Introduction
It is not often you see a cultural catastrophe working in two opposite directions at once—sort of a combination of volcano and giant sinkhole. But we are managing it. We have been blown sky high and are falling alive into Sheol, and all at the same time.
Sexually Schizo
There are many areas where contradiction is now king, but the most glaring is the way in which we have taken common sense about the sexes and turned it into a frightful hash.
On the one hand, liberated women still want to be treated like responsible adults, that is, with dignity and respect. I would say that they want to be treated like ladies, but I think that way of putting it is illegal by now. At the same time, these woke women insist that parading their wares is entirely a personal choice, and none of it is anybody else’s business, and that no conclusions whatever may be drawn from whatever form of personal expression she decided to put on, or put on partially, this morning.
A tattoo that says “I’m easy, just ask,” must never ever be taken as an invitation to ask. And if someone who does ask multiplies his perfidy by saying that he did it because he thought she was easy, like the tattoo suggested, then we may be confident that pieces will be falling out of the sky for a while yet. Doesn’t he know anything?
Unless, of course, it is such an invitation, which, okay, let us be frank, it sometimes is. So how it will all be interpreted is a crapshoot, to be determined by the mood of the woman in question, and the social maladroitness of the hapless chump. And so it has come to pass that masculine initiative is now way over represented by high-stakes gamblers with not much to lose—which is to say, ex-cons, cons, and future-cons. This is balanced somewhat by a handful who came to assume that it was not possible for them to lose, to wit, creepy movie producers, and supercilious news guys at NBC.
In Sum
And so it is that we are developing a culture of licentious prudery. We have given ourselves over to the puritanical debauch. We don’t know whether we are coming or going, and that is because we are attempting both at the same time. It is as though Ms. Grundy shushed you in the library, and then demanded that you refer to zir with those new-fangled pronouns, the kind that turn zir on. One doesn’t know which way one should look.
In other words, our culture is insisting that all women must be treated as reputable adults, while at the same time insisting that all women must be granted the right to present themselves as disreputable. Women must be treated with the utmost respect, except when they don’t want to be, which is sometimes. And, considered from another angle, which way the whole thing is going to go must not be considered by means of inference from her looks, dress, manners, speech, or any other visible sign. You bigot.
Not only so, but in some places the apparently disreputable is being required so that we might learn how unimportant it is. As I read recently in The Grace of Shame, wearing a burkini can get you a ticket for excessive modesty on a French beach. Can you imagine? Cops telling you to flash a little more skin, or else?
Aboriginal Nonsense
This disturbing pattern was first established by the shock troops of the feminist nonsense, i.e. the wymyn’s studies majors. From there it worked its way out into the general public, reinforced by the laugh tracks of any given hot new sitcom. After the agreed upon time, it affected even Christian women, who are persuaded that whatever they do with the contents of their closet is somehow not a publicly observable fact. What they have bought into is the idea that they can dress to be “cute,” which is measured by all the desired reactions, but that if there were any undesirable reactions, then rampant misogyny is somehow responsible. “We still have so far to go.” Shake head sadly.
So we live in a time when sweet Christian girls think it fully appropriate to wear tight slacks. How tight? Well, let’s just say that if she had a quarter in her back pocket, everybody would know if it were heads or tails. “Well,” an adversary might say. “What I find offensive is not so much the tight slacks, the contents of which were made by God. Rather what I find offensive are your rude observations about it.” In other words, how dare you notice the most noticeable thing in the room?
In other words, women must be feted and flattered, no matter what. And by that, I mean cozened, pampered, and lied to. This is now the air we breathe, including in the church. Sins of immodesty are now officially invisible.
By way of contrast, let us turn to one of our forefathers in the faith, the New England Puritan Nathaniel Ward. He was a man who had no problem with honoring the adornment of honorable women.
“I honor the woman that can honor herself with her attire; a good text always deserves a fair margin; I am not much offended if I see a trim far trimmer than she that wears it; in short, whatever Christianity or civility will allow, I can afford with London measure.”
But this praise was from an era when men were not required to lie to and about the activities of any given woman. When the truth was less . . . well, less illegal than it is now, Ward also spoke about those women who had just enough “squirrel brains” to chase after the latest fashions. Such women were “the epitome of nothing, fitter to be kicked, if she were of a kickable substance, than either honoured or humored.”
#MeToo
Just around this time, I have a light flashing on my internal brain dash, telling me that it is time to make a few qualifications. I need to caution my readers to remember that nothing whatever can justify rude, boorish, immoral, suggestive, or criminal behavior toward any women, not even if, according to some reactionary men, the woman was supposedly “asking for it.” This qualification would be quite true, but also self-evident, so I think I can just proceed on to my point. I think that would be safe, don’t you? Reasonable people will understand.
That we are dealing with the universal politicalization of any given alleged sexual encounter should be obvious. This kind of thing is one of the instruments being used in banning criticism of any woman whatever. For example, in the aftermath of the Harvey Weinstein dumpster fire (and it was a dumpster fire), someone urged women everywhere to go public with their tales of male misbehavior, and to hashtag it with #MeToo.
So let us say that 100 women do so, and they all show up in your Twitter feed, and you scroll through them. Like all hashtag activism, it feels like everybody is doing something important—a groundswell of sorts. We stand united against “bad things.” The problem is that, out of those 100, a certain percentage is made up of true reports, a certain percentage are lies, and the rest are a confused muddle. And you don’t know the percentages. You might want to play it safe and just “take the side of the victim,” but you do this not knowing who the victim actually is. You are making everything worse. “He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, It is folly and shame unto him” (Prov. 18:13).
Suppose a woman says #MeToo, referring to the time her boss tricked her into staying late at the office and made a number of unwanted advances. He wouldn’t take no for an answer, and raped her. Before taking the side of the victim, you have to identify who the victim actually is. You have to ask if this account is true. If it is true, she is the victim. If it is not true, then he is the victim. By all means, take the side of the victim. But if you don’t find out who that is first, then you are simply part of a mob, out there creating more victims.
Now if you show a cavalier disregard for whether or not the accused man is actually innocent, then this shows me how deeply affected by the hard left feminists you have been. Disregard for whether a particular man is guilty cannot be justified in a Christian worldview—but notice that it can easily be justified in a feminist worldview. Why? Making sure the man is actually guilty is not that crucial if you know beforehand that all men are guilty. You don’t have to prove that he is a rapist if all men are rapists. In a Christian worldview, we want a trial because we want to know if this particular man did that particular thing or not. In the feminist worldview, this is not necessary—it is like hold a trial to find out if a particular fish is wet.
A few months ago, I wrote a piece about Potiphar’s Wife, Survivor, which got a huge reaction. The reason it got that reaction, even among Christians, is because it revealed the central reason for our evangelical confusions in trying to resist the sexual jihad. We are trying hard to accept all the premises, and then, with a sweet and winsome smile, denial the conclusion politely. But it doesn’t work that way, sister.
Back to the Observation Deck
So let us say that a young woman is operating under the mistaken view that leggings are able to perform all the same utilitarian functions as do a modest pair of slacks, which they don’t. Let us also say that she parades herself around in such a way as to invite queries from catcallers in hard hats as to whether those legs go all the way up, when the answer being offered to anyone with eyes in their head would appear to be yes.
“And that’s another thing!” an exasperated reader of this blog might exclaim piously. “Why does he do that on a Christian blog? Doesn’t he know that we come here to be edified? And doesn’t he know that edification means an ability to avert the gaze, all while pretending that our crazed culture is way more normal than it actually is? Doesn’t he know all we need are a couple of good presidential elections to turn things around?”
Well, no, I don’t know that. Evangelical heartland America is not a mildly disoriented Alice down the rabbit hole, but rather a drugged Alice down a wormhole. America’s seers, prophets, and big circuit conference speakers are all prophesying with a thick canvas bag over their heads.
“They are drunken, but not with wine; They stagger, but not with strong drink. For the Lord hath poured out upon you the spirit of deep sleep, and hath closed your eyes: The prophets and your rulers, the seers hath he covered” (Is. 29:9–10).
Have I become your enemy just by telling you the truth? Well, yes, pretty much (Gal. 4:16).
A Most Reasonable Reticence
The way I operate in this cloistered fundamentalist world of mine is quite different. My daily conversation and manner of life is rated a squeaky clean G. But—you may have noticed–this blog is sometimes PG-13, or depending on how sequestered you are, sometimes R. I largely live in a Christian subculture that prizes public and defined reticence on certain topics, modesty and decorum from our womenfolk, decorum and manners from our menfolk, and certain topics just plain off limits for the sake of decency and good taste. I like it that we live like that, and want to do everything in my power to preserve the high tone, and teach others what it is like to live this way.
Some might call it a bubble, but I would actually compare it to a haven carved out of a wilderness. Let’s just call it Sherwood Forest. My standards for public life between the sexes come out of the world of Mike Pence, and not the world of Mark Halperin or Harvey Weinstein. But remember the brutal treatment of Pence from all the cool kids when it was discovered that he conducted himself in a way that could not plausibly be accused of certain kinds of vile behavior? The kind of behavior that apparently was an “open secret” in the kind of places that the cool kids who mocked Pence were accustomed to inhabit?
So fight for your right to live with your people in a way that honors decency, and that gives such decency an environment in which it can thrive. That means manners, it means chivalry, and it means a defined standard of decency. It means reticence.
And it means recognizing that men and women are different clean down to the bone. It means realizing that those differences are relevant in every field of human endeavor. The headship of the husband is relevant in more places than in breaking the tie vote between husband and wife. It is important in more areas than in just prohibiting women from pulpit ministry. Men and women are different everywhere. Common sense, man.
But part of this fight means speaking outside (to the world) in a way that you do not ever do inside. You wield your sword on the battlefield, and not in your living room. When it comes to fighting those whose agenda for our culture is fundamentally indecent, it is crucial that we do not fall for their old euphemism ploy. Here is Chesterton, on point as usual:
“When somebody wishes to wage a social war against what all normal people have regarded as a social decency, the very first thing he does is to find some artificial term that shall sound relatively decent.”
Marriage equality sounds so much better than solemnized poofterism. Amirite? Chesterton calls it “publicity experts picking pleasant expressions for unpleasant things; and I for one prefer the coarse language of our fathers” (Chesterton, On Evil Euphemisms). As he notes somewhere else, the blunt term is usually the honest one, while the effete term is a dainty cover for corruption.
In the aftermath of the Weinstein fireball, any number of actresses came forward to tell their stories, detailing the ways in which the former movie mogul tried to see them in the nude. This was silly of him, because all he needed to do is watch them in one of his own movies.
What I am saying I will say yet again. You can’t have it both ways. You cannot establish a culture that has institutionalized the abandonment of the unique dignity of women, and then, when the culture starts acting on that perverse premise, suddenly find some dignity to stand on. You don’t have any of that dignity anymore. You threw it away, remember? You mercilessly mocked those who objected to throwing it away. You laughed at their predictions.
They objected to discarding feminine dignity, and you mocked them. When the consequences of having lost that dignity start to manifest themselves—as they will continue to do with increasing regularity—you hate and despise them. You hate them for being right in the prediction, and you hate them because their “misogynist” subcultures are among the few remaining places where women are not treated like that. Everything you have been saying, doing, teaching, touching, filming, and litigating, for the last 40 years, is a lie. People are starting to notice.
Chesterton again, speaking through Father Brown: “The first effect of not believing in God, is that you lose your common sense.”
Excellent. I am glad that I am not the only one who can see that now, since we no longer have any moral standards to distinguish the good sexual behavior from the bad, those who wanted it this way are now demanding /stricter rules/ and /harsher punishments/ for those who cross the line.
Just for the record here, I am the girl in the blue dress prone to fall down rabbit holes. Pastor Wilson is the allegedly mean pastor everyone on FB tries to warn you about. Just saying, because there are also quite a few men in the world who seem to believe they can just hijack Alice and actually become her. I am dissatisfied with this post, all is not well with my soul, and perhaps in part that is due to the fact that I could set a steak down in front of my dog and he would not touch… Read more »
Hi MeMe,
I too think exploitation might be on the decline, and might that be the result of alternative distractions.
Good women have always made the best dog whisperers.
But if I’ve been letting my neighbor dope my pooch with porn & MJ, I can’t claim so much credit.
If child abuse has declined, maybe also find fewer births?
“it’s been around since forever”
Or nearly forever. I doubt anyone disputes that.
I doubt if you left the room the steak would be there when you returned. This is not meant to vindicate sexual predators or your dog.
Most of these women in Hollywood who are coming forward with their stories of sexual harassment are fine with it as long as they are being paid for it in front of a camera.
No sexual abuse is not new. However you have to be delusional to believe an entire industry and culture built on the sexual exploitation of women has not increased its occurrence.
Well Memi, one thing is certain, most dogs have better tails than most men anyway!
If People did have tails, we’d be able to read them better. ????
Our dog’s tail is one of his best features! ????
Indeed, it has. Mozart wrote his most famous opera on the subject.
“Are men actually lower then dogs,incapable of resisting a nice juicy steak?”
And somehow, people get the idea that you’re a misandrist. Go figure.
I’m not a misandrist at all. Although if I perceived all men to be like you, hostile, bitter, angry,hating on women, I could quite easily become one.
Ah, the good ol’ ad hominem. Use it if you don’t have anything better to say.
Ah, the good ol’ ad hominem. Use it if you don’t have anything better to say. Pot, meet kettle.
Isn’t it time for bed, Jimmy? You’ve done spammed enough drive-by comments for the night…and the month. I think mom and dad are calling…
“hostile, bitter, angry,hating on women, ”
Ah, I hate women. That must be why I’m defending them everywhere on this thread, and have multiple times showered Jill with praise. Though thanks for this description. My wife had a good laugh.
Ah, but Jill is only seeking men’s approval! It’s like Clarence Thomas…we can’t say anything nice about him because he’s an Uncle Tom!
I am like Molly the horse in Animal Farm–the one who sold out the revolution for sugarlumps and hair ribbons!
@Justin Parris,
Welcome to the Men Disliked by MeMe Club.
The only more elite club is the Women Disliked by MeMe Club. ;-)
You can get into that one by agreeing with her in words she doesn’t approve of.
Ah, the good ol’ ad hominem. Use it if you don’t have anything better to say.
“Is my dog better behaved than some men?”
Well, quite simply, and I’d think quite obviously, yes.
All men? no. Some men? yes. Would anyone actually dispute this?
It may have been around forever, but it was far worse before Christian ideals of feminine worth and dignity established social mores of modesty and chivalry. When you destroy those standards, don’t stand aghast when you reap the whirlwind. The issue isn’t who has more self-control, women, dogs, or men. The issue is who has more self-respect and respect for reality. The war between the sexes has been going on since Eden, but Jesus came to bring reconciliation and healing. He appeared to women at the resurrection, he forgave the woman caught in adultery, but warned her to “go and… Read more »
“cloistered fundamentalist world of mine”
Those worlds are hard to find, and (I bet) harder to build.
Know of any in Denver area?
Anybody?
LCMS perhaps?
Don’t the Lutherans exclude you from communion until you don their uniform?
That would be a deal breaker for me.
“But why do you have to be so mean?” NEVER STOP
The problem is that sex sells– and it sells big. Hollyweird has become very adept at producing titillating movies, sitcoms, and commercials all the while telling us that it’s just entertainment while ignoring the hard reality that what you put in your head eventually becomes part of your heart. “but each person is tempted when they are dragged away by their own evil desire and enticed. Then, after desire has conceived, it gives birth to sin; and sin, when it is full-grown, gives birth to death.” James 1: 14-15
“while telling us that it’s just entertainment while ignoring the hard reality that what you put in your head eventually becomes part of your heart.” While true, there’s a distinction here I feel the need to make simply because in my experience church culture nearly universally gets it wrong. All too often, they take the mere presence of adultery or violence in art as glorifying it. Context matters. If you take season 1 of Netflix’s “Stranger Things”, it contains murder, casual sex in highschool, underage drinking, and heavy amounts of child abuse. If you were to say that it supports… Read more »
While true, and the theme often matters far more than the content; the presence of gratuitous nudity or violence in presenting a story compatible with the Christian worldview may be used to desensitise us. Our enemy is not naive.
I think there’s value to what you say, but “it is arguably unwise because it may desensitise you” is a good distance from the objection I was making. The objection I’m making is to the tendency of many to turn up their nose and sneer at someone because they watch a rated R movie, regardless of what the movie is. It creates bitterness and disgust for little gain. If someone is just being a moral slob with their viewing habits, that’s one thing. Nine times out of ten though, at least in my experience, it’s just creating a false sense… Read more »
My constant complaint to others is what you say. They want to know if there is swearing and blood. I am more concerned with whether the protagonist is evil but portrayed sympathetically. Does unrighteousness get rewarded and thus portrayed positively. I was merely adding that getting the theme right may not be enough; there is more than one way to wreck the story. I will add, that portraying violence does not require sin intrinsically. No one is really is injured or killed. This is not the same for language and nudity. Someone has to swear, someone has to take off… Read more »
Go see Victoria and Abdul. There is no sex, and the swearing is in Urdu. And it is wonderful.
Movieguide –4 for theme. High quality. VICTORIA & ABDUL is an anachronistic movie directed toward modern moviegoers that supposedly depicts the unique friendship between Britian’s Queen Victoria and a Muslim from Colonial India who allegedly became the Queen’s most trusted servant in the last 15 years of her life, from 1886 to 1901. The production values in VICTORIA & ABDUL are top-notch, and Judi Dench gives a phenomenal performance as Victoria, but the other actors and characters are superficial, cardboard stereotypes, partly because the movie promotes a politically correct agenda promoting a left-wing multiculturalism that also whitewashes the nature of… Read more »
Well, I wish you would see it and then we could argue about it! I didn’t see it as remotely left wing except for the fact that the courtiers are portrayed as spineless, venal, and possessed of contempt for the nonwhite subjects of the empire. I doubt that the correctness of that assessment is even debatable, especially as it related to Indians whom even the British could not consider unintelligent. The plot actually hinges on the inability (or unwillingness) of the upper class Britons in charge of colonial affairs to distinguish between Hindus, Sikhs, and Muslims. I had the advantage… Read more »
Context is important, but it does not completely defang the effects of exposure to evil-as-entertainment. Even presented as exemplars of the evil of the world, too much gazing upon gruesomeness and the nakedness of other people (other men’s wives, other women’s husbands) purely for the fun of it does not tend toward our sanctification.
“defang the effects of exposure to evil-as-entertainment. ” This is, as I see it, a gross double standard. In virtually all forms of Christian entertainment there is some form of behavior portrayed as negative. What you’re suggesting is that when you do it with the “Christian” label on the dvd, it isn’t “evil-as-entertainment”, but a near identical product without that label, is. Things must be judged on an individual basis. If you say “nudity in film is wrong” you’ve just disqualified accurate Bible adaptations. “, too much gazing upon gruesomeness and the nakedness of other people” Ok. Agreed. So what’s… Read more »
“….20 good Christians pushed away because they rightfully think the judgements themselves are predicated in ignorance of the material”
Hmm, I wonder if that might also apply to those “Christians” who run about declaring women shouldn’t vote, how some 60% of us are promiscuous gold diggers, and how God Himself hates us? Ever ponder how THAT just might drive people away from faith?
“Hmm, I wonder if that might also apply to those “Christians” who run about declaring women shouldn’t vote,” I think I’ve been consistent in agreeing with you here MeMe. ” how some 60% of us are promiscuous gold diggers” Are you referring to when I used “60%” as a statistic in another comment? Because if so, I was referring to the portion of good men I know who had fallen victim to awful women, not the percentage of women themselves who are wicked. Hypoethetically, only 1% of women could be wicked and the men I know could still fall victim… Read more »
Justin, there is no hope of redeeming yourself unless you say that everyone of those men got what they deserved because of their Failure to Love. Those promiscuous gold diggers were–for all you know, but MeMe knows–poor broken women unloved and betrayed by cold-hearted men, most of whom were either Catholic or fundy. Better a Weinstein molesting every woman in sight than a well-meaning Christian man who has Not Given His Wife All That She Needed and poured himself out like syrup glugging out of a bottle. Give it up. You can’t win.
IMO there’s a significant difference between portraying the fact of evil, and portraying it in a way that wallows in the evil. Does that help?
And no, I think that most stuff with “Christian” labels on it is dreck. That’s not what I’m talking about at all. I’m talking about the difference between stuff that portrays evil, and stuff that bathes in it.
To ask “what’s too much?” is a bit like asking where the coast of England stops and the English Channel begins. Simply because the matter is complex does not mean there is no answer. It merely means the answer is contingent on prudence and maturity, rather than being of a sort that can be checked in a book of arithmetic. It also suggests that the answer may be “somewhat less than you might enjoy watching.”
This makes me think of Noah’s sons who were praised for walking into the room backwards rather than willingly seeing nakedness. So maybe the answer to your question is “none”. Which makes most movies off limits.
I used to read the Daily Mail daily and stopped a year or so ago. When the hurricanes were rolling up the coast, I checked it again to see their photos of the damage— it almost physically hurt to see that much exposed skin. It hurt in my soul. We are all a lot more desensitized than we think we are.
And I find that the secular world applies the same measurement to scripture. Rarely taking it in context, but claiming that scripture glorifies abuse, violence, racism and sexism.
You make a good point that the portrayal of evil in a movie does not make the movie evil.
One concern that you do not mention here is that of being entertained by evil. I think that even if a given work doesn’t glorify evil, it may still be bad. There’s a way to tell a story that includes massively evil deeds that is edifying on the whole. Then again there are some movies in which the evil itself is the primary entertainment, even though the story doesn’t deny that it’s evil or paint it in a good light.
Nathan, I think there is always the “Paradise Lost” problem. Despite Milton’s best efforts, Satan comes across as the most interesting character and he gets a lot of the best lines. It is very hard to make goodness look as alluring and compelling as evil.
Oh, c’mon Jilly, you do a pretty good job!????
I read Paradise Lost, and I never got the Satan-as-protagonist angle until I read someone arguing that it was a thing. I still don’t think it holds much water, unless you just mean that his actions drive the plot, which of course has to be true in a story called “paradise lost”. To me it’s like arguing that Darth Vader (leaving aside his redemption in the last act) is secretly the hero of Star Wars, just because he’s kind of cool and pops up in a lot of scenes. Is “interesting bad guy with punchy dialogue” such an inherently contradictory… Read more »
Hi Farinata, I read Paradise Lost as a teenager and was therefore much more susceptible to tragic Byronic heroes than I would be today. I don’t think it is the narrative so much as the first soliloquy where Milton goes out of his way to state Satan’s case as fairly as possible. I remember being struck by the parallels with Prometheus and all the other epic heroes who defy a tyrannical authority despite hopeless odds. I think it can lure the young and the unsuspecting to forget that God is not a tyrannical authority, that Satan’s grievances are illegitimate, and… Read more »
A good point. It likely doesn’t hurt that American culture finds it easiest to sympathize with the underdog.
“One concern that you do not mention here is that of being entertained by evil. I think that even if a given work doesn’t glorify evil, it may still be bad. ” I think you’re right on every point here Nathan. The issue I draw is not that “all entertainment is acceptable” or even “all entertainment framed in the proper moral worldview is acceptable”, but rather: “whether or not a given piece of art is damaging to a person is a very complicated thing that varies from person to person, making it extremely difficult to judge in others, yet people… Read more »
Maybe having a right hand isn’t the source of temptation in their lives, maybe it’s having a left foot.
Which explains the old Baptist ban on dancing.
I need to become a member to upvote this comment. Where does one do that? Am I being stupid or is it hidden?
Next to the main comment box at the top are 4 icons. You can login using twitter, facebook, wordpress or gmail.
And, for some stupid reason, if you log in on one device, you cannot vote or easily comment on this blog from another device until you “log in” to this blog on that device. Rinse and repeat. It strikes me as someone’s inane idea of improved personal data security.
Yes, I don’t think it was like this previously, but you can’t be simultaneously logged on to more than one device.
I read widely and voraciously and have been trying to eliminate from my library any books with questionable practices. I recently threw out a bunch of Mary Stewarts because “you shall not suffer a witch to live” and here I am reading a story that makes mild witchcraft seem exciting, harmless, enriching. All full blown sin starts somewhere. It cannot please God for me to entertain myself by voyeuristically consuming something He hates. Call it legalistic if you will, but I want to be purged entirely from error and to flee from all evil- because my heart is deceitful and… Read more »
Take “Game of Thrones”, it shows a world full of sin at every level, including gruesome depictions of torture and dismemberment. If you honestly ask the question though “do they glorify those things, or use them as tools to show the wickedness of the antagonists”, you’re forced to admit the latter Not at all. I’d even dispute that such a thing as wickedness exists in George Martin’s fantasy world (or at least in the first 1.5 books, which, alas, I can never un-read). All the violence and depravity is presented as part of human behaviour and is described in lurid… Read more »
“Not at all. I’d even dispute that such a thing as wickedness exists in George Martin’s fantasy world (or at least in the first 1.5 books, which, alas, I can never un-read). All the violence and depravity is presented as part of human behaviour ” With respect, this is completely absurd. I can’t imagine that you came to the series with anything less than a MASSIVE pre-judgement if you came to this conclusion. This is akin to calling “To Kill A Mockingbird” a pro-racism novel. The traditional family values of the Starks are far and away, clearly put in the… Read more »
I can’t imagine that you came to the series with anything less than a MASSIVE pre-judgement if you came to this conclusion. No pre-judgement. I read pretty widely and have definitely read worse fantasy, although that’s setting the bar low. It’s a beleaguered genre. I get that you’d like to make this an issue of personal taste, but I think you’re reaching. There are things that are ‘not my cup of tea’ and there are things I think are various degrees of unedifying for any Christian. As an aside, if I was 1000 pages in and still not at the… Read more »
I know much of this game of thrones discussion centered around the books, but I will leave this here:
http://www.syfy.com/syfywire/director_explains_the_per
I’ve stated already that the television show arbitrarily inserts nudity for no useful reason. It’s a shame it’s HBO and that no “edited for television” is going to be coming. You could edit out 95% of the offending content from the show and lose little of substance from the story.
If couse it is for a “useful” reason. To quote Indigo it is “for the shuddering enjoyment of his target market.”
It sells.
Yeah I have to agree, Indighost, though I have read the books, having to often skip the gratuitous nature of many of the pages. You point out very well that there is a big difference between telling of evil and continually parading it in the forefront. Many of the points of the story could have be told without the, “icky” feeling that comes through from the devil dwelling in each of the explicit details that for some reason must be zeroed in on and refocused upon. Both the violence and the sex. I won’t watch the show knowing that this… Read more »
“I get that you’d like to make this an issue of personal taste, but I think you’re reaching. There are things that are ‘not my cup of tea’ and there are things I think are various degrees of unedifying for any Christian.” Let me be specific then. What I think is an issue of personal taste is your idea that the story contains too much suffering before getting to the righteousness. By your initial review, I got the impression (and correct me if I’m wrong) that even if you cut back on the detail of the gruesomeness, that you would… Read more »
Justin, to answer your first question, I don’t think it’s the level of corruption in a story that renders it acceptable or otherwise. If the lauded ‘realism’ of Game of Thrones had left more to the imagination (much more), I’d probably have read the whole thing and have no more complaints about it than about most other fantasy series. Most contain annoyances that I have to smother in order to finish the story. For example, I’ve read Laini Taylor and appreciated the marvellous concepts in her work in spite of its facile atheism and emotional immaturity. The real question is… Read more »
Indighost, sometimes I find books more insidious than movies, perhaps because I am not very visual but I find it almost impossible not to get inside a writer’s head as I read. I expect that, as a New Zealander, you are familiar with the murder case in which two teenaged girls brutally killed one of their mothers who was trying to end a friendship she considered unsuitable. I didn’t realize until the movie came out that one of the two girls became a well known writer of murder mysteries, most of which I had read. Once I knew that, I… Read more »
Jill, I can relate to that. I’m familiar with the Parker-Hulme murder, but I didn’t know that Hulme changed her name to Anne Perry or that she was such a prolific writer. I don’t happen to have read anything of hers, and now I probably never will. Thanks for the information!
There is so much of the writer’s state of mind in a book, isn’t there? I think that’s why I could read Dangerous Liaisons, to reuse that example, because in spite of its twisted subject matter it was so obviously written by a sane and morally upright man.
The argument does not depend on the intent of the reader. Your soul, like your hat, will begin to smell if you keep it in the gutter. As to the claim that George RR Martin’s filthiness is simply portraying sin in a realistic light, are you willing to follow that argument to its conclusion? Because there’s no natural limit to the wickedness of sin. De Sade could defend himself with that claim. Likewise, provided that the structure of the plot ultimately punishes the bad guy, are there any limits you are willing to accept on how wicked he is shown… Read more »
“The argument does not depend on the intent of the reader.” That specific statement I was rebutting did. “De Sade could defend himself with that claim.” Was De Sade creating a setting in which to tell a morally uplifting story, which I maintain A Song of Ice and Fire is? “Likewise, provided that the structure of the plot ultimately punishes the bad guy, are there any limits you are willing to accept on how wicked he is shown to be, or in what detail it may be presented for our reading, er, pleasure?” I’ll answer this point, though I feel… Read more »
I can grant your caricature as being self-evidently true: a shallow and ignorant critique of anything is unlikely to be helpful. So if the only point you want to make is “people shouldn’t mount shallow critiques with a judgmental spirit,” then you may count me among your supporters. I am trying to ask a larger question, though, because I perceive that your argument goes further. You not only claim that shallow critiques are bad, as nearly everyone would agree, but offer a far more affirmative defense, by which a novel can contain enormous quantities of wickedness, described in graphic, one… Read more »
I might just note that I came up with my description of “wallowing” above before even reading this comment. But this is what I was getting at, also.
It’s fascinating to read how different people with the same faith can analyze something and come to completely different conclusions. Although, I actually think neither Justin or Indighost are wrong. I think both of y’all actually make valid points.
I agree with you. I repented of the portion of the series I read. It’s basically just pornography and the glorification of evil. It’s a series that teaches people that everything goes bad, and there is no reason to be virtuous. I feel sorry for those Christians who feel that they can fill their mind with the literary trash, and the pornography in the video copy (public nudity is pornography, and a sin against God).
” I repented of the portion of the series I read. ”
You repented for reading something who’s content you couldn’t have known before reading it? What sin did you think yourself guilty of? If you walk into a room and are surprised by a naked woman, would you repent of walking into rooms?
” It’s a series that teaches people that everything goes bad, and there is no reason to be virtuous.”
This is objectively not true. Quite the contrary. Most of the story is a karma tale on how it doesn’t pay to ignore virtue.
Justin,
You would find this David Denby article in The New Yorker of interest:
What the Hays Code Did for Women
The code put an end to the highly sexualized movies of the early 1930’s and ushered in Hollywood’s “Golden Era”. The article argues that the censorship code was a net positive:
John, I think the code was largely responsible for the incredibly witty dialogue of so many movies of that era. I haven’t read the article yet, but didn’t Father Daniel Lord have a lot to do with formulating the code? His tracts were always in the pamphlet rack at the back of the church when I was a girl, and I used to enjoy how wise and human they were.
Jill, I just found “I can read Anything” and thought it was great. Interesting to hear it from a Catholic perspective. I liked this:
“Men may get inoculated with poison to such an extent that they can take fair quantities of it without dying. But their immunity is in itself a sign there is something wrong with them.”
Indighost, thanks for reminding me of this one which I just reread for the first time in 50 years. I think Father Lord would sadly conclude that I have a very seared conscience! And, other than murder mysteries, I don’t even read most modern fiction! Back in the day, Catholics were forbidden to see movies with the dreaded C rating, as in Condemned. I think the first one I ever saw was Rosemary’s Baby which gave me nightmares. But, looking back, I have to wonder why The Producers, which I think is hysterically funny, ever made the list. There are… Read more »
I’d never read the code itself. It turns out that Fr. Lord wrote a tightly argued and compelling philosophical justification for the necessity of the code,which is included in a section of that code: Mankind has always recognized the importance of entertainment and its value in rebuilding the bodies and souls of human beings. … [T]he moral importance of entertainment is something which has been universally recognized. It enters intimately into the lives of men and women and affects them closely; it occupies their minds and affections during leisure hours; and ultimately touches the whole of their lives. A man… Read more »
A wise point.
John, and the brilliance of “It has often been argued that art itself is unmoral, neither good nor bad. This is true of the THING which is music, painting, poetry, etc. But the THING is the PRODUCT of some person’s mind, and the intention of that mind was either good or bad morally when it produced the thing. Besides, the thing has its EFFECT upon those who come into contact with it. In both these ways, that is, as a product of a mind and as the cause of definite effects, it has a deep moral significance and unmistakable moral… Read more »
Another great, and pertinent, quote: Note: Sympathy with a person who sins is not the same as sympathy with the sin or crime of which he is guilty. We may feel sorry for the plight of the murderer or even understand the circumstances which led him to his crime: we may not feel sympathy with the wrong which he has done. The presentation of evil is often essential for art or fiction or drama. This in itself is not wrong provided: a. That evil is not presented alluringly. Even if later in the film the evil is condemned or punished,… Read more »
John, the code was in some ways surprisingly enlightened for its time. It didn’t permit gratuitously disrespectful representations of other nations and minority religions (although it banned portrayals of miscegenation) . It drew intelligent distinctions between the vulgar and the obscene. And the much-ridiculed “twin bed” rule was not part of the Hays Code which demanded only that bedroom locations be treated “with delicacy and good taste.” Indighost having told me where I could find Daniel Lord pamphlets online, I have been reading them with fond memories. I wish I had read “Are You Scrupulous” 45 years ago; such bracing… Read more »
The dictates of Scripture are not only for God’s glory; they are also designed to keep us safe from our 3 sworn enemies…our good and God’s glory go hand-in-hand! So while we live in thanks and submission to Him in an obvious counter-cultural way, He is using that to save us from ourselves…what grace! Welcome to Sherwood…and yes, I will fight for my patch of forest. Every. Square. Inch.
That you continue to write so preceptively on cultural degredation and not mention Satanic/demonic influences astounds me. Those people ostensibly pulling all the strings here, with their master plans and wielding of power are at best useful idiots or worse, fellow travelers to those the apostle referred to:
A Nefarious Plot by Steve Deace is a great book that depicts this very plan.
That was the first thing I thought when all these women came out against the director Tobac. He only did to them what many men do in secret while watching the movies they star in.
“Women must be treated with the utmost respect, except when they don’t want to be, which is sometimes.”
Women want to have their cake and eat it, too. This conundrum, taken to the extreme, would seem to explain why some single men choose to ignore women as potential wives. The risk is too great for the potential reward.
Only some women, OKRickety. I often wonder where young men are looking for their partners. Are they looking for intelligent and virtuous women?
Roughly 60% of the decent men I know my age have had their lives utterly destroyed by selfish, deceitful, and wicked women. All of them gave tremendous amounts of support, both emotional and financial, to their wives/girlfriends. All of them the victims of unfaithfulness. Under all these circumstances, the girl’s character was apparent at the time they got together, well before marriage took place, and years before the marriage’s destruction left the life of a child crushed beyond repair. So why are so many men of my generation falling for obvious harpies? I would speculate because they’ve fallen under the… Read more »
Justin, when you look at those wives as a group, does anything stand out? Did they tend to be girls who had grown up seeing adultery in their own families? Most of my daughter’s friends, like her, were directly affected by one parent’s adulteries, and at this point in their lives, they hate it. But the fact remains that adultery has been normalized for them. They don’t have the sense of horror about it that was inculcated into me when I was young.
“Who can find a virtuous woman? for her price [is] far above rubies.” [Prov. 31:10 KJV] Some, although probably few, are looking for virtuous women, but it seems it has always been difficult to find one. And I suspect most of them would be willing to give up intelligence if they could find one who is virtuous. When the statistics show that “Christian” women are little different from the rest in terms of sexual chastity or divorce initiation, I would not expect their non-sexual behaviors to be virtuous, either. In other words, there is little point in looking for them… Read more »
“When the statistics show that “Christian” women are little different from the rest in terms of sexual chastity or divorce initiation,”
Well when the church itself has redefined marriage to mean “Thing that makes you very happy and if it doesn’t, you should find a situation that does”, what else can we expect? Choose the comfortable answers to the tough questions for three of four generations and whatever safeguard ogranized religion provided society evaporates.
I think the quote marks are where this issue is addressed. This claim may be true in the US according to self-identification, but when we look at actual behaviours like Bible reading and church attendance, the stats do separate out.
OK, I think that virtue and intelligence often go hand in hand. What does it take for a woman to be virtuous? Knowledge of herself, her temptations, and her emotional weaknesses. Foresight to avoid occasions of sin. Ability to postpone immediate pleasure for a more important long term goal. Having enough rationality not to be so overwhelmed with passion that nothing else matters.
I don’t think that self knowledge, nor those other abilities, are what we clearly mean by academic intelligence. Perhaps more wisdom. Though (somewhat agreeing with you here) I suspect that a wise person who is intelligent can become wiser than a less intelligent wise man.
I agree with you, bethyada, but academic intelligence and training give you the tools to acquire those abilities. I think the pursuit of virtue is aided by the ability to consider facts and situations objectively. “What makes my situation unique and special?” is a useful question to ask oneself when tempted to do something one would deplore in anyone else. “What would I say if the woman next door ran off with the UPS man? Well, then why is my temptation to elope with my accountant any different?”
@Jill Smith,
” What does it take for a woman to be virtuous? ….”
Based on your outstanding definition, and from what I understand of women’s behavior today, there are very few virtuous single women if a young man should desire to find one.
Then why do I have three on my hands, at least two of whom are old enough to be sought by someone, and yet are not?
Jane, I think its because that scripture is addressed to a God fearing man, but it does not mention how few of them are out there. Fact is, there are probably even fewer virtuous men than there are women.
soylentg
Now that I white-knighted to Jane, I will disagree. Ecclesiastes indicates there are more righteous men than women, though few in number (Ecc.7:28).
This is also seen in my personal experience and others…there are more good men because they are given a goal to strive after and achieve: Godly manhood. Young women are considered good, as is, by a lot in the modern-day church.
So, Mys, you’re going to conclude from one verse of scripture that there are more righteous men than women? Especially when that verse itself is not the easiest to understand. I would suggest reading John Gill’s, Matthew Henry’s, and John Wesley’s commentaries on the passage before making it a hard and fast rule that there are more righteous men than women. Remember that Solomon fell into the trap of taking to himself many, many wives and concubines. Both Gill and Wesley suggest that it is of that pool of women he finds none. In fact Gill finds that one righteous… Read more »
SoylentG-
I have Henry on my shelf, and was amused at how he tried to trip over himself to have it NOT say that men were more righteous than women. Maybe men are, maybe men aren’t. My comment was partly in jest, but I doubt you would get anyone today to take that verse at face value. Gotta keep the ladies happy after all.
Mys, I would think that virtue and vice are pretty evenly divided between the sexes. Anyone who watches true crime videos on youtube can’t easily go on believing in the innate sweet purity of the fair sex! But–and this is going to make me sound both ancient and judgmental–where is the training in virtue that used to be considered an essential part of childhood? I’m not even referring to sexual virtue, but to the qualities of self-control, cheerfulness, courage, unselfishness, and generosity that were drilled into children in the long ago. I doubt that many young people of both sexes… Read more »
Jane- They are not sought because men don’t know what they should value. Not white-knighting, I am truth-telling. I know a man in Christ who was at a social situation where he did not know many of the young women personally, and I did. Later, he asked me about one. I said, basically, no., this woman is not a believer and has loose sexual morals. He said okay, and moved on. But that girl was the prettiest one in the room. Most of these men are suckered in by beauty. Hey, I would be too at their age. But it… Read more »
I agree with that, but my question was premised responding to OKRickety. He seems to assume that the women aren’t out there to be found, but the men would look for them if they were. My question was almost more rhetorical, to question that (apparent) assumption.
I don’t know why assessing the faults of one’s fellow man, which is a large part of the matter of the Bible, needs a pejorative or semi-apologetic term like “white knighting,” though.
The white-knighting thing…because I have read enough red-pill blogs that, though I don’t agree with all of the content on them, I see that white-knighting is a thing that is very real. And your other point is related to the red-pill blogs, which is, the assumption that there are NO traditional women, and if there were, men would be kicking the doors in. You assert that is not the case and I agree with you. I know far too many people in real life to see that as the case. I also know that when men say they want a… Read more »
Are they looking for intelligent and virtuous women?
They should do, but they also want them pretty. God did make us this way.
Hi Bethyada, I think pretty is important. All things being equal, it’s much nicer to be pretty than not to be. But studies show that men married even to incredibly pretty women stop noticing their looks fairly early on in a marriage. Prince Charles had Diana at the breakfast table, and all he could think about was how dumb she was (reportedly) because she didn’t want to listen to him carry on about new age drivel. I think that’s why Judge Judy says beauty fades, but dumb is forever.
Proverbs makes it clear that prudence is to be preferred over beauty. But if you have the former, don’t think you should excuse the latter.
Not familiar with that study. Perhaps it is that exceptionally pretty women can pick whoever they want, and they know it. So they pick the kind of man who can pick whoever he wants, and he knows it.
I think some studies have shown that exceptional prettiness, like exceptional brains, can become a detriment beyond a certain point. You don’t want so much beauty that you scare off the men and antagonize the women. Same with brains. I think the ideal to aim for is well above average on both counts, but never into the range that people find freaky.
Well between me and my wife then, we don’t have a chance!
:)
Hello Jill. I’m in my late thirties and I have been looking for a wife for a while in church (Particular Baptist churches.) For some reason I get little to no interest from women in the church. Unbelieving women at my job, restaurants, etc. are interested. I definitely want someone that is virtuous. On intelligence my thinking is a woman who is more intelligent that I am (I have a B.S. but say she has a Masters or PhD, though degrees aren’t everything) wouldn’t want me anyway. Thoughts?
Hi M. . B, I wouldn’t confuse more degrees with higher intelligence, but sometimes people with advanced degrees are so saddled with debt that marrying someone with a lot of money becomes far too important. It wasn’t incredibly important to me that someone have a lot of degrees, although it was important that he be interesting to talk to. The quality that was most important to me, in those terms, was a lively curiosity about the world. You spend so much of your marriage talking to each other that being interested in things is very important. I never had any… Read more »
IQ probably a better measure than degree. I suggest someone who has approximately your intelligence. Careful about going significantly higher.
If there is a large intelligence difference, men cope much better with a lower IQ wife than vice versa. But probably better not to have too big a gap.
bethyada, Perhaps not bad advice, but how does he go about determining their relative IQs?
Although I agree you have a point about IQ vs degree, the latter is easily known, and it also has a bearing on socio-economic class, which I would think matters to compatibility as much or more than relative native intelligence does per se. Presumably nowadays an especially intelligent woman, or man, is fairly likely to be a well educated one anyway.
I think it is should be clear enough based on interaction and other people’s opinions. I just wanted to note that IQ trumps qualifications, not that a couple need to measure their IQ.
I don’t know my wife’s IQ, or my children’s; but I have a good idea where they stand relative to their peers.
It will be a sad day when displaying Mensa membership cards is a rite of courtship!
Hi John, I think what a college degree can show is a reasonable amount of perseverance and, presumably, completion of at least one or two courses that didn’t come naturally and required hard work and commitment. There are other ways of demonstrating those qualities, and I wouldn’t assume that a person without a degree lacked them. But the degree serves as a kind of shorthand that you’ve paid your dues. If not your loans.
The correlation between IQ and ed attainment has dropped some, but it is still very high, especially for advanced degrees.
Prior to 1990 educational attainment predicted IQ score about as well as a known IQ score (from a different test).
Demo, this made me remember my puzzlement at a website which came up with a more or less accurate guess at my IQ based on a list of my magazine subscriptions. You explained that metrics can figure this out. My understanding of the MMPI is that they took thousands of people, some with psychiatric disorders and some without, and created norms based on how they answered the questions. So that, if I answered 20 questions the way a lot of paranoid schizophrenics had answered them, it would be valid to say that I score at clinical levels on that scale.… Read more »
I would doubt it is normed in a robust way. They probably have some demographic data for the various magazines and they constructed IQ intervals for each based on published correlations (SES, Ed attainment, race, etc.) They they tested their model with a small beta group and said “close enough.”
Bethyada, do you think significantly higher is a drawback when the two people have very different areas of expertise? And, beyond a certain point, are differences very important? For example, if you are discussing politics or literature with a friend whose IQ is 125, are you going to notice that it isn’t 140?
125 and 140 are both really smart (norming is probably breaking down a bit by 140). There will be a more noticeable difference between 100 and 115, and it could be problematic for a couple. Remember that IQ isn’t a “measurement” in the way inches is. Someone with an IQ of 115 isn’t 15% smarter than someone with IQ 100. Instead it js a representation of where an individual falls on a distribution. IQ of 100 is 50th percemtile, 115 is 84 percentile. 125 – 95percentile, 140 is 99.6 percentile. This doesn’t tell us whether the “real” difference in processing… Read more »
Demo, I think that the inability to follow an argument is a serious problem, not because of the inability itself, but because it is so often accompanied by resentment and suspicion–as if you are trying to pull the wool over their eyes, or you’re engaging in double talk and deception. In the absence of those, it is not that big a deal. I can’t tell you how often my ex had to explain patiently that I was misunderstanding exactly what he was trying to prove with his collembola research. Or how often I had to explain to him what is… Read more »
It’s based on pattern recognition, is that right? How useful a measure is it, do you think? Americans seem to be quite preoccupied with IQ but over here nobody knows or cares what their IQ is, and I think that is possibly healthier.
Indighost, some are based on pattern recognition, while some (the kind I do best on) use analogies. The worst for me are spatial awareness–the kind that ask you to tell where a mark on an envelope will appear if it is taken apart and rotated a few times. What they all have in common is asking you to problem solve under pressure. When I was young, the entire school system was IQ-based. You were tested young and streamed accordingly in ways that made it crystal clear how you had done–A stream all the way down to D. D stream girls… Read more »
Jill, thanks for the explanation. I have a new gratitude for the looser education system I grew up in! What you say about IQ being a predictor of academic success is more or less how I understood it. I suppose I’m just reluctant to call what it’s measuring ‘intelligence’. After my first year of university I took a gap year and went on course that involved a lot of outdoor pursuits. That kind of thing tends to attract teens who had not liked school or done well there, but I found out how smart they were as soon as we… Read more »
Indighost, I would have had to remain on the ground until some kind person took pity on me and fixed my harness! Even then I would have been too scared to move unless the height in question was under six feet. Academic intelligence can be pretty limited, and I think it is very important not to think it is the only kind that matters. But, in our society, it too often is because it leads to success in the kind of high income job that enables you to hire people to tie your knots and haul you over the coursing… Read more »
Indighost, I forgot to mention that the only formal IQ test I took as an adult was part of the intensive, two-day psychological testing session I underwent while being considered for the convent. My mind conjures up our Lord saying, “Come, follow me. But first do this Rorschach, MMPI, Beck Depression Inventory, and Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale!” I can see their need to rule out the kind of pathology that wreaks havoc in the convent (religious life can be very attractive to some seriously disturbed people), but that was overkill. Especially since they’d already asked for fifteen detailed character references… Read more »
Why not??? Accumulating degrees is indicative of what you want to spend time, money and energy on – not necessarily smarts. You can be intelligent without pursuing degrees. It all depends on whether you have things in common ????
“For some reason I get little to no interest from women in the church.”
Well, you did say the Baptists inyour church are Particular. ;)
Very nice one, John! I had to look up Particular Baptists, and only last week found me looking up Primitive Baptists. Who knew that Baptists came in so many interesting varieties? On Reformation Sunday I watched a sermon on youtube preached by Jason Cooley who I think might be an independent fundamentalist Baptist. He said that Baptists aren’t Protestants, and that the Reformation was a source of endless persecution of people of his faith. I think I need a Dummy’s Guide to Baptists to begin to sort all this out!
If Christian traditions were elements Baptists would be carbon.
What would Catholics and Presbyterians be?
Catholics – mercury; Presbyterians – iron.
“Thoughts?”
I would suggest that you consider asking some men (and perhaps married couples) who know you for their thoughts. But first consider how unpleasant it might be to hear the reasons. An honest answer might put a tremendous stress on a friendship.
Some issues that could be brought up:
unmanly irresponsibility
a vulgar or boorish manner
poor hygiene
physical unattractiveness
poor conversation skills
lack of personal virtue
being too picky
And overeagerness. Loving hearts sorrow over the strategies and ploys we have to use to attract attention. But it is true that nobody values that which is easily attained.
“public and defined reticence”
Public and dignified reticence?
Thank you for this: “Chesterton calls it ‘publicity experts picking pleasant expressions for unpleasant things; and I for one prefer the coarse language of our fathers’ (Chesterton, On Evil Euphemisms).”
Just found a copy of this – yay!
I think the first step toward dealing with the sexual insanity in our culture is to take away women’s right to vote. Beyond the immediate positive effects that would come from having better politicians, it would send a message to women that men, having now come to accept the reality that men and women are different in very fundamental ways, are now putting them back in their place. I’ve said it on here before and I’ll say it again: these women WANT to be put in their place. It’s s*** testing, and the most loving thing we can do for… Read more »
Ben, I realize that if you picked this stuff up on alt-right sites, there is probably no way of persuading you that worthwhile women do not engage in S*** testing and do not want to be put in their place. It might have been true for John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara, but it isn’t true for educated Christian women who do not need to set tests for men in order to find somebody to love and respect.
I have never read an alt right site. I am married and the Lord has blessed me with 4 daughters. Most people would probably say my daughters are spoiled and I worship the ground my wife walks on. My daughters are getting the best education I can afford. Even I have seen no benefit to society or the family since women were granted the right to vote. Don’t assume because someone makes a statement like the one Ben made they fall into a certain mold.
Hi Silas, I do support women’s suffrage, but I don’t think every man who opposes it is disrespectful or hostile to women. You sound like a sweetie-pie, and your women are blessed.
worthwhile women do not engage in S*** testing
I would have thought this. Now I am not so sure. I suspect that many women engage in milder forms of this on occasion, even if only early on in a relationship.
@bethyada,
If one supposes, per the theory, that “s*** testing” is inbuilt and involuntary, then it likely continues until death.
From what’s been said here so far, “s*** testing” is rather obviously sin. Inasmuch as sin is inbuilt, “involuntary” and continues until death, I’d see no reason to think otherwise.
Bethyada, I don’t dispute that some women do this. When I lived in a fairly primitive northern community, there were always women who would initiate trouble in the pub in the hope that their men would start fistfights. There are women who threaten to take overdoses to make their men come running. These are extremes. But I still don’t think that any worthwhile woman deliberately behaves like a child, a slut, or a lunatic just to see if her man can handle it. Some tests are legitimate, though I hope they are subtle. It is nice to marry a man… Read more »
Jilly,
I happily defend a woman testing potential mates. Why would a woman of any I’ll not evaluate a possible life long mate? It is only rational.
Thank you, Kilgore. It’s only rational indeed.
It goes way beyond that, though. Plenty of married women issue “fitness tests” to their husbands–challenging their authority, making an issue out of petty things–just to see how they respond. I see it all the time. And yes, that includes Christian women.
The red pill called. They want their commenters back…..
Says the ring leader of the League of Hysterical Misandrists…
I agree with your comment, but Meme’s was witty.
Witty, but hardly original.
Your affection for me is duly noted.
Quit your crying and grow up or surrender your avatar. You’re embarrassing us real men.
Kilgore, of course both people in a courtship should be evaluating the strengths and weaknesses of someone they think they might marry. But the s*** test is something different. It presupposes a woman acting badly to see if the man will shut her down/put her in her place. I think this behavior is suitable for five year olds interacting with their parents. Fifteen year olds interacting with their teachers. But a grown woman who is doing that with a man is too immature and too stupid to be getting married. I was interested in making sure my husband to be… Read more »
Husbands and wives are nearly constantly evaluating one another. Certainly trust develops, but when one or the other has reason to think things are going wrong, they deal with it. Women are more vulnerable in relationships, for many reasons, so they want to make sure that they have a solid provider and protector. What you describe is the low class, unstable version of this, whereas many spouses use more sophisticated socially acceptable methods. You are correct, men are not suppose to be marrying little girls who throw hissy fits. Instead they should learn how to handle hissy fits. The fathers… Read more »
You sir, are a scholar and gentleman.
You connect my interest in alt right sites (which I’m assuming you picked up from previous comments I’ve made) to my inability to understand or appreciate good women. Ironically, this sort of deriding a man because his views don’t conform to the mainstream is a type of s*** test.
Oh good! Now we can lob s*** test accusations at each other in addition to sexism, racism, etc.
Ben, I didn’t say that you can’t appreciate good women. But, if you are hanging out with women who behave badly in the hope that you will react, I think you are not hanging out with mature, intelligent, and virtuous Christian women. Because the behavior you describe is suitable for little girls, maybe, but not adult women.
Ben, I read the link you posted to the heartfelt plea of Nebraska women not to be given the vote back in 1914. And I have to say that I thought it was pretty silly. There has never been a time when all women were kept safely at home and sheltered from any knowledge of the world’s wickedness. The women who wrote that statement were undoubtedly comfortably middle class and oblivious to the misery of other women’s lives. But, even at the time, there were women nurses who tended the wounds of women beaten up by drunken husbands and who… Read more »
“Also silly is the idea that women don’t need the vote because they can always counsel their husbands. You have already expressed a view that women are less intelligent and less rational than men. Ruled by their emotions, they are little more than children, I believe you said. If that is true, why would a rational man dream of listening to his wife’s opinion on anything more substantive than whether the sofa covers should be pink or green? ” This. This is such a poor argument. “Why would you want the vote when you can just help your husband figure… Read more »
“It’s not like it would be hard, considering women are weaker than us both physically and mentally.” Let’s assume this to be true, though the “mentally” point is easily arguable. Usually when men make this claim they mean all the men that are like them, but none of the other men who are enormously mentally weak. Remember that, statistically speaking, Men always represent the top and bottoms of the proficiency curve. Men have the most geniuses and men of great honor, that’s true. They also have more scumbags, weak willed nothings, drug addicts, and criminals of all kinds. If we’re… Read more »
It wouldn’t be hard at all. All it would take would for men (specifically white men) to realize the necessity of such a course of action, and that would be the end of it. If white men could build St. Peter’s Basilica, go to the moon, and invent the internet, I don’t think eliminating women’s suffrage is much of anything.
“I don’t think eliminating women’s suffrage is much of anything.”
LOL! Very funny. Next!
MeMe, please understand that these whining babies do not represent authentic christian men. They are silly men, plain and simple.
Thank you. I am quite pleased by that fact.
Pleased by the adoration of a troll? That’s a new low.
For all her histrionics, MeMe has yet to make a Biblical or even historical case for women’s suffrage. If it’s so awful–on the level of genocide, apparently–why is that so?
For the record, I’m not making a case for it or against it. I will say that the church wasn’t in any grave sin for not supporting it, though. And overall, have we really seen any political/spiritual benefits since it started in the 1920s?
Have to agree that it wouldn’t be that hard. If men were nearly unanimously determined to oppress women, who would stop them? That fact is one thing that makes women’s suffrage much less exciting than it’s made out to be. The desire for oppression wasn’t there to begin with.
Because most men aren’t monsters out to oppress women. It’s good to remember that when the rhetoric gets heated.
There’s nothing oppressive about not giving women the right to participate in the decision-making process of the government. It wouldn’t hurt your quality of life at all.
Well, Ben, that depends. Women physicians, lawyers, accountants, and other professionals are paying high taxes on their earnings. How could it possibly be just that they have no say in how those taxes are spent? When women did not have the vote, they did not have access to high salaries and professional status. It could be argued that, as dependents, they were not being taxed without representation. Please don’t tell me that step 2 in your social agenda is keeping the womenfolk at home washing dishes. As a legal resident alien, I don’t in fact vote. But I am surrounded… Read more »
Some of us would prefer little say in our our low tax is spent over a large say in how our high tax is spent.
Hehe…I’d actually prefer that Step 2 be Step 1, that way we wouldn’t even have to deal with that issue at all.
“Have to agree that it wouldn’t be that hard. If men were nearly unanimously determined to oppress women, who would stop them? ”
That’s a pretty big “if” that bears no resemblance to reality. A rather large part of my point was specifically that you would never get men united to do this. You would always be fighting against another large portion of men.
Thank goodness!
Yes, but the kind of men who would insist on women getting to keep the vote are not the kind of men that I’d be afraid of.
Ben, I doubt that.
I’m not sure where you live, but even if every Californian man is as weak as you imagine, there is something to be said for sheer numbers. And I wouldn’t be so sure of how weak they are either. Some white nationalists were invited to speak in South Central LA, and they declined. Gee, I wonder why?
Antifa types show up for a fight when they have a 10-1 numbers advantage and are allowed to use sticks and chains while the cops look the other way. But I’m not sure it’s not something I’d brag about.
CHer, if a group of white nationalists with banners marched through South Central, Antifa types with sticks and chains would be the least of their worries! None of it is anything to brag about. As loathsome as I find neo-Nazis, I must defend their right to march without being shot by a temporary coalition of Crips and Bloods!
Ben, have you considered that most white men don’t live in places where they want to disenfranchise women and put them in their place (on account of men being so much smarter on standard IQ tests)? Do you think the white men living in major blue state population centers think you are on the right track in either your contempt for women or your contempt for the races you think are inferior (are you the one who previously posted a suggestion that it would be an act of kindness to get rid of all the blacks because they are just… Read more »
More testing, Jill? Don’t make me get all complementarian on you! You know, it’s not just about IQ. It was Richard Baxter who observed (though he wasn’t the only one) that when it comes to reason, patience, and the ability to control emotions, women are usually somewhere between a man and a child. This is why I don’t think women should vote. Voting is a privilege, not a right. You have to exercise that privilege responsibly by voting for policies that uphold and maintain a healthy society. Women are not as adept at this. Besides, politics is a dirty business… Read more »
” that when it comes to reason, patience, and the ability to control emotions, women are usually somewhere between a man and a child. ” Let’s take this as assumed. Presumably this isn’t universally true. There must be, for example, some men who’s capability on these issues you consider lower than Jill’s. So if competency is the issue, why not simply make another standardized test for the ability to vote? Women who pass the test get to, men who fail don’t. If ability is truly your concern, surely this would be more effective than a gender screening wouldn’t it? “You… Read more »
I linked somewhere on here the document by the Nebraska Association Opposed to Women’s Suffrage, which I pretty much agree with across the board. Voting is inherently a manly thing, as it involves collectivized defense, i.e. addressing the issue of how to use the gun of the state (what I was once fond of calling the “monopoly on force”) to uphold and maintain society by eliminating threats and punishing wrongdoers. This has always been the man’s role (you even see this in the animal kingdom). When there’s a strange noise in the night, who investigates, the man or the woman?… Read more »
Actually, I was generally the one who got up in the night to investigate. My ex slept too soundly to be useful in that regard. And when I actually encountered a burglar in the basement one night, I chased him off. Looking back, I realize it was the triumph of pure adrenalin over common sense, seeing as I was armed only with my righteous indignation and my teacher voice. I don’t know what to make of your statement about emotion, since it doesn’t define what emotion is or how it is expressed. If you base it on something like “women… Read more »
” you think that only women who are kept prisoners at home, financially dependent on men, can be good and faithful wives, or can contribute to society? Can any man’s ego be so fragile that the thought of an intelligent and financially independent woman is a threat?” To be consistent, as someone who does a lot of thumping my chest over how people shouldn’t assume negative motivations in others, there’s another way to interpret this. And this is that Ben just hasn’t thought of the issue with very much complexity, and the concept of standardized objective genderless standards didn’t occur… Read more »
I would add my agreement to this document as well.
@Jill Smith,
Who cares what “the white men living in major blue state population centers think”? Although it could be used as a litmus test; Disagreement with their beliefs suggests you are on the right track.
“… IQ is three standard deviations above the norm?”
Perhaps a few here are at that level (above 99.7% of the population). However, it is quite clear that some commenters here show no evidence of such intelligence.
Hey Jill, You are right that oppose women’s suffrage for those reasons, but to look at it from the bigger picture, this, from the link Ben posted: “BECAUSE Nebraska women are already enjoying a greater measure of protection and privilege under the laws than do women of any state where women vote.” Patriarchy works and political equality among the genders does not. I am a theonomist, but on simple pragmatic grounds, I argue that woman’s suffrage has harmed women generally (in spite of specific instances to the contrary). Abortion, unaccountable welfare, and the government breaking up families is the result… Read more »
“BECAUSE Nebraska women are already enjoying a greater measure of protection and privilege under the laws than do women of any state where women vote.” And you’re assuming without evidence that women having the right to vote is the cause. I have a rock here. It keeps tigers away. Well, you don’t see any tigers around do you? Clearly the rock works. If we were to take a summation of all of human history and count the all the societies where women have the right to vote and all the societies where they don’t, do you really think living conditions… Read more »
You clearly are ignorant of female voting patterns. Eliminate the female vote and you eliminate abortion, gay marriage, and most unbiblical welfare. The government exploded in size and cost after the female vote.
If you want to talk evidence, at least take the time to look at the topic at hand.
I’m not ignorant of female voting patterns. You’re ignorant of what variables are. Are you honestly suggesting that absolutely nothing else happened in American culture in that time frame other than women gaining the right to vote? How do you conclude that where we are now is a result purely of women being able to vote and not those other cultural events? Answer: You don’t bother. You just run the assumption that comes to the answer you want to hear.
Lol! You spent the last several weeks dealing with the hysterics of MeMe and now you are turning into that. You claim that I make this statement without evidence. I ask if you know female voting patterns. You say yes. There is your evidence. They vote 2-1 in favor of unbiblical policies and the most obvious is government spending and abortion, though gay marriage and other family destroying policies are not far behind. What more causal link do you need? I never once claimed that there weren’t other factors. We are talking about people after all. But if we eliminate… Read more »
As I’ve pointed out before, we would have gotten to Roe v. Wade in 1973 with or without female voting, based on the male voting patterns up until then. While it’s absolutely true that we could never get rid of Roe (to the extent that it’s a voting issue) with women voting, assuming static voting patterns, I see absolutely no basis for saying it we could get rid of it purely by eliminating women voting.
I have no idea whether we would have gotten Roe without the female vote or not, and neither do you. We are not prophets, and there was 50 years between them. But we did get Roe and the female vote was a major part of it. That part is undeniable. And as long as we have the female vote, we will never rid ourselves under this current system without major cultural change. I don’t deny other factors, at all. But just like a smoker could have gotten cancer without tobacco, and there could have been other factors that contributed to… Read more »
“In other words, women must be feted and flattered, no matter what. And by that, I mean cozened, pampered, and lied to.” Would you mind terribly telling me that the cloistered bubble people of fundamentalism are not in fact also exploiting women, raping children, and spending an incredible amount of time at porn sites? You may lie to me if you wish, in fact please do. I really dislike always having to see the poo hidden beneath the pretty autumn leaves and the sweet promises. Sometimes I think it may well be preferable to just walk right through the entire… Read more »
Well Memi, I doubt that I live in a bubble, though I am pretty good at maintaining my fundamentals.
But in any case I am not exploiting women, I am not raping anything and I have never been to a porn site.
Any other questions?
“Would you mind terribly telling me that the cloistered bubble people of fundamentalism are not in fact also exploiting women, raping children, and spending an incredible amount of time at porn sites? ” How is this remotely on topic? His article directly includes condemnation of church behaviors on this point. This is just a random vicious attack. “Sad commentary on life perhaps, but in the end you come to realize it’s actually the liars of the world who have real value, who can carry you away with their pretty words and empty promises.” Am I to take this to mean… Read more »
“Am I to take this to mean you’re giving up any pretense at having a Christian worldview?”
I’m flat out saying that Harvey Weinstein standing next to some Christians appears downright virtuous. Give me an honest sinner over an arrogant Christian any day.
MeMe, Weinstein has been accused of rape. I don’t know if he is guilty, but if he is, that is a truly vicious and evil crime. Are you accusing arrogant Christians of literally being rapists? If it is just rhetoric, it suggests that you are really minimizing the awfulness of rape.
I don’t like arrogance and hypocrisy any more than the next person. But I would take an arrogant hypocrite over a rapist any day. How can there be any comparison?
@MeMe,
“Sad commentary on life perhaps, but in the end you come to realize it’s actually the liars of the world who have real value,….“
That’s a “sad commentary” on you, not on life.
So says the bitter, divorced man, who hates women.
I don’t think OK hates all women. He has always been a perfect gentleman to me. Even when we have disagreed.
Your desperate need for male approval is duly noted, Jilly.
And so is the sheer cattiness of your reply.
@Jill Smith,
Thank you for the kind words, but I know I am not perfect at anything. As Merle Haggard sings, “That leaves only me to blame ’cause Mama tried”.
At least you’re perfect at admitting you’re not perfect. Some people here could learn a lot from that.
I am somewhat uneasy about the conflation of tight pants and tattoos with looseness….or is it just a sign of the times that I see these on young married mothers at my fundamental church? Or is that not quite what is being said here? I would agree that the person with a tattoo must be comfortable with the notion of someone handling that part of their body for a while; the person wearing yoga pants needs to be somewhat comfortable with people seeing the precise contours of that part of their body. Does that mean that she’s “loose”, though? Again,… Read more »
I just am reluctant to say “loose.”
Than just go with, “All Women Are Gold Digging Whores Without Souls Who Shouldn’t Vote,” because that is what is actually being said here.
Oh my. MeMe is conflating multiple statements (many made in response to her own provocations), and admixing in several doses of misrepresentation and uncharitable interpretation. I’m shocked! Shocked, I say!
Quite true. I’ve decided to just surrender to the hyperbole.
Great idea! Thanks!
(j/k)
Loose or not, they obviously want stares…which lead to lust if the woman is attractive. But pity the poor guy who mentions this on most blogs run by Christian women (and on some male Christian blogs as well). “Yoga pants?!” they say. “How can you complain about my yoga pants or string bikinis when there are starving people in the world?! If I wanna show off every curve and crevice, it’s part of my God-given Christian liberty. And if you’re a creep with God-given testosterone running through your body, that’s your fault!!”
You poor man! I have the same problem with forearms. Not saying all men are loose or anything, but they are forever deliberately poking their strong arms out of their sleeves and if the man is attractive, well you know….
If you think men’s forearms to women are comparable to skin-tight clothes and bikinis to men, you’re even more ignorant than I thought. St. Paul talks about women dressing modestly for a reason. Take it up with him.
Apparently you’ve never been to a party with Kevin Spacey.
Our differences aside, that was a pretty good one.
So…..what about Popeye?
He had the exposed fore arms, and he was good to Olive Oil!
In fact Brutus seems a lot like Harvey Weinstein.????
Some certainly want to be looked at, sure. I’d guess that a lot of young women, however, are simply caught in a place where their budget says “Walmart” or “Target” and they don’t want to be in a gunny sack. As the dad of four daughters, that’s a battle we fight often.
Catholic girls of my generation were taught explicitly that if our immodest attire led you to have a sinfully impure thought, the guilt of your sin was also borne by us. This did not stop me from wearing mini-skirts, but it stopped me from wearing them to church!
Bike Bubba said: “Or is that not quite what is being said here?” For the author’s intent I’d direct you to this line: “Unless, of course, it is such an invitation, which, okay, let us be frank, it sometimes is.” Sometimes people are oblivious about their dress. Sometimes people jump at shadows. Sometimes people seek attention they ought not seek. But contrary to all reason, the dogma of the libertines is that a woman can dress any way she wants and still take offense if she receives any attention she does not want. This is clearly wrong, even if the… Read more »
Hi Bike Bubba, I would be very reluctant to assume “loose” but, considering how yoga pants look on most people, I would certainly assume “unwise”! I try very hard not to be critical of how people dress for church, and if I do have an unpleasant thought, I keep it to myself. But, really! If personal comfort is the highest value in life, why can’t we all just give it up and wear our flannel jammies to church, maybe the ones with feet when the weather’s cold. We could roll right out of bed and be good to go. (I… Read more »
For a blog whose proprietor claims to be a manly man writing for manly men, I’ve never experienced a sadder sack of men in my 60+ years. What a bunch of whiners, led by the whiner-in-chief. Boo Hoo.
So……..wouldn’t Bill Clinton be an actual “whiner-in-Chief”? And wouldn’t Harvey Weinstein and Anthony Weiner be similarly sad and whiney?
I guess some Jimmies can be around for 60+ years and still be remarkably inexperienced. ????
They laugh at honor and are surprised to find traitors in their midst… they laugh at the dignity of women and are shocked to find sexual perversity.
Could have come right out of “Abolition of …Woman.”
“You cannot establish a culture that has institutionalized the abandonment of the unique dignity of women….”
Apparently I never got that memo. Maybe next time Pastor Wilson will write about the good old days when the culture is alleged to have respected the unique dignity of women.
It would require you agree on the same definition of what the unique dignity of women is. I highly doubt that’s the case.
I suggest the recent attempt to require women to register for the selective service military draft demonstrates his point: Our culture previously “institutionalized” the unique dignity of women in this regard, protecting women from being having to register for a military draft. Now the cultural forces are attempting to “institutionalize”, or codify in our laws, that very abandonment of the any trace of the unique dignity of women. So yes, in at least some sense, those were the “good old days” when culture at least in some ways respected the unique dignity of women, and those days, yes, are rapidly… Read more »
Daniel, I find this really difficult. Part of me recoils from the thought of drafting women. But when I look at this in secular terms, it is hard to make a good case why men can theoretically be compelled to give two years of their lives to the state but women can’t. Women make up over 50% of people in college. There are more women than men in medical school. Women have compelled police and fire departments to recruit them and let them serve on exactly the same terms as men. Why should they automatically get a pass on the… Read more »
Jill, as a thought experiment, just consider: is it “fair” that I had to register when I was 18 for the selective service, but 8 year olds were not? I’m sure there are 8 year old that were quite capable of aiming and sending rounds downrange with a better eye than I have, and talk about the energy I had when I was that age. In the event of a major military operation we need every capable soldier. Why discriminate on the basis of age? Is it simply that we don’t think them capable, or is the real core reason… Read more »
Hi Daniel, I think you make excellent points. But I see one difference. The eight-year-old is not advancing his career while the adult is off serving his country. She is not making partner in a law firm, or getting the pick of the surgical residencies, while the adult man’s career goes on hold for a couple of years. There is still a fundamental unfairness here because the eight year old in your example is currently being treated exactly as if she were an adult male in every respect except that one. In Britain during the second world war able-bodied young… Read more »
Jill, Good points. I concur, except I see no reason why the woman’s service shouldn’t be military. As long as we allow women to voluntarily serve, and we long have, there is hardly an argument against compulsory military service for women if it were imposed on men. Yes, of course, requiring, or allowing women to serve in certain roles, for example and most particularly as infantry, is utter foolishness. However, women’s relative inability is a good reason for keeping them out of combat, but not other than a practical one. However, we know in the modern military, and this has… Read more »
Hi, I am not American and I don’t live in the US and just generally, from the outside looking in, there are so many things about your culture and the Dem/Rep divide are incomprehensible to me and I really can’t comment on 95% of what was said here, but one thing stands out …. Why is it important to “prohibit” women from pulpit ministry? I understand that you wouldn’t want a liberal woman (or man) giving sermons if their views are diametrically opposed to your congregation. But surely there must be at least some female minds that you resonate with?… Read more »
Scripture prohibits women from pulpit ministry, the office of pastor/elder. It has absolutely nothing to do with the content of the sermons or a woman’s ability and spiritual gifts of teaching.
“But surely there must be at least some female minds that you resonate with?”
Bahahahaha!
But surely there must be at least some female minds that you resonate with?
Very much so. Some of the female commenters here are wise and their opinion always worth considering. The books written by Doug’s daughters are immensely insightful. Many female authors are very much worth reading: Nancy Pearcey, Jane Austin, Elizabeth Goudge.
The question is really around whether the office of teacher to the larger congregation is open to women.
I recommend reading Out Of The Ashes by Esolen. Many of the topics we type about here are covered in an interesting manner.
Although Catholic, Out Of The Ashes is a fascinating read. Every Christian should read it with Doug’s Empires of Dirt and Rules for Reformers along side it.
Just saying, but it’s fascinating how trolls have morphed this thread on an article about sexual ethics into a debate about women’s suffrage. I personally would take away all y’all’s imaginary right to vote and make me benevolent king and declare Christ’s Lordship overall of society. And only property owners (I’d allow this to be both men and women, married or single) will receive representation in my legislative council where the laws would be made for me to enforce them.
What actually happened:
MeMe hijacked the post immediately, trying to turn it into another men=bad, women=good and innocent thread. This led to someone (Ben) bringing up suffrage. Yet again…
I know it’s more fashionable and PC to white knight and blame the male trolls, but that’s how it happened
I love MeMe’s all powerful ways, her ability to single handedly hijack a thread. Makes me feel like the Red Queen, rather than the girl in the blue dress.
For the record, there’s a world of difference between real men and red pills. Real men are easy to love. I bake them biscuits. With jam.
After they bow down, worship you and agree they’re pond scum. No thanks.
You poor baby. Have you ever heard, “Submit to the Lord and you’ll submit to no man?” Once that matter is settled, we have no fear of bowing down to any man, and no one can make you feel like pond scum without your permission.
I must say however, you’d worship the biscuits.
” Once that matter is settled, we have no fear of bowing down to any man,”
“To the woman he said,
“I will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.”” Gen 3:16
Except for the part where he directly told you that you would. Not that you should, not that you must, but that you would.
How come you guys aways miss the part about how, “And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.” Eve sinned, but Mary gave birth to our Savior. Adam dropped the ball, but Joseph took on responsibility that wasn’t even his. Jesus came and died for our sins,including the sins of women. To run about acting as if women are still under some kind of curse is just blasphemous in the sense that it seems to imply the work of Christ… Read more »
Matthew 1 19 Because Joseph her husband was faithful to the law, and yet[e] did not want to expose her to public disgrace, he had in mind to divorce her quietly. 20 But after he had considered this, an angel of the Lord appeared to him in a dream and said, “Joseph son of David, do not be afraid to take Mary home as your wife, because what is conceived in her is from the Holy Spirit. 21 She will give birth to a son, and you are to give him the name Jesus,[f] because he will save his people… Read more »
““And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.”” …..because it wasn’t directly relevant? “Eve sinned, but Mary gave birth to our Savior. Adam dropped the ball, but Joseph took on responsibility that wasn’t even his. Jesus came and died for our sins,including the sins of women. ” I’m with you. Agree with everything here…….where does any of that absolve either of us from out punishment for the fall? Forgiveness and going without consequences aren’t the same thing. “To run about… Read more »
“Agree with everything here…….where does any of that absolve either of us from out punishment for the fall?” Jesus Christ took our punishment for the fall. It is finished. We are new creatures. How can you even say things like this, “No, it implies that the work of Christ on the cross didn’t change that.” You’re trying to keep Eve trapped in a perpetual state of punishment as if Christ didn’t die for her too. I find that simply appalling. Unbelievable. It doesn’t matter to me personally, I have found both childbirth and desire for my husband to be a… Read more »
So…
Christ’s atonement did reverse the fall, but not all at once. The Kingdom of God is like a mustard seed, after all. It is an error to claim that we are still wholly under the curse, but it is also an error to claim that the curse is completely gone.
“It is an error to claim that we are still wholly under the curse, but it is also an error to claim that the curse is completely gone.” But that’s just all wrong! Christ didn’t die halfway, we are not just a little bit saved! Also, there never really was a “curse.” If you read Genesis carefully, God curses the ground and He curses the serpent. He does not curse His own children. Those are consequences, cause and effect, not curses. Also, He already has a plan to redeem us, as it says, “And I will put enmity between thee… Read more »
By that logic, there are no weeds and childbirth doesn’t hurt any more.
And I guess the Israelites weren’t God’s children? Deuteronomy 27.
It grieves me no end that people have been taught so horribly wrong that they actually believe Jesus Christ’s death on the cross changed nothing. There is no curse, there never was, but even if you are going to insist on believing in such things, Jesus Christ paid our ransom in full. The debt is paid. In full. It is finished. I’m going to call on Pastor Wilson to address this issue, knowing full well he is busy and has a life, but it is an ugly and dark theme that comes up in his comments all the time. It… Read more »
Literally no one has said the death and resurrection of Christ changed nothing. The point has been amply made that it changed everything, but not all the changes have been fully realized. If Pastor Wilson chooses to address this, I’m sure he’ll rebuke you for making the errors of the Corinthians, who believed the general resurrection of the dead had already occurred. You conceded that the ground was cursed in Genesis 3, but now somehow you want to say that what’s wrong with the world has nothing to do with the curse of the ground. “There is no curse, there… Read more »
Scripture speaks of our salvation in all three tenses, past, present, and future. We have been saved, we are being saved, and we will be saved. Don’t make the mistake of trying to compress this into something simpler than Scripture gives us. Christ’s work on the cross is done. It is finished, and He is seated at the Father’s right hand. He need suffer no more to secure our salvation. But the work of the Holy Spirit, conforming us to the image of Christ, is not finished. The work of the church, taking forth the good news and discipling the… Read more »
“Do such lies truly honor the God you profess to love?”
I am not the one speaking the lies here. Someone else has whispered those to you. Jesus Christ died on the cross for us, we are redeemed. There is no “curse of Eve,” there never was.
I’m not claiming that your mistaken theology is a lie. I’m talking about the lie you spoke about me, and Jane, and Justin. You accused us of making a vile claim that none of us made. You do not honor Jesus, who is the way, the truth, and the life, when you commit false accusations.
MeMe wrote: There is no curse, there never was … Death isn’t a curse, and never was? God’s Word teaches that death is the last enemy to be defeated. Regarding the truth of the curse, Scripture refutes MeMe directly: To the woman He said: “I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire shall be for your husband, And he shall rule over you.” Then to Adam He said, “Because you have heeded the voice of your wife, and have eaten from the tree of which I commanded you, saying, ‘You… Read more »
And men should not have to “toil” to make a living. I don’t understand why all this “reverse the curse” talk from the egalitarians always skips over the men. Being a women and mother of five, I know first-hand that all the effects of the fall have not yet been completely eradicated. My husband works hard and childbirth still hurts. This doesn’t mean the cross was ineffective, it simply means we live in the “already, not yet” state. At the consummation we will no longer toil, have no more pain, and nobody will be married! So we won’t have to… Read more »
I have a husband, four children, and two grandchildren. They are not a curse, they never were a curse, nor are they the result of a curse. If we are trying to live in the “already, not yet” state, there is something all wrong with our theology.
Okay, I finally get it now. MeMe is 100% fully sanctified, righteous, and is living in sinless perfection. No wonder the rest of us fall short.
Well call me crazy, but I could have sworn those of us flawed human beings can now point to the righteousness of Christ and call ourselves redeemed. We are His, we are saints, and we should immediately stop with this nonsense about being under some kind of an ancient curse.
And maybe if some of you managed to spend about two minutes contemplate who you are and Whose you are, you wouldn’t be so obsessed with me.
If that is what sinless perfection looks like, I think I might rather go on being an ordinary sinner. It seem to have a bad effect upon one’s reasoning powers, veracity, and overall Christian charity.
Oh for crying out loud. No one said that marriage and children are a curse or the result of a curse. You’re reacting awfully strongly to a claim that exists only in your imagination. It is the trouble associated with marrying and bearing children — the physical, emotional, and spiritual pain that comes with living with sinners and enduring physical processes in a fallen world, none of which was part of the original creation — that is the curse. Marrying and bearing children was intended to be harmonious, painless, and trouble-free, and it’s not. It’s wonderful and blessed, but it… Read more »
“You’re reacting awfully strongly to a claim that exists only in your imagination.” I am imagining nothing. I am reading the words presented and taking them at face value. I have stated repeatedly, “there was no curse.” Even if you imagine there was a curse, Jesus Christ broke it. Don’t come along an accuse me of imagining things and than flat out state, “That’s the curse.” Utter rubbish, there is NO curse. I am clearly not imagining things since everyone of these responses, including yours, tries to state we are under a curse. We are not. Those who believe such… Read more »
I thought that when I “tongue in cheek” commented that MeMe is living in sinless perfection, that it was obvious that it was in refutation of her claim that Vva70’s explanation of the 3 tenses the Bible uses to describe salvation was totally wrong. There is a lot that could be said about this interaction, however, I am beginning to think that MeMe’s emotional condition is such that it would be better to ignore all of her comments rather than continuing to confront her with logic and risk playing too big a part in pushing her over that mental precipice… Read more »
It takes a special kind of stupid to constantly attack a woman and then complain that she is delusional or emotionally imbalanced when she takes note of the fact that you are not only wrong, you are being irrational and rude.
Well, she did begin her post “Call me crazy.”
People who deny the plain statements of Genesis 3 and Deuteronomy 27 are arguably also deceived. If not, that’s even worse.
I have denied nothing in Genesis or Deuteronomy.
Jesus Christ broke an imaginary curse?
Imagine that.
MeMe wrote: They are not a curse, they never were a curse, nor are they the result of a curse. I think I see MeMe’s confusion. She seems to be arguing that: 1) God cursed women with children. 2) In MeMe’s personal experience, her children are not a curse, or the result of a curse. 3) Therefore, there is no curse, and never was. Aside from being a completely invalid argument, as if history changes in response to her personal experiences, MeMe actually went wrong with the very first premise. Scripture doesn’t say that the curse was that women would… Read more »
Then why was I demanding my epidural after the first hint of a labor pain??
“‘Rather what I find offensive are your rude observations about it.’ In other words, how dare you notice the most noticeable thing in the room?”
No, not in other words. Obviously you’ll notice someone’s toned butt or their breasts or any other body part that’s defined, but can’t you just keep your sexual thoughts to yourself instead of making any rude observations out loud? That’s what makes women uncomfortable.
That’s begging the question. Why is it rude? If it’s designed to be noticed, then noticing but playing pretend games about not noticing is absurd.
Also, what sexual thoughts? He was describing external appearance.
I assumed sexual thoughts because he said offensive, rude observations. If he didn’t mean that, then any other rude and offensive observations must be insults, which you should also keep to yourself out of human decency. If it was a sexual observation about her body, then that’s rude because she didn’t ask for you to comment on her appearance and because you aren’t in a situation where a sexual comment about one’s body would be appropriate, such as while having sex. In the situation described he said they’re just in a room. It’d be the same as noticing a man’s… Read more »
Jane, I’m a bit conflicted on this. Isn’t the essence of good manners “pretending not to notice” even when the culprit (or merely misguided person) is clearly hoping to be noticed? Didn’t the ban on making personal remarks (unless you have authority such as a mother holds over her teenaged daughter) always mean that you can’t tell someone she is dressed like a whore? Gentlemen were never free to offer unsolicited appraisals of a lady’s personal charms, no matter how blatantly they were displayed. At the same time, gentlemen cannot be expected to avert their eyes every minute. When I… Read more »