back the waters above us? If there is not still a dome there, what evidence do you have that God changed the arrangement?
The Bible is pretty clear that the earth’s ecology changed quite a bit during the flood.
So God started with a dome that kept the waters out. And then he got rid of the dome? Where does the Bible talk about ecology changing? Where does it talk about the very structure of creation (i.e. the firmament) being altered so significantly?
I’m sensing an unwillingness to actually deal with this, and I get that. It’s not something easily dealt with. But tell me: what happened to the firmament that God created to keep separate the waters? Where did it go? What reason to we have to believe, based on Scripture, that God changed this basic structure?
Well, neither one of us was there. But how do you imagine atmospheric physics working such that rain never fell?
True, we weren’t there. I’m not sure what physic has to do with it. Obviously, there would have been a time before anything existed and before there was an earth and before rain fell. The question is this: what are we meant to take away from the account of creation? Are we supposed to take scientific facts about the way the world was actually created (domes in heaven and such), or are we supposed to take away a more universal message: God created all and all is in his domain? I think it is at least worth asking that question.… Read more »
You’re trying to change the subject. Before the flood, rain didn’t fall. After (heh, during) the flood, it did. What changed?
I wasn’t trying to change the subject. I simply didn’t get where you were going with this. Now I do. You are suggesting that since there was no rain before the flood that perhaps the flood itself fundamentally altered the structure that had previously been built? First of all, there is no evidence that rain did not fall until the flood. We only read in Genesis 2 that “the Lord God had not sent rain on the earth”, but it never says that it did not rain until the flood. There is no place in the flood account where it… Read more »
Ah, now I see why you insist so adamantly on the solid “dome” – it is to support not just the waters above the earth but your views on sexuality. I will take another look at 2 Pet. 3:16 regarding “perilous speculation”.
I’m not using the solid dome to support any belief. And I’m not insisting on the solid dome. It is right there in the text. If it weren’t there, I wouldn’t be looking for it. But the fact that Genesis 1 does not appear to be meant as a factual account of the actual way the world was created does not mean that there are not other parts of the Bible that ARE meant to be taken literally. It is not an all or nothing approach. The Bible contains a wide variety of genres, and they all demand to be… Read more »
I think a reasonable reading of Gen 1:6 places water both above and below what is variously translated as the “firmament” or “expanse.” Which verse are you reading that talks about a “dome” that you have described as puncturable? As for “God changed the arrangement”, I think you’ll see changes in rainfall hinted in 2:5 and described later. But I wouldn’t consider it “changing the arrangement” to give a system (hydrologic in this case) some initial conditions that won’t remain static. Question for you: Would you say that you read the Bible seeking contradictions or for understanding?
From wikipedia: “In Biblical cosmology, the firmament is the structure above the atmosphere, conceived as a vast solid dome. According to the Genesis creation narrative, God created the firmament to separate the “waters above” the earth from the “waters below” the earth. The word is anglicized from Latin firmamentum, which appears in the Vulgate, a late fourth-century Latin translation of the Bible.” I don’t normally like to quote from wikipedia, but the information is good here. “Firmament” is variously translated by different versions of the Bible as “expanse”, “dome”, or simply “firmament”. But the article above is correct in the… Read more »
First, I am amused that wikipedia was your source for insisting on “dome” when none of the 14 translations I checked used that word, instead favoring words suggesting a space. You scolded me not long ago for not using proper scholarship when I googled up a couple commentaries that disagreed with your strongly worded assertion: “no one, and I mean NO ONE, translates this phrase in Deut. 22:5 as “the gear of a warrior”. There is not a single translation of this verse that uses your supposed “literal” translation.” You concluded with “That’s not how Biblical scholarship is done.” Okay.… Read more »
Two things, you are correct that wikipedia is not a great source. However, in this case, it presents an accurate definition of the term. When it works, it works. You misunderstand me when I use the word “dome”. You are correct in that we don’t see the word dome in modern translations. The Hebrew word raqia is, based on Hebrew lexicons and all available textual evidence from the Bible itself, meant to convey a solid structure. The Latin Vulgate translates the Greek “stereoma” (literally “a solid body, a support”) as “firmament”. And a firmament is also a SOLID structure. So,… Read more »
So your way of understanding is to say that the Bible is full of contradictions? I sometimes hear similar things from my students who can’t figure out how to solve math or physics problems, and want to blame the book. Fortunately, math mistakes can be uncovered and proven. But when a reasonable interpretation of a literature passage is available, consistent with the message of the rest of the story, then it’s harder to prove a contradiction. You accepted that 2:9 can pertain to plant life generated for a purpose in the Garden (“And out of the ground made the LORD… Read more »
“So far I can’t find any reason to think that the ancient Hebrews would not have believed that the sky separates the waters below from the waters above.” The reason is because they didn’t believe this. I’m not being arrogant when I say that. You can read any reputable Jewish scholar that knows Hebrew and knows the scriptures and they will say the same thing. Early Hebrew cosmology contained a notion of a solid vault in the heavens. It is later Christian scholars and translators that sensed (as many do, perhaps even yourself) that a solid vault creates a problem… Read more »
“How could the creation of woman possibly be “plan B”? But that’s the way it plays out.”
Where does scripture say God intended to find a suitable helper among the animals?
Genesis Chapter 2: 18-22: The Lord God said, “It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.” Now the Lord God had formed out of the ground all the wild animals and all the birds in the sky. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds in the sky and all the wild animals. But for Adam no suitable helper was found. So… Read more »
“God tried to find a helper from among the animals, or he tried to find a helper from somewhere else. Either way, he tried to find a helper and couldn’t, so he makes the woman. To answer your question more pointedly, the Bible does not say “God intended to find a helper among the animals” in those exact terms. But the logical progression in the narrative in these verses “says” it just as well.” So is it more logical to say that God didn’t know what he was doing in bringing the animals to Adam or that the narative is… Read more »
Your question reveals your unwillingness to bother looking at the text. You automatically assume that there is no way this text can show God operating in a way that does not jive with your theology. If you aren’t going to honestly read the Bible and look at what it says, why bother? Let’s do this: instead of making assumptions about the text and attacking my logic, explain how we are supposed to understand this passage, where verse 20b says “no suitable helper was found” and is followed by verse 21: “so God formed . . . “. Based on the… Read more »
Perhaps God was demonstrating to Adam that he needed a helper and that there was not yet a suitable one.
Christopher, you can’t just make stuff up. The text says absolutely nothing about Adam being the one that realizes he needs a helper, or that he is the one that realizes no suitable helper has been found. It’s pretty clear what is going on here: you can’t accept that the Bible might contain a story that does not match what you believe to be true about God. The text is plain, and yet you are bending over backwards to try to make it say something it isn’t saying. Bible study requires not just humility, but honesty–being honest with ourselves, fully… Read more »
If we didn’t have the rest of the bible I would agree with you. Proverbs 3:19 says ‘The Lord by wisdom founded the earth;by understanding he established the heavens’ are we to then say he abandoned wisdom when finding a helper for Adam?
Do you see what you’re doing? You are using what you believe about God–that he is wise and omniscient–as a means of making Genesis 2 say what you want it to say. But that is not honest scholarship. Is God wise? I certainly think so, and there is plenty of evidence in the Bible to believe this. But does Genesis 2 show him being especially wise? And if it doesn’t, does it really matter all that much? The key this: what are we supposed to take away from the account of Adam and the animals and Eve? I would suggest… Read more »
“God is all-powerful and he is the source of all creation. But he is also a God that understands human needs. He created Adam but realized that it was not good for Adam to be alone. God sympathized with Adam in his loneliness and, out of his immense love (and wisdom?) and power, created woman. So God is all powerful, yet he cares deeply about human affairs and wants what is best for us.” That’s all good and well but does God know what is best for us or is he still trying to figure it out? My veiw of… Read more »
Your reading supports what you want to believe about God. That’s normal. But my reading is more honest to the text. I, like you, believe that God is omniscient and is not trying to “figure things out”. But I also believe that Genesis 2 shows us a slightly different perspective. These things are not mutually exclusive.
So your god is not omniscient, only created women as an afterthought, and can’t inspire non-contradictory writings. Have it your way if you must.
Don’t do that, D.L. Please. You are dismissing my arguments because they don’t fit with what you want to believe. Don’t attack me. Look at the text. Show me where I’m wrong. Read Genesis 2:18-22 and follow the sequence of the narrative: 1. God says it’s not good for man to be alone 2. God brings the animals to the man 3. No suitable helper is found, SO (i.e. “therefore”) God forms the woman from the man’s rib. I am not bending this fit my own beliefs. You are the one bending the text to make it fit with what… Read more »
So the crux of the moment seems to be that you want the interpretation “there was not found (by God) any suitable helper” but I think the text requires “there was not found (by Adam) any suitable helper”. With an animal parade, God teaches Adam that there’s nothing like a suitable mate from any of the “ground-based” creatures; only “flesh-of-his-flesh” will do. This is fitting to the story, as we have been taught that Adam is in the image of God but the animals are not. I can’t find any case of the Hebrew word for helper in 2:18 and… Read more »
I do favor a “God as subject” reading. But an “Adam as subject” reading also works and is not at all uncommon. Nahum Sarna, in his commentary on Genesis puts the emphasis on Adam not finding a suitable helper among the animals, emphasizing the loneliness of the man. Adam wants a mate and is looking but does not find a suitable helper. Even if this is the correct reading, there is no indication that this was meant, as you suggest, as a lesson that “animals don’t make suitable helpers”. In fact, God’s creation of the woman, according to most Jewish… Read more »
Interesting thought process. Would you analyze Gen 1 similarly, and say that the creation of man was a plan B, an afterthought, a solution to a problem that the “initial creation” did not solve, an indication of God’s lack of foresight? Do you recommend this analysis for each of God’s actions at the time they occur?
No. Only when the text supports it. There is nothing in Genesis 1 that implies any kind of plan B. But Genesis 2 is different. Chapter 1 ends with a proclamation that everything is Good. But in Chapter 2 we read that “it is NOT good for the man to be alone. And so, the animals and then woman. Scripture needs to be studied closely, pericope by pericope, not wholesale. Genesis 2 is different from Genesis 1. There are plenty of places in the Bible where we find God acting decisively and with clear omniscience. Genesis 2 does not. It… Read more »
I see God’s omniscience all the way through. I am surprised you do not. What about Ch.3 – do you see the sin as a surprise to God, and His response as Plan B?
Well, now you’re getting into some deep, philosophical waters. Does God know that Adam and Eve are going to sin? Is his response plan A? Are you an advocate of the idea that the fall was actually a good thing (felix culpa) and that redemption was really part of the plan from the beginning? Is there evidence in the Bible that God foreknew that the fall would happen? When he finishes creation in chapter 1 and is content that “it is very good”, does he know that this goodness will only be temporary? And how about this: in chapter 3,… Read more »
That’s why I asked – I am curious where your “pericope by pericope, not wholesale” takes you. Sounds like “Plan B” is your interpretation. Now do you mind explaining the “message of the text” of Gen 3:15?
The message is pretty clear: as a consequence for the serpent’s involvement in Eve’s sin, God curses the serpent, putting enmity between humans and snakes for all time. But the curse does not only harm the serpent, as humans will suffer, too– the man will crush the head of the snake, but the snake will bite the heel of the man.
I wondered if your method allowed you to see any deeper than snake’s-eye level – to the “wholesale” conflict throughout the Bible and God’s omniscience. But it sounds like it amounts to little more than any other “creation tale” to you.
Well, you tell me: what other level does the text ask for it to be read at? I assume you are suggesting that the snake is Satan and that this is an example of God’s omniscience? Let me ask you this: is there any evidence in Genesis 1-3 that the serpent is Satan? Isn’t the serpent simply an animal that is “more crafty than any of the wild animals the Lord God had made”, as we read in the text? The serpent is clearly one of the animals created by God. In fact, the serpents physicality as a created animal… Read more »
“We can’t make the text say what it doesn’t say.”
What about this?
“And as for the resurrection of the dead, have you not read what was said to you by God: ‘I am the God of Abraham, and the God of Isaac, and the God of Jacob’? He is not God of the dead, but of the living.” Matthew 22:31-32
While we should be careful about reading things into the text we don’t have to forget and discount what other texts say.
How does this verse relate to the discussion? And you’re right: we don’t want to forget or discount what ANY text says. However, that doesn’t mean we can make a specific say something it doesn’t only to make it match up with another text.
What does God identifying himself have to do with the resurection? or was Jesus making the text say something it wasn’t?
“that doesn’t mean we can make a specific say something it doesn’t only to make it match up with another text.”
You’re arguing that scripture contradicts itself?
I’m sorry, I don’t see what this verse and the resurrection has to do with the current discussion. Can you clarify please? I never said that the Bible contradicts itself in relation to whether or not the God of Abraham is also the God of Isaac, etc. I’m still not following you here. My apologies.
“Can you point out where in the Bible the serpent is equated with Satan?”
Sure – Rev 20:2 “And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,”
Yes, you have found the ONE verse that might be referring to the serpent in Genesis. However, the phrase “that old serpent” could just as well be a metaphorical phrase used to describe both the ancient nature of Satan and his “dragon-like” qualities. Is there evidence that the phrase “old serpent” is meant to refer to the serpent in Genesis? Or is this just a figure of speech? And does it even make sense for Satan to be the serpent of Genesis 3? The serpent is part of the creation–it is an animal that is cursed and turned into a… Read more »
Regarding Rev 20:2, quoting you “The text is really quite clear.”
I do think your grasp of the message of Gen 3, particularly that the downfall of creation was caused by an ordinary animal, is defective. But the point isn’t to carry on an argument about snakes, etc.
Jesus gave a sobering message, that one purpose for teaching through stories is so certain people “may indeed see but not perceive, and may indeed hear but not understand, lest they should turn and be forgiven.” I hope it is not true of you, but God’s truth is hidden from some.
“I do think your grasp of the message of Gen 3, particularly that the downfall of creation was caused by an ordinary animal, is defective. But the point isn’t to carry on an argument about snakes, etc.” I’d say that IS the point. It matters. Please show me how the serpent in Genesis 3:1 is NOT a part of creation. It is a serpent and God curses it and makes it crawl on its belly and then says that there will be enmity between humans and snakes from that point on. How is this NOT an animal? And why is… Read more »
I didn’t say anything about the serpent NOT being a part of creation. But it is not an ordinary animal. It talks and tempts and lies. I think it is significant that Jesus called the devil “the father of lies.” It is strange to me that you want to exclude Rev 20:2 from consideration, which does equate them: “that ancient serpent who is the Devil and Satan.” I’m sorry you are dissatisfied with how the Bible is written; the entire OT also fails to name Jesus as the Christ, or Judas as the betrayer. The entire NT fails to equate… Read more »
I just thought of something, is there a hebrew word to describe a seperation of waters by something that isn’t solid?
Not sure. What kind of non-solid thing would hold back waters? Is that your point? That there isn’t a word for a magic, non-solid water-holding-back something or other? Of course, even if this line of reasoning were to work, you are still left with a bunch of water hanging over us, held in place by . . . something non solid?
My question was more linguistic in nature than a counter point.
The question is: If God had placed a siolid firmamemt around the earth to hold back water, then removed the firmament at the flood, how would we be able to tell?
You’re right. We wouldn’t be able to tell. However, it is extremely difficult to hold to the literal inerrancy of the Bible and point to everything it says as a means of supporting our views, only to turn around and say “well, it doesn’t SAY this, but God could have . . . ” The flood account does not mention God removing the vault. It only mentions that he opens the floodgates. He is allowing water through the dam, so to speak, not removing the entire dam. That way, he still has water up there to send down later, which… Read more »
“He wraps up the waters in His clouds, And the cloud does not burst under them.” Job 26:8
Spike, you need to read Russell Humphreys, and Dr. John Hartnett on the subject of starlight and time, and the cosmic background radiation. The Genesis description is a variation on the big bang.
The problem with creation science is that it is not honest science. Humphreys goes into his research with the goal of defending the creation account in Genesis. But maybe he’s right. Who knows? What I am suggesting is that the text of Genesis 1 and 2 does not require us to know anything about science in order to understand its message, nor does our understanding of it benefit from such science. Maybe the early Hebrews believed that there was a solid dome over them because they didn’t have the ability to see if there really was or not. Or maybe… Read more »
You’re right on. As a 21 year old woman, this issue has always been my biggest struggle with God and Christianity in general. I can get the idea of roles but don’t make me less and I won’t do the same to you. If I want to be a doctor and that’s where God has me be, then suck it up.
I wish I could show you that love and marriage is not about being made less at all, but about being made greater. Wives as helpers yes, but helpers husbands would often give their very lives protecting.
Jezebel and Everyday Feminism is that way.
No point to arguing with people on here. Your movement is doomed and feminism is its own worst enemy.
It’s already chased men out of the church, so please chase your way to the nearest Amanda Marcotte article.
Feminism benefits cads the most, by providing them with an endless supply of nubile women who have been conditioned that rejecting a man makes them prudes, and prudishness is horrible.
They then have their hearts broken, begin to hate all men, not just the cads, and fall into the opposite ditch right int the waiting arms of the militant lesbians, who, therefore, benefit second most from feminism.
Feminism was invented by cads, abetted by lesbians — who together *somehow* convinced fathers raise up their daughters to be “strong, independent women”
Actually, feminists benefits women the most, but giving them more opportunities.
By means of destroying the world in which opportunities mean anything.
Destroying the world? Are you serious? Deal with hyperbole much? Maybe it’s less dire than this. Maybe women just want to earn equal pay as men, have the same employment opportunities, not be treated by men as if they were inferior.
By taking away women’s chances to marry and have kids? And by insulting those women who do get married and have kids, by telling them that they are brainwashed victims of the patriarchy who have internalized misogyny?
That’s hardly a fair trade.
Taking away women’s chances to marry and have kids? How do you figure that. Feminism is about equality of opportunities for women. Having children is part of that. Getting married is part of that. If you want to jump on the extremes of militant feminism, you can find nutcases just like we can find them on the extremes of Christianity. I don’t think you’d want me to paint all Christians with the same brush that paints radicals on the fringes. Same goes for feminism. Are there militant feminists that argue for total independence from men? Yes. But are the majority… Read more »
If you have two groups, let’s call them “men” and “women,” and one group, let’s say the “men,” have more black eyes than the “women”, it’s not a benefit to give “women” the opportunity to also have the same percentage of black eyes. (I speak here of contused orbital sockets, not of dark pigmented irises). The benefit would be to minimize the number of men with black eyes.
My point is that the double standard is not solved by removing all standards, but by trying to hold men to the same standard.
I’m not suggesting that we remove all standards. I’m suggesting that everyone is held to the same standards–men and women alike. There is clearly a difference between freedom in Christ and freedom in this world, but there is no reason why, in this world, women can’t be as free as men to live their lives. Whatever freedom men have in this world, women should have as well. Whatever opportunities men have in this world, women should have them too. That’s not the removal of standards. That is the standard.
The opportunity to harm oneself through foolish sexuality isn’t one I think should be available for either sex – that’s what I was trying to get at with my tortured analogy.
“The opportunity to harm oneself through foolish sexuality” shouldn’t be available for anyone? So . . . you are advocating that we take the opportunity for foolish sex away from people? How would that work, exactly?
Also, who gets to decide when the sex is foolish and harmful?
That’s correct, it shouldn’t be available. I advocate disapproving of foolish sexuality socially – banning, of course, with such things as pedophilia, incest, rape – but having the general expectation of society be heterosexual married sex for life. This is something that requires first convincing people that Christianity is, in fact, true – so it follows from creating communities which evangelize and maintain healthy relationships within themselves. In terms of secular society as a whole, the above listed (and maybe others) foolish sexualities should be illegal and punished by prison. Less directly harmful sexualities should be disapproved, but I’m not… Read more »
Well, I don’t think anyone will argue with you about pedophillia, incest and rape. Who is advocating for these things? We’re a long way from feminism here, Ian. Women aren’t fighting for their right to rape and incest. I’m for banning these things, too, as are most reasonable, moral people, Christian or not.
Incest and rape not that much. Pedophillia – Salon has been promoting an open pedophile (who claims that they have never actually molested any children) as an advocate to change people’s minds about pedophiles. You are asking me who is advocating these things? I’ve brought this up before, but in 2011, I was against the “slippery slope” argument against gay marriage. Then I read a comic book written by a very vocal gay rights activist which advocated the very thing most gay marriage activists were claiming would never happen – polygyny (without consent between all parties – both only consented… Read more »
Ian, there is quite a difference between admitting that people suffer from an attraction to children and agreeing that it’s okay to act on that attraction. Salon is trying to raise awareness of the actual condition that people actually suffer from, which is an abnormal attraction to children. They are not saying it’s okay to act on this feeling, or even that it’s good. Now, you could argue that the same thing happened with homosexuality: it is a real condition that many people have, but it is abnormal and used to be seen as deviant. What has changed in our… Read more »
“But again, there is very little evidence that anyone is pushing for acceptance of pedophilia or polygamy.”
While it probably isn’t very much evidence I do see the
pro-polygamy sentements rising among the tumblr crowd.
The tumblr crowd?
Because Bulverism is not dead.
Ha. Nice. Great response.
No comment on the rest of this, but #6 is a good point. From what I’ve seen, standards are just as likely to get lower as time passes as they are to get more unrealistic.
“Are you suggesting that a godly, single Christian is an impossibility?”
I think you misread #1. There is no gift of singleness, there IS a gift of celibacy. In other words, “singleness” is no gift UNLESS the gift for being completely celibate is there.
Sure. But there is also no “gift of marriage”. Whatever the case, there are plenty of single people out there that do not have the “gift of celibacy”. So until they get married, or if they never do get married, is godliness an impossibility?
Maybe it’s just been a long day, but I cannot comprehend where that question is coming from. Anyway, you already know the answer you will get from any Christian.
Actually, I don’t. That’s why I asked. You argued, as does Doug, that there is no gift of singleness. But there is also no gift of marriage. Paul allows for marriage to help those that burn with lust from sinning. Doug is arguing that men can not be single unless they are celibate. What I’m asking is if this is actually true. There are many single people out there, some of whom will never get married, perhaps through no fault of trying. But these people most likely are not all blessed with the gift of celibacy. So if I am… Read more »
“Doug is arguing that men cannot be single unless they are celibate.”
If you mean “should not be single unless they are celibate,” isn’t Doug saying the same thing Paul is saying in 1 Cor. 7:2?
“But there is also no gift of marriage.”
That’s the problem with going to the concordance to support our views. The “gift of celibacy” is a gift mentioned by Paul in the same sense as the other specific “gifts from God” he lists in Romans. Proverbs is simply saying that marriage is a blessing. There are many blessings that we receive from God every day. These are not the same as the “gift of prophecy” or the “gift of celibacy.”
The “gift of crlebacy” isn’t the same type of gift as the “gift of prophesy”.
Also James 1:17.
Actually, it is the same. Again, going to the concordance is nice, but not always helpful. While your Bible probably uses the word “gift” in both James 1:17 and 1 Corinthians 7:7, Paul and James are using DIFFERENT WORDS. Paul uses “charisma” in 1 Corinthians 7:7 when he talks about celibacy. This word literally means a “gift of grace”. Whenever Paul uses this word, he is referring to spiritual gifts: gifts of grace that provide help to the believer and the spiritual community. In Romans 12, when Paul talks of spiritual gifts, he uses “charisma”. James, however, uses the Greek… Read more »
“‘Each year of age prior to 28 reduces the odds of divorce by 11 percent. However, past 28 the odds of divorce increase by 5 percent per year.’ This would imply that 23 is too young. The sweet spot is 28, but getting married at 30 only adds 10% to your chances of divorce, while getting married at 23 increases the odds by 55% compared to 28.”
Wait – if you cited your source correctly, the conclusion from that is that getting married at 23 reduces the chance of divorce by 55%, n’est-ce pas ?
Actually not. When it says “each year of age prior to 28” it means “each additional year of age prior to 28”. So 27 is better than 26. 25 is better than 24. I didn’t quote the entire article, but if you look at the context, that is what the writer is saying. Getting married earlier increases the risk, and the risk gets higher the younger you are under 28. Once you hit 28, each year over that increases the odds, but not nearly as much as each year of age under 28 increases it. In other words, 28 is… Read more »
Part of the problem with statistics is that we are dealing with a Christian sub-culture with allegedly different behavior patterns from the culture at large. If you cannot filter the statistics based on beliefs and behavior, it can be easy to draw false conclusions from them.
Why wait so long?
It’s rare to develop a thick, lush beard capable of attracting the best-quality women before that age.
How many times, as a single, 24 year old female, have I heard the words “Singleness is a gift” and cried, wishing I could actually believe that God is a good and loving God, and if only I could quit being such a bad Christian that can’t find absolute joy in Him 24/7? I’ve felt guilty and sad for wanting to be married, annoyed with myself for not getting rid of that desire, and I’ve wept quietly at night, berating myself for not doing a better job of focusing on Him. If singleness isn’t a gift, then can the church… Read more »
Being single doesn’t mean you have the gift of celibacy any more than being in Latin class means you have the gift of tongues. Feel free to use that as a comeback. ;^)
Like Doug says, it’s not a gift, it is a trial. Before the Reformation there was a lot of gift of singleness crap going on then, too. This is nothing new
It does hurt, doesn’t it? I was raised to believe I would marry right out of high school. And then…nooo one in sight till a young man left a note on my door when I was 25. I’m sorry this is so hard for you. It is tough, and you’re not a bad Christian for wanting to be married. You obviously love God and want to focus on Him — that desire is what He looks for. He sees that your heart is pointed in the right way, and the refining is His job. He loves you as you are… Read more »
One of the Bayly Brothers wrote something like this about talking to college freshmen girls at his church:
“These girls, mostly from homeschooling or private school families, have had Excellence crammed down their throats for so long that they’ve often wept with relief when I tell them that it’s ok to just want to be mother and wife.”
Got a link?
Those poor unfortunate home educated children burdened with parents who wish excellence upon their children. What a curse!
Although it’s always a dangerous game to sterotype, once can assume “wife and mother” will typically maintain a higher standing within the homeschool community than in every other educational setting.
Not excellence, Excellence. There was a very specific context to the statement.
It’s not about raising your daughters to do things well, but about making excellence in abstract academics into an idol.
Excellent advice on the whole, though a point of clarification would be helpful. While it is true that, “God does not say ‘it not good for man to be alone after grad school,'” he does say,
“Prepare your work outside; get everything ready for yourself in the field, and after that build your house.” (Prov. 24:27 ESV)
This was well said and well substantiated. I laughed at this, “I can’t imagine worse preparation for living with an actual woman.” True that. My husband grew up with 9 sisters and it’s one of the things that has made our marriage work. No illusions about women, no fantasy expectations. Porn, advertising, popular culture takes it’s toll on women and how we perceive ourselves, but it also takes it’s toll on men. When we are not who and what they have been lead to believe we are, there can be a tendency to perceive women as defective units, or they… Read more »
Most parents expect their married children to be out on their own. Where are the jobs? Where is the affordable housing to make this possible?
The jobs are probably in the trades (I work for an electrical contractor and can attest that men can make good money without a degree on a construction site) and the housing may be suburban or rural. Or urban, but not the posh urban. But those are generally the opposite of where young people are told to look, even within the Reformed Evango-sphere. They’re usually told to go get educated and build an art museum in their hipster city neighborhood because Jeremiah 29:7 or some such…
Or, as God says:
12 I know that there is nothing better for people than to be happy and to do good while they live. 13 That each of them may eat and drink, and find satisfaction in all their toil—this is the gift of God. 14 I know that everything God does will endure forever; nothing can be added to it and nothing taken from it. God does it so that people will fear him.
Speaking as an architect Wes, I would not be surprised if you are doing better than me in the compensation dept.!
I think of the story of the man who gets a broken sink fixed on a Sunday night — the plumber gives him an invoice and the customer says “I’m a doctor and I don’t charge rates this high.” The plumber says “When I was a doctor I didn’t either.”
Well, I work in our purchasing and project planning (we call it Preconstruction) dept, so I’m still “white collar,” I reckon, but I know that our electricians have some great opportunities to move up and do well for themselves. I’ve heard stories of electricians who work as job superintendents making $60K+ in job bonuses alone. Yeah, the owners of our company will call in one of those guys and cut them a check for $60K, completely aside from their wages. We also pay for apprenticeship training for our own employees–meaning that you can be some 18 year-old doofus right out… Read more »
There’s plenty of over-advocating college, even among the non-hipster Reformed crowd.
I think most of this began with my generation, the Boomers. A good many of us maintained our parents’ expectations of the timing of marriage (i.e. early twenties), but we were naive and clueless regarding the full effects of the choices we had, choices our parents and previous generation didn’t have (e.g. college, a “career” as opposed to a job, etc.). Mom and Dad grew up here in rural TN during the Depression and WW II. Life was good in so many ways, but they just didn’t have the number and spectrum of choices I had. Marrying in their early… Read more »
It does seem that young people have unrealistic expectations for the level of housing that one should expect right out of high school. They don’t realize that their parents probably started out living in a one bedroom (or smaller!) apartment or a trailer.
The 3500 square foot house only came about after a decade or two of married stability and prosperity.
I don’t disagree with your overall point Doug (speaking as one who got married at age 22!), but I do find it interesting that Puritans did not follow this pattern. The average age Puritan men and women got married was roughly 26 and 23 respectively. See “Albion’s Seed” and “Massachusetts Marriage Ways” for more details. The Puritans were certainly a sexually amorous bunch, but they married much later in life than other Christians around them… an odd dynamic.
To be fair to the Puritans, most of the work available at the time was agriculture.
Working 16 hour days gives a body precious little energy to go out and get into trouble.
How about no. How about the church shouldn’t set these kind of arbitrary expectations on men. Sure, encourage them to be married, but it’s not a pastor or elder or anyone else’s job to marry them off.
How about the Bible sets expectations, and it is very much the church’s role to apply those expectations to their context? That’s what Doug’s doing here — starting with biblical principles and applying them to 21st century American problems.
Valerie, I have a ton of respect for you, so don’t take this as picking a fight or anything. But how would letting the Bible set the standard imply klive is wrong in the point he (she?) is making? Pastor Wilson is arguing for a specific standard from general Biblical principles, but the Bible itself only offers those general Biblical principles, not the specific age of 23. Maybe from a practical wisdom standpoint, Pastor Wilson’s proposed expectations are good, but they are hardly the explicit expectations of the Bible. If “klive” has a problem, it’s not rejecting Biblical authority, at… Read more »
Finally remembered I hadn’t answered this, and then finally found it again. Doug’s proposal that men, on average, should go back to getting married younger, as they were doing a few decades ago, isn’t a “2 Opinions 3:16 says” kind of biblical principle, but it’s a “good and necessary inference” kind of biblical principle. Scripture and plain reason, as Dr. Luther might have put it. The nonnegotiable biblical principles are flee fornication and it’s better to marry than to burn. The cultural context is that young men (on the aggregate, which I mean throughout this argument) aren’t fleeing fornication. They’re… Read more »
I disagree on 2. It seems like this post isn’t concerned with a man having self-control as long as he has easy access to a legitimate sexual outlet (namely his wife). But what happens when she just gave birth, or gets sick and is in the hospital a lot? Now you have a stressed-out man looking for a release, and suddenly he’s back to his old ways. Now you have a man stuck in a cycle: his wife doesn’t think she’s attractive anymore in his eyes, and thinks he’s dirty, so she doesn’t want to touch him. So he goes… Read more »
Rather than stating in an authoritative tone where you want the cultural norm to be, it might be more affective to humbly encourage the church to embrace godly maturity. I would suggest that teaching young men to be men and your parents to be parents (which is your job) would be a better way to get your wish. Is encouraging Christians to speculate about 25 year old singles the best strategy here??
Isn’t that what he did?
Brief summary: Issue: Encouraging the Church to embrace godly maturity and teaching young me to be men and parents to be parents. Solution: Encouraging young men (and indirectly, encouraging the Church and parents to do the very same encouraging of young men) to marry by age 23 and even providing seven (not one, two, three, four, five, or even six but seven) reasons to marry young and why such is good. If you need Doug to provide advice and info on how to accomplish such and even how to model marriage, he’s got numerous books on this very subject. Maybe… Read more »
yeah I think you are. Try again?
I’ve noticed that you sometimes leave this sort of comment. Could you please explain why you think I should stop posting?
I have not read the post yet, but my first reason for agreeing is because sex is good.
Doug, Two observations. 1. You are right, it is better for men to marry younger. 2. The men aren’t the problem the women are. In most cases men at that age would get married if they could find someone but all the girls are too busy chasing the bad boys and letting their peak attractiveness go to their head with no thoughts to the future. The girls signal everything and the guys respond. The girls signal when it is time to get married and then the guys respond by getting jobs, signaling provider status etc. But the girls are told… Read more »
What is wrong with you?!
Nothing, can’t you handle ugly truths?
Here’s an ugly truth. Never, ever marry a man who says, “The men aren’t the problem the women are.”
I’m surprised they can’t hear themselves… “This woman you gave me.” The first Adam isn’t a role model, guys…
It’s the women bemoaning the lack of men who turned down five regular guys who weren’t good enough for them. The higher a woman’s education and status, the higher she looks for an “eligible” spouse. The men are not blaming “the woman you gave me.” Sure there are a few happy go lucky guys, but most guys with good provider skills are apparently too boring for most women. The girls go for the rock stars, and then get frustrated because the 5% of men who are rockstars cannot marry all the women. Then Mr. Wilson writes an article blaming the… Read more »
In short, women being allowed to choose their own husbands has had long-term negative effects on Western society.
women are free don’t you see THAT!!!! lol consequences smonsequenses.
Did Paul have something other than women choosing their own husbands in mind when he said “she is at liberty to be married to whom she will; only in the Lord”?
I was speaking of consequences, not inherent moral judgment. That said, I doubt a society where only widows can choose their own husbands will suffer much from those problems.
I highly doubt Gods design is forcing women into an unloving marriage. If it’s gods will and we’re talking about a woman who has a great relationship with God, then he would put it in her heart to love who she is suppose to marry. Who do you think you are?
I agree that both husbands and wives who have a good relationship with God will be blessed with the ability to love the spouse they are to marry. But this doesn’t imply that either should be able to pick whoever they want.
The idea of romantic love in marriage is mostly a modern concept
God seemingly fails to put love in her heart for over half of husbands…, the point addressed from the bible is a wholy familial provence so the father ‘should’ decide/chose. Awoman is raped as a virgin then he must marry her(and vice cersa) this would contextually be meaningless if she held even veto pwr. ‘giving’ ones daughter in marriage is just that! what your implying is that most all Christians in most of the history of earth have not the sensibleness of modern egalitarians. Eva was given Adam by their Father, no choice on her part, yet that was her… Read more »
Is it your view that Paul would not apply his teaching (that a widow is free to marry whom she chooses) to other unmarried women? It’s also still not clear to me whether you’re criticizing Paul’s advice (because of its “long-term negative effects on Western society”).
I’m saying that the text specifically refers to widows and it’s not self-evident that it generalises to non-widows. It’s rather a weak reed to rest on, especially considering OT depictions of marriage.
So, two questions: Do you believe shotgun weddings are a good or bad idea? Is the story of Isaac and Rebekah’s wedding condemned in any respect in Scripture?
I haven’t given much thought to shotgun weddings, but it sounds like a good idea for a Christian man and woman (assuming Christian men and women honor marriage vows). I’m not sure why Isaac and Rebekah’s wedding would be condemned in Scripture? Their example seems quite compatible with Paul’s instruction, as their marriage was predicated from the start on Rebekah’s willingness.
Sure. But she didn’t pick her husband.
I disagree. She did choose her own husband. When she was asked, “Will you have him?,” and answered, “Yes,” she chose him. She was at liberty to refuse.
Fine, but that’s hardly the situation that’s common today. How would you like to express the distinction?
I would like sensible believers to avoid claims that women being “allowed to choose their own husbands” contributes to the ruin of civilization.
its demonstrible; but surely thats no sensible reason to stop now.
Unless paul was writing in modern times. History lost smh
Move to the Middle East then? Show me in the Bible where God says a woman shouldn’t have a choice? You’re really okay with forcing a girl to marry someone? Please explain to me how that is love? A forced married? Love? In a FORCED marriage? Please.
Is it your argument that no woman forced into a marriage ever loved her husband? (I am not advocating forcing anyone into marriage.)
Because ‘middle East’ needs relationship advice from post Christian Amerixa smh
So, you’re buying the seduction community’s model of the world, complete with hatred of women who practice hypergamy, with a nice sideline in “women all want bad boys”. Got it.
So you refuse to open your eyes.
Open my eyes to a model of the world that idolizes immaturity, bullying, abdication of responsibility, and true leadership? That’s the opposite of open eyes – that’s the closed eyes of a child who says “you can’t see me if I can’t see you.”
No one here is advocating that.
So, since it is you who closed your eyes, it will have to be you who opens them.
Whether you realize it or not, adopting the model of the seduction community/pick up artists/whatever name they’re using today is not true masculinity, but is all of the things I’m calling it.
The big bang model of quantum physics cosmologists is anti-biblical because of several false assumptions. However, most of the laws of physics that they have discovered point to a true creator, and fit perfectly well within the biblical worldview. I reject the worldview and methodology of the “seduction community” as you call it. However, they have pointed out a several facts that Christians have been slow to acknowledge. Take the concept hypergamy for example. The greatest example ever is Bathsheba. You could call it Bathsheba complex, if you don’t like the word hypergamy. Despite the fact that she was married… Read more »
Please show me some stats to prove what you are claiming… Because from what I have read men are still in the top for white collar jobs. If I’m wrong someone prove that because this whole argument of how their taking over is lame and immature
If you want to join the conversation learn how to use Google, locorini.
They are in the top of blue collar/coalmining type jobs too…,what is your point?
The solution is not to just protect young women. The solution is to raise up women AND men to fiercely value marriage over selfish temporary gratification. Men are also supposed to be virgins, and historically, they’ve been congratulated for their failures in this area where women are socially shunned.
Men are now more (‘viegins’)unics than women. This open secret is the perfect synthesis of moralists and feminism. The ‘congratulation’ is now a byproduct of deifying women’s love-however temporary. Inexplicably the solution for our time labores to be any but bowing more wholy this fickle mistress. ‘Shunning’ Is now a pajorative and that is among the victories of feminism. For all the fearmongering about ‘sharia’ here-She-a law rules even before law.
You are slandering Bathsheba. She was not seducing, she was performing ritual cleansing after her period, at the common site in her community, since the rule was full immersion. See 2 Samuel 11. Look up mikveh to see what’s involved. She was not evil, but reading prejudices into the biblical texts might be.
The Mikveh required tricking Uriah into sleeping with her after she knew she was pregnant? The Mikveh was normally done “in the evening” when David was walking on his roof on top the hill of Ophel? The pools for immersion were way down at the Pool of Siloam, not on Ophel hill.
It says nothing about her complicity in tricking Uriah. If you need to invent conversations that aren’t recorded in scripture to support your point, it might be weak.
How do you hide from someone on the highest roof in the city? Should you expect to need to?
Invent conversations? You guys are hilarious. The Bible clearly sets the standard for rape in the city versus adultery. It is not recorded that Bathsheba cried out for help, therefore she was legally complicit. Furthermore, would David have sent Uriah to his house in the hopes he would sleep with his wife and think the child to be his, unless he had talked with her about it first? She was in on it, and was an essential participant in the conspiracy. The mikveh baths were typically underground in caves, by the way. See the link for cool photos of one.… Read more »
Perhaps the reason that nobody focuses on Bathsheba’s sin is that scripture doesn’t charge her with any. Scripture is explicit that David sinned, it says nothing about Bathsheba’s sin. Perhaps we should rely more on what scripture actually says about personal guilt than on our own deductions and speculations about what happened?
Highly doubtful, seeing as she was ovulating. Else she would not have conceived from a one night stand with the king. At any rate, the mikvehs were generally performed in private cave-like chambers hewn from the rock. There are many photos of them online if you care to look. Women in Hebrew culture did not bathe naked in front of the watching city, regardless of how high the house was.
I just want to add my complete agreement with Karen and Jane here – there’s a really consistent thread in your posts (and a couple others) that persist in reading things into the Bible for the specific purpose of blaming women for the sin of a man.
Again, that is false, Ian. David was clearly guilty of adultery, and I never argued otherwise. My point was that David gets all the discussion. I have never heard a sermon or read an article about Bathsheba’s part in the sin of adultery, followed by her part in the conspiracy to cover it up, which finally ended with her husband’s murder and her marriage to the adulterer who murdered her husband. As I quoted elsewhere in this thread, Bathsheba’s son, Solomon was the one who said he found one upright man in a thousand, but not one upright woman in… Read more »
Maybe you haven’t read a sermon about it because the Bible doesn’t say anything about it, telling us that our focus should be on David.
So, is your extrapolation from Ecclesiastes that women are just not as righteous as men? Because that seems to be your model of reality.
Men and women share the same traits but in different proportions. We are sinners, one and all. Fallen mankind of both sexes are good at rationalizing sin, but women can and do rationalize in one third the time it takes a man. I suspect this is the reason that women are forbidden by God from holding office in church or state. Ethics is not their strong point.
So, men and women are both fallen, but women are more fallen?
Women and men have different strengths and weaknesses. The Apostle Paul said that women are more easily deceived, and I would interpret that to include self-deception, which is simply rationalization. If you have a problem with that, take it up with the Apostle.
I have a problem with misrepresenting what the Apostle says to justify your contempt for and fear of women. When you are in a personal one-on-one argument with a woman, do you believe that you are more likely to be in the right?
Ian, I have a problem with you ascribing personal motives to me like “contempt and fear.” Your own style of argumentation relies so heavily on ad hominem that really, I would much rather argue with a woman than with you.
Well, since I don’t think that men and women have necessarily distinct argumentation styles, that’s quite a compliment. But it’s sadly humorous that you protest me analyzing that your posts demonstrate contempt and fear of women, then immediately post that women are irrational and beneath your intellectual level – as a group, not any particular woman, but all women.
I don’t think I have any reason to stop.
I congratulate you on your superiority. Please don’t stop. Take all the rope you need.
Your malice towards women comes through loud and clear. I’m curious, do you see it in yourself?
Calling a spade a spade is not evidence of malice toward spades.
Calling your arguments what they are is not evidence of malice towards Ken.
You’re right, valiant Ian. I hope that your efforts here score you a date with one of the sinless creatures you seem to so enjoy defending. Goodnight.
Love the white night: he scrounges for love, likely betrayed in the end like her sentiments for Allen alda. Then penitently gives up his wealth and kids in divorce(sinfully) so he can meet another virtuous woman seemlessly all the while condemning the privated mourners as ‘selfish’ themselves; though they tend to their God their souls their children and their brothers.
From a Christian perspective, I guess I am called to try to see people as Jesus Christ sees us. So spades yes, but spades having such value to Him, He died for us.
Ok Ian, you sir are an idolator. You flat-out deny what is explicitly written by the Apostle Paul because it leads to an uncomfortable truth you cannot accept. You would rather turn the whole of scriptures and biblical male/female relations upside down rather than accept a truth about women that leaves them less than the ideal fiction who you have pedastalised them to be. You cannot be a leader of your home if you fear correcting and disciplining the women in your life that you care about because you ascribe capabilities to them based on feminist lies. Repent of your… Read more »
I know you and your alt-right bretheren like to call John Piper a social justice warrior liberal (which is hilarious but sad), but I believe that Paul’s writing is much more sensibly interpreted here than in your fearful reading: http://www.wacmm.org/Piper-Grudem-50-Questions.html
John Piper is a Pacifist (unbiblical) and a Feminist (unbiblical), so I wouldn’t necessarily identify him as a Social Justice Weasel, but hardly a man who teachings are without doctrinal error despite his reputation as such. 1.) We were not given a Gnostic gospel that is only revealed through the lens of modern feminism so that we can “Do Church Right”. 2.) This has been all settled by the early church fathers and the Apostles long ago that women needed men as a head because they are easily deceived. 3.) The Church DID NOT find a new, proper way of… Read more »
1) He’s not a pacifist. He wrote several article post-911 defending the justice of fighting terrorism. What he isn’t is a hawk, which is hardly the same thing. 2) He’s so hilariously not a feminist that it’s clear you and facts inhabit completely separate Venn diagram circles that ne’er shall meet. He’s much less of a feminist than I am, and I would be put on several “hate lists” by any good intersectional feminist. 3) Are you a Catholic? Because your “arguments” sound a lot like a recent convert to that denomination. Sadly, you are not nearly as gracious or… Read more »
I would suggest that men and women are as fallen as each other. That being said, because of the way the laws and culture is structured today, women are (on average) going to be appreciably worse than the men because they have fewer restraints or boundaries on their behavior and their bad behavior is frequently excused rather than punished. How often did we hear about how women are always the victim of an abortion. They are paying someone to kill their unborn child. No doubt some are forced into it, but plenty of them make the choice and make the… Read more »
I’m really curious why Doug’s blog seems to have become the hangout of so many people who think he’s a feminist. It’s kind of humorous, given how many feminists hate him, but it grows dispiriting to talk to so many different people (at least, I’m assuming you are all different people – Doug Wright, at least, is, given his complete lack of coherency that isn’t replicated).
Do you not see that instead of standing against feminism, you’ve just become the mirror image of them, saying black is white to their white is black, instead of God is good?
I didn’t say he was a feminist, I do think his point is misguided because women drive marriage and when marriage happens not men. Most men 23 if they met the right girl (Christian boys in particular) would be keen to get married but the girls are too busy getting degrees and “careers” (even in the church). That is what he needs to address. I’m not an MRA or anything like that, I am an orthodox Protestant Christian who calls it like I see it. I’m not excusing mens behavior at all. Men are fallen and can be given to… Read more »
I’m glad you’re not an MRA – however, our experience in adultery and unfaithfulness in the church does not seem to match. And even if it did, the way to change the culture is not by complaining, but by creating our own culture that is winsome and healthy, that people want to join.
Ethical considerations are just too much trouble for our pretty blonde heads. We may have clawed our way into boardrooms, operating rooms, and Harvard Law Review, but heaven knows we don’t have the mental hardware to understand the difference between right and wrong.
I don’t think being token diversity mandate hires counts as clawing.
Do you really believe that there are no women sufficiently brilliant to achieve this kind of success on their own merits?
How do you tell the difference? There is no way to tell someone who got there by talent from someone who got there just because they have a vagina. With the removal of meritocracy the safe assumption is anybody who might have been given an unfair leg up is useless until they prove otherwise and i have no obligation to stick my neck out giving them a chance to show they are just a diversity hire and cause me grief. Maybe there are talented women, i have worked with a few and i’ve worked with diversity hires too. When you… Read more »
I wish I hadn’t been right. Sorry, jilly.
Clawing; ethical aquisitive attack
Ah, but jilly, don’t you see that all those women are just sinfully ambitious, and are taking advantage of the sexual affirmative action program that is our modern feminist society? They still know nothing of right and wrong!
(I jest, but I’m just waiting for someone to actually say that.)
Couldn’t have said it better, sweetheart.
So, how do you respond when you meet a woman of indisputable intelligence and virtue? Or even a whole community of such women? Do you have any awareness that generalizations like “Most women are dumb or wicked or both” sound as silly as feminist claims that all men are brutal oppressors? Is it possible that your apparent dislike for women (or at least, your apparent disapproval of most women) ensures that you will not have the opportunity to become acquainted with women of quality? I think that the only woman who could tolerate your relentless negativity is one with a… Read more »
“So, how do you respond when you meet a woman of indisputable intelligence and virtue? ”
I treat them like a I would a man and we usually get on well.
But none of these sort of women I have ever met have been feminists so there never has been an issue. It isn’t women that are the problem, it is women poisoned with brain damaged nonsense.
Considering the reported history of Mr. Griffith, that of women throwing themselves at him, I think it’s quite possible he’s already surrounded himself or found himself surrounded by women who have that kind of damage.
Oohhh. So now we see the true Ian Miller. There are in fact women who you not only don’t respect, but consider damaged. Thank you for finally conceding the point. I accept your surrender.
It’s you who have this idea that I view women as the Virgin Mary. I’ve never claimed anything of the sort.
Damaged not slut shamed!
I know plenty of such women, however, most of them do not have advanced degrees. Of the women I know who have advanced degrees, the vast majority do not fit the description of having “intelligence and virtue.” Degrees from most universities are not even an indication of intelligence, only an indication of the ability to regurgitate the party line. I made no such generalizations. I do not dislike women, just being honest about the typical feminist princess. You sound pretty negative yourself, cupcake. And I respect only people who earn it, though show common courtesy until someone proves they don’t… Read more »
I like “cupcake”. It makes a nice change from Jillybean.
Cupcake it is, then.
I don’t think men have done such a great job running the Church or the State.
Nobody said they did. But then, God didn’t ask your opinion on the matter, Leslie. There are biblical prohibitions on women holding those offices. Why God chose to prohibit women serving in those offices is a matter of reasonable speculation.
Because you want even MORE?!
Men have not done such a great job holding office in the church or the state.
And speaking of ethics. Look at all the candidates running for president.
Clearly Hillary is the most righteous of them all.
Please can we compact to never say all the bull about woman gentle and nurturing when as Presidentess she is more warlike in f policy and more heavy handed than Stalin on dads and men?
Seriously, look at Yulia Tymoshenko in Ukraine. Most beautiful president ever, and psycho aggressive.
It’s not that they all want bad boys, although a bunch of them do. But virtually all women do want to marry “up”, meaning they want to marry a man who has more money, power, and status than they do. And this isn’t a mere preference; it appears to be deeply hard-wired into women. Which wasn’t a problem when girls got married out of high school and started having babies and making a home. They had no income, so their husband working at the factory remained sexually attractive to them. But when young women are going to college at higher… Read more »
Honestly I know plenty of couples where the woman makes more than the man… Like it’s not that big of a deal, they’re all so happy too. Stop being so butt hurt over the fact that a woman can possibly make more money than you. I promise you, as a woman, it does not matter to me and I’m sure many others, who makes the most cash…
Instead of accusing people of being “butthurt”, don’t you try to become rational … and honest?
I assure you I’m not lying…
You are engaging in intellectual dishonesty … which is worse than mere lying.
Honestly I know plenty of couples where the woman makes more than the man… Like it’s not that big of a deal, they’re all so happy too.
Nah, I’m not buyin’ this.
It’s on the same intellectual and spiritual par as “I know lots of gay couples raising children, and in every single one of these families, all the kids are extremely happy and very well adjusted.”
Nah, I’m not buyin’ it.
Locorini, You do know that the phrase “butt hurt” is a reference to sodomy, don’t you? And regarding the money, tell us all about it in 20 years after you marry a guy with less education and who makes less money than you. If you’re still with him, we might believe you.
Women DO NOT respect men who make less than them. It’s not a matter of those women being shallow, it’s a matter of hardwired biology and only a fool would bet his future against those odds.
Simply false. My wife made far more than me when we got married. Neither of us ever felt that the salary tied to a position was a measure of achievement or ability or anything else representing meaningful worth. Many of the most meaningful roles one can take in life (including ministry) pay very little. She has absolutely never had an issue for respect for me on that, and I know that with 100% confidence. Both of us knew that either one was more than competent enough occupationally that the other could support the family single-handedly if need be. I’d argue… Read more »
I actually think hypergamy is a good thing, because since husbands are called to be the leader in a family, the idea of a wife respecting a husband for their achievements and abilities makes sense to me. I don’t think it’s necessary, or universal, but I think it’s sensible.
“I actually think hypergamy is a good thing …”
Indeed, female hypergamy (*) is a good and natural thing.
(*) when the term is used correctly; the “gamers” misuse the word to refer to the promiscuity of a meat-market singles bar.
Gamers as in the pick-up artists who subscribe to the idea of “The Game”?
It is a good thing. It’s how God designed women – they’re suppposed to be sexually attracted to men who are wealthier and more powerful and prestigious than they are.
Which is why it’s a recipe for disaster when millions of single women have high paying jobs.
Because then they’ll only be attracted to men who have super-high paying jobs.
And there simply aren’t that many super-high paying jobs to go around. (Plus, women are in a lot of those jobs, too.)
Amazing, Ian. Yes, hypergamy is the way that God wired women. It is universal, and it isn’t evil in and of itself, but combined with fallen nature becomes evil.
Ken, realize when speaking of “men” and “women” you have sample sizes of enormous proportion. I’m a fat, bald, middle aged dork who found a highly-educated, beautiful, Godly wife. All things are possible.
And I would wager that you are a highly self-confident, fat bald middle-aged dork who makes a good living too. Nothing wrong with dat, bro.
You’re unclear on the concept, aren’t you? That Adam tried to blame Eve (and God!) for his own sin does not mean that Eve did not sin, and did not tempt Adam to sin. “The first Adam isn’t a role model, guys…” That Adam tried to blame Eve (and God!) for his own sin does not mean that Eve did not sin, and did not tempt Adam to sin, and did not tempt Adam to sin by means of his masculine desire/need to try to protect his woman from the consequences of her own deliberate choices. Guys: it’s time and… Read more »
I agree that Eve sinned. However, you sound like a two-year old – “she started it.” God will deal with a woman or women in general’s sins with them. Men – individual and as a group – must deal with the sins of men – and one of those is the abdication of taking responsibility for our own actions. Immaturity, whining, bullying – these are all the signs of a lack of true manliness.
And you sound like a feminist, which is to say, a female supremacist. But, don’t worry, nearly everyone else does, too.
Ian that is not a valid argument, it is a form of ad hominem. What these guys have pointed out is that there is a structural problem in our society that is resulting in a large percentage of Christian women who are not interested in a large percentage of the available and employed Christian men. The problem is being blamed on the men, when feminism is producing the structural problem. All men cannot be superman. Instead of name calling, why don’t you respond with a real argument?
Yes, but feminism came about because of the sinfulness of men not fulfilling their God- given responsibilities.
no, feminism comes from all tyrants; Aristotle cited this in Politics as a way to maintain a tyranny; powerful men are unaffected by feminism the way poor men are. it is a tool to control the masses. witchcraft/same thing is rebelliousness….that is unless you are citing xerxes?
Lol me wanting to go to college and get a degree doesn’t have anything to do with men or whether or not I want to be married
Did it? Have you researched the founders of the feminist movement? I used to buy this argument, and parrot it. But then I started reading on the lives of Susan B. Anthony and Elizabeth Cady Stanton. I came to realize that feminism in America from its very beginning was simply a return to the Serpent’s argument in Eden. None of the early feminists were themselves abused by their husbands. They were mostly upper class women with too much time and money on their hands and husbands who let them do their thing. Susan B. Anthony was never married, and had… Read more »
Yes, it did. You just made my point. Instead of the husband leading his family towards the goal of serving Christ, they didn’t involve then in a ministry (and probably didn’t even have one themselves). The whole family should be involved and busy where the father leads. And obviously since SBA didn’t have a husband, she didn’t have that leadership at all, and I would bet a non-participatory father.
So, feminism came about because men allowed a few cranky rebellious and idle women to poison the entire barrel. The only way to turn it around is to stop letting them do this, by men calling it what it is, and seeing which women rally to the cause of sanity, and marry those.
The few were leaders, but the problem was just the manifestation of the moral decline. It affected men, sin bringing them to passiveness, and women tried to fill the void that they shouldn’t have had to, and it just hastened the decline. The only way to turn it around is for men to turn to God and submit. They need to lead as God directed them to do.
I really don’t buy the claim that men in the 1800’s were so passive that feminism attempted to fill the void. That is the story of the 20th century, not the 19th. The early feminists were determined revolutionaries, not filling a void but seeking to dynamite the castle.
the FBI sponsored feminism in the 60s
My argument is that the behavior of those who blame women indicates the heart of their argument is selfishness, not Biblical manhood. I think the structural problem is that men refuse to take responsibility and grow up – why should they, when their lack of leadership is filled by women fed up with their antics, and other women are brainwashed into giving them sex without commitment, at great cost to the women and little apparent immediate cost to themselves.
Your argument is false, then, or at best a wide over-generalization. Mr. Wilson is talking to Christian young men. There is no culture of congratulating seducers in those circles. Second, women did not push into all the traditionally male fields of work because they were fed up with men’s antics or lack of leadership. They did it because they fell for the lie of the serpent that it was not fair that there are not as many women in [fill in the blank] as men in that field. Christian women are still pushing for professional degrees/careers for the most part.… Read more »
I think it’s difficult to make statements that one can “prove” about the motives of large groups of people – and in that respect, I think that my own assertion that women are pursuing careers over marriage because men have become immature as a group is no more or less proveable than your assertion that they’re just ambitious jerks who want to steal what’s rightfully man’s. I think your articulation of the ideal way marriages happen is deeply disturbing – and does not reflect the carefully articulated and lived-out practice of Doug, or many other prominent proponents of ‘courtship’ or… Read more »
So much of what he’s asserted is exactly prove able, this is what’s wrong with Christian pop culture they love liars to lead them, they have the most complicated and retrograde optimism bias and they want to put free will into the predictable sociological questions
Do you have a grudge against coherency as well as against women? I would like to respond, but you insist on saying things that make no sense.
amazing, finding proof in large population samples is impossible, but motives of an individual toward a large group; or the total of female population is a a priori to you? I’d suggest you do some study, but if my comment is a problem I suppose you should just stick to your knee jerk sjw confidence.
Score! I know I’ve arrived when I, a life-long pro-life advocate, someone who think gay marriage is a blight upon society, who thinks political correctness is just lying by another name, who thinks communism and socialism are the same ugly class envy, and who thinks feminism has become one of the most poisonous philosophies ever to promulgate through the world, am labelled a Social Justice Warrior. I’m sure I’ll fit right in with all those Marxist feminist gender studies peeps!
flaming folks who see the foundational problems in marriage and thus society as having a ‘grudge against women’ earns you your place in social justice Valhalla; amen(forgive the ‘men’ in that).
Well, when every time you talk about women, you display your contempt for them, I have no other choice. Do you have anything positive to say about women?
contempt; that’s unfair; you should read what I’m ‘talking’ about.
Prove me wrong. Talk about women in a way that demonstrates respect and love.
white knight all the way
I’m glad you’ve graduated to spelling “knight” correctly. Any chance you’ll add capitalization soon? Or punctuation?
I’m looking where to click a sjw AND a grammar nazi badge for you.
Well, I freely admit I’m being a grammar nazi. Something I normally try to avoid, but when faced with people who use the same tactics the Nazis used against Jews only against women, I sometimes give into my more uncharitable urges.
lol; Godwin’s law yes; God’s Law/no. I got you….you’ll learn life much after grammar and debate I gather.
“when faced with people who use the same tactics the Nazis used against Jews only against women, I sometimes give into my more uncharitable urges.” Alright, there’s your problem. Accusing someone of being a Nazi in your effort to defend women on the internet at least looks like people are justified with the “SJW” epithet just a little, no? I’m not calling you such, but you have to admit that you’re playing the Quixotarian role and tilting at windmills so you can defend fair internet maidens. If Doug Wright is being unreasonable, then engaging him in the exact way he… Read more »
You’re right – I probably should have continued with “faced with people who use the same tactics feminists use against men, only in reverse.” But Godwin’s law is very easy…
But they totally might be giants.
Yeah, and it brushes on something discussed on Mablog before, namely, using labels to shut people up. We all know bigot and racist, but commenters brought up how troll is used similarly. Now, we’re moving into white knight and PUA. I’ve lately come to appreciate the role of the troll in conversation, and really that’s due to Trump and Scott Adams’ take on Trump and his “Master Persuader” concept. It’s fair game to hate Trump, but we can appreciate what he has done to shifting the window of acceptable political speech. He did so by playing a troll of sorts,… Read more »
A similar idea is how ashv uses the rebel flag as his avatar. When he gets in a discussion with someone who has to resort to calling him “racist” and tries to dismiss him for it, that person reveals just how strong their position really isn’t and they mark themselves with the “SJW” label.
Male and female, He created them. #thingsactuallyintheBible
yes, but who did they tell you at jr. college evolved first.
Dunno. My parents told me God created the world in seven days while homeschooling me, and my biology professor in university was a Creationist as well.
Then you know Man was made first, making him preeminent a position you as every icondule should jealousy guard and is prevented every man who is a slave. Your chivalry is meaningless if it is not a condescension from that Position nor if it perverts justice.
I don’t believe in chivalry. I believe in justice and truth, and I don’t see any of it from you (at least…I think I don’t? It’s very hard to tell.)
I would get ta steppin out a positive verse on women, but; I don’t respond to Chivalrous demands and also I don’t view woman as a monolithic being.
Again, I don’t recognize chivalry as a positive code of morality. However, your statements about women are pretty monolithic – in their stupidity, contempt, and fear.
Example or shut up
Request: could you take a bit more time before posting, so you don’t accidentally post swearing?
My apologies (though I’m afraid I won’t shut up). I confused you with Ken and Skeptic. You are absolutely correct – you have not posted anything like Ken, Skeptic, or Barnabas about women as a whole. I am sorry that I conflated your posts with theirs.
My problem with your posts has been their consistent incoherence.
“they want to put free will into the predictable sociological questions”
It’s almost like they think that human beings are made in the image of God and are moral actors instead of probabilistic events.
like it says in the Bible “Where I come from rain clouds mean rain. “
I’m impressed that you can figure out what he’s trying to say. It sounds to me like he’s got a lot of buzzwords on his mind, but isn’t capable of putting them together into a meaningful sentence.
idea of personal satisfaction in marriage (“falling in love”) – [ …], in addition to being something the Bible indicates is a positive
good (the book of Ruth, for example).”
Just where in Ruth is this stated?
As you quote me, I said indicated, not stated. If you can read Ruth and not see the positive nature of falling in love in those circumstances, there is a basic lack of shared understanding between us.
Actually, Ian, Ruth does seem very romantic to me, but I think that’s something I’m probably reading into the text. Instead of being about two people falling in love, I think it’s about two people being faithful, and committed to doing what is right (Ruth for Naomi and Boaz for Ruth). Of course, one can’t imagine not falling in love with people with those character qualities, but again, I think that’s an assumption we bring to the text. One I hope we’re allowed to keep.
I don’t see why it can’t be about falling in love as well as faithfulness? And how falling in love because of faithfulness is the Creation order?
The theme of Song of Solomon is obviously romantic, but I just don’t see the same in Ruth. Boaz and Ruth are fulfilling righteous obligations (which they both seem very happy to do!), not exchanging tender glances. Boaz is a Christ figure in his role as kinsman-redeemer, not as lover. I’m happy to believe they fell in love along the way, I just think it goes beyond the text. Eh?
I think Boaz’s comment to Ruth about choosing him over the young men is compatible with a falling in love interpretation. I don’t think it’s the strongest argument for romantic love as firmly established good, but I think it supports it.
But we know the reason she chose him – she was sent to him by Naomi, who recognized him as the kinsman-redeemer for their family, the man who actually had an obligation to provide for Ruth after the death of her husband (according to Mosaic law). Boaz was impressed that she sought his protection, through Naomi’s family, according to the law, instead of looking at younger men outside that family line. Does that make sense? Not trying to burst your bubble, it’s just another story I love :)
I see your point, I just think it can be read in both ways without having to read in things. But I don’t insist upon it as the foundation for romantic love in the Bible, just an indication.
I know the marriage was a benefit of security to Ruth, and a benefit of property to Boaz. No doubt there was attraction on both sides, but I don’t see them falling in love in the book of Ruth. So, you’re right, we have no shared understanding there.
Nor do I see falling in love (which I presume would the greek eros) being touted in the New Testament, but the husband is told to love (greek agape) his wife.
“I have zero idea where you are getting the idea that there are more male virgins than female virgins at age 23.” I don’t have any stats on this, but the idea that men are more promiscuous than women, in general, is far from implausible. That being the case, a relatively small proportion of sexually active males on average deflowering more than one woman logically leads to more male virgins than female. So that’s where he may be getting the idea. Whether it’s actually accurate, I do not know. Conventional wisdom on this stuff is not reliable enough to draw… Read more »
Yes, that is the logic of the manosphere – but I still maintain that that logic is both unacceptable in conclusion as it is unsupportable in evidence. I’ve found no one, either statistical or anecdotal, who supports that kind of model of male and female sexual behavior (I know you’re not advocating it, but if anyone does comment, I wanted to register my dissent).
I can’t believe you just used the words “logic” and “manosphere” in the same sentence.
Well, I do specify that it is a logic belonging to them, not that it is logical. They do have some chains of reasoning, even if they tend to be eminently unreasonable. :)
False premises will do that to you!
Based on data for United States (2011-2013) as found in CDC/NCHS National Health Statistics Reports January 7, 2016, there is no significant difference for “other-sex sex” (however, the women have about 3 times the rate of same-sex contact than men).
Here are percentages with “standard error” in parentheses (“Same-sex” is not included in “any sex”).
.................Any sex....Vaginal....Oral.......Anal.......Same-sex contact
For women 18–24..85.6 (1.4) 81.7 (1.6) 77.3 (2.0) 28.4 (1.7) 19.4 (1.5)
For men 18–24....83.5 (1.7) 79.9 (1.7) 77.6 (2.0) 29.3 (2.1) 6.6 (1.0)
Ignoring the same-sex contact, there appears to be a 1:1 ratio of men and women virgins.
For women 18–24..85.6 (1.4) 81.7 (1.6) 77.3 (2.0) 28.4 (1.7) 19.4 (1.5)
For men 18–24....83.5 (1.7) 79.9 (1.7) 77.6 (2.0) 29.3 (2.1) 6.6 (1.0)
That is nonsense Ian. Women choose the time of marriage, they are the ones who say yes or no and the whole culture is explicitly set on not pressuring them into anything or holding them accountable for any of their behavior (and the church is little better than the wider culture). Women have always set the time to marry and signal to the men time to indicate that they would be good providers. When the girls don’t signal because some idiot has told them they need to “finish colledge” and “get a career” first and they delay it then the… Read more »
Your first paragraph is a mishmash of ahistorical nonsense and broad impressions of the culture which do not match my own experience at all. Women are held to a higher standard sexually in the culture at large. Yes, there are highly wicked “slut walks” and anti slut shaming blog posts, but those exist because the culture as a whole still thinks that women being sluts is worse than men engaging in the same behavior. For your second paragraph, I find myself in the rather hilarious position of arguing against what I usually argue on Doug’s blogs – that Millenials are… Read more »
You are mistaken on several levels, Ian. Yes, Christ offered salvation to the men and women who called for His execution. But he came back metaphorically or otherwise 40 years later in AD 70 and judged those who refused, destroying Jerusalem, the Temple and the Roman Capitol. He burned the adulterous harlot and her lover with fire. We cannot fix the broken culture unless we identify the problems that destroyed Christian culture that we previously enjoyed and repent of them. Almost all the blame for the sexual revolution has been placed upon the men by both feminist and by conservative… Read more »
I’m completely unimpressed with your attempt to distract from Christ’s equal offer of forgiveness and mercy to men and women to God’s judgment on the nation of Israel. We were discussing the essential natures of men and women and the difference between the two, but now you want to talk about the Jews? It is a capital error to think that 1) our problems are unique, and 2) that the past was some kind of Christian golden age that we just need to repeat. Both of these flow from what C. S. Lewis identified as chronological snobbery – we should… Read more »
Yes, the comment about getting a date was a cheap shot. I apologize for that one. Other than that, congrats, you win by exhaustion.
Thank you, Ken. If you can point to an instance (or multiple instances) where you believe I crossed the line from criticizing your statements as misogynistic to calling you yourself misogynistic, I would be happy to do likewise.
This is the first time the word “misogynist” has entered the conversation, Ian. Thanks for your offer, but nobody ever complained that you called me a misogynist because you didn’t. And I wouldn’t cry about that anyway. I do resent being called “whiny and fearful”, and if we lived in a different era, I would challenge you to a duel, just for kicks.
Well, I consider your statements to be whiny and fearful, so I cannot apologize for that. Would it be steel or lead?
Actually a fisticuffs would be more my style, though steel is fine. But firearms might be a more even match for a smooth handed fellow like yourself. Please, by all means, choose the weapon you feel most comfortable with.
If I didn’t think that duels were foolish – desiring to restore honor in the eyes of man rather than God – I would choose steel. Firearms would definitely not be an even match for me, as any of your alt-right buddies on these comments will tell you. ;)
I have two friends being “divorce raped” in this very way this year, and several more who have suffered this in the past. They are both righteous and godly men who have led their families well, provided for their wife and kids, still love their wife and are doing everything they can to save the marriage, both in Presbyterian churches. Incidentally, both of them married women who were sexually immoral with other men before their marriage and repented and cleaned up their act, at least enough to marry a decent guy. One was a pastor’s daughter, the other a missionary’s… Read more »
Hey white night you can’t have it both ways. Either women are responsible or they are brainwashed, if women or children run around wanton, blame is uninstructive in an egalitarian society that encourages it
“Instead of name calling, why don’t you respond with a real argument?”
Because then the other women (*) would be mad at him.
(*) Yes, I am accusing Ian of being a woman.
Adam didn’t want to lose his wife so he sinned; yes he kinda is.
The Bible says nothing about Adam wanting to save his marriage in eating the fruit. Eisegesis in trying to read Pandora into the Bible is a weak argument. Paul clearly states that the first Adam is not a role model, and Jesus, who told the woman caught in adultery to go and sin no more but did not join in throwing stones either verbal or physical, is.
Adam is our anti model, He wanted to share her fate no matter; the Bible does say he was not deceived logic is a ‘b’
Exactly. Adam chose to sin in (misguided) solidarity with Eve.
which is what I see being taught, that; or ‘it is good for man to be alone’
I think what you’re saying is that what you see the present-day (feminized) churches teaching men is that they, too, ought to sin in solidarity with the on-going revolt of (Western/American) women. Is that what you mean?
It does look demonstrable from here; pleasing women is not just chivalrous; it is the goal in life. Also that if a man is divorced or celibate that is a good thing for him rather than address the root causes…I think you mentioned this? or somebody else, that is the idea that women are ok in their choosiness and dissatisfaction.
Here is a liberating truth: never let any woman get her hooks in you who attempts to shut-down criticism of the sinfulness of women.
Here is another liberating truth. You have no control over other people’s sin, only your own. Every time you try to point fingers at the sinfulness of others it is like handing your own power away.
There’s a Proverb that applies here very well, “He that hath no rule over his own spirit is like a city that is broken down, and without walls.” 25:28 If you desire to create protection for yourself, walls, to be safe, you first have to learn to rule your own spirit.
Thanks for pointing our our sin, ME. You’re really good at it.
It occurs to me that one need not be a mechanic Nor much in the way of driving to know what a flat tire looks like
Wow, I’m floored because I’m in 100% agree with you. It’s true, men have no control over women which is why they should never marry women who don’t know their place. I’m glad we could finally agree on something.
Sure…if your spirit is so small and pathetic the only way it knows to rule over itself is to try and find someone even smaller and less threatening, who knows her place and therefore can never threaten yours.
It’s probably just a personal bias of mine, but I much prefer grown up men, with strong spirits, who would laugh outright at the thought of a woman’s place somehow threatening his own.
Oh, you’re right; I’m just not “up to the task” to handle a “strong woman”. Of course you can’t point to any biblical mandate obligating any man to marry a “strong woman” but don’t let that stop your hamster.
Every woman in the bible was strong. The problem isn’t strong women, but men who don’t believe they are strong,too. And hamsters are how God designed women, mostly so we can spin excuses for weak men. What you people mock as hamstering, is the same quality that allows us to love imperfect and broken men.
Thank you for reminding me why I should never marry again.
Thank you for reminding me how blessed I am.
but then who’ll teach your sons not to discriminate among women
I suppose that one might oneself teach one’s sons.
At the same time, do the women who always attempt to prevent discussion and understanding of the sinfulness common to women (as distinct from the sinfulness common to men) *really* “teach your sons not to discriminate among women”? Or, do they more “teach your sons [to generally despise] women”?
I would rather they discriminate than be ship wrecked. Which would inevitably lead to speaking on a woman’s sin, and not avoid it. I will never trust a woman(or man) who attempts to paternalize the nursery of collective womanhood into superiority
or never marry at all; they’re all bums.
Men arent perfect but based on the actual points in the article, the problem to be addressed is actually the women.
Its fine to squeal that men should get married young but that depends on women who will and women control the age of marriage not men.