The judgments of God are organic. That is, they do not operate in a mechanical way, as though dispensed from a vending machine. But they do operate in predictable ways, ways that we should be able to anticipate. We understand seedtime and harvest, and so we should also be aware that it is not possible for a nation to plant a vast crop of Canadian thistle in order to harvest a magnificent crop of barley. “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap” (Gal. 6:7). One of the reactions to judgment is always surprise, when there is absolutely no good reason for the surprise. That’s what we planted, isn’t it?
Don’t think to plant black damnation with the idea that you will be able to fill up your barns with bright sunshine. And while we have not yet seen the finality of our particular grim harvest, it is certainly true that all our planting is almost all done.
But not only is the crop predictable, so is the astonishment of the unbelieving mind at the appearance of the crop. The pride of man thinks that the way he has managed thus far is the way he will manage into the future. But the judgments of God are designed particularly for the proud and lofty.
“For the day of the Lord of hosts shall be upon every one that is proud and lofty, And upon every one that is lifted up; and he shall be brought low” (Is. 2:12).
What on earth makes us think that God has been influenced by our doctrines of secularism? Why do we believe that He who slapped down the Assyrians for their cruelty would think twice because He is dealing with Americans now? Well, Americans like to fancy themselves a kind and generous people. As proof of this someone might offer the fact that we have kept a ruling class in power, crammed full of bloodthirsty ghouls, and have done this for approaching half a century. We don’t just let Planned Parenthood “harvest the cals,” using the spine to reel them out, we pay them to do it. And so I guess if we can call that women’s health care, we can call ourselves kind and generous.
“Behold, the day of the Lord cometh, Cruel both with wrath and fierce anger, To lay the land desolate: And he shall destroy the sinners thereof out of it” (Is. 13:9).
And when the sinners are destroyed out the land, no one is more astonished about it than they are. This is how judgments work in the Bible — all of them, in fact. A judgment prepared for is a judgment averted. A judgment that falls is therefore a judgment that no one is prepared for. God’s cataclysms never come at a good time.
“Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation” (2 Pet. 3:3–4).
“For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark” (Matt. 24:38).
“For yourselves know perfectly that the day of the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night” (1 Thess. 5:2).
They hear what we are saying, which is what enables them to mock. They take their own daily and yearly routines as the baseline of all human history. They had weddings last year, and so they will have them next year, and they will add glorified sodomy to our collective nuptials. No matter how much we change everything, nothing will change! The night approaches, time to turn in, and we are all quite assured of the fact that it will be the kind of night into which no thief may come. We have decreed it. The judicial stupor that God has struck us with is interpreted by us as a quiet slumber and so may not be interrupted.
One of the more glaring indications of this mindset is that the homosexual revolt against God’s creation order has taken on the rainbow as their great symbol. The rainbow is the covenant seal of God’s promise that He will never again use water when He judges our great iniquity and wickedness. And so homosexuals clamber up onto the parade float, their bodies well-oiled, rainbow feather boas wrapped around their necks, in order to wiggle their fannies at God. And why? Because He promised that the next round of judgments would be with fire. Crikey.
“For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men” (2 Pet. 3:5–7).
In the previous post I mentioned in passing that the hacked release of the CMP video was heroic. But one person in the commments took issue with the lawbreaking involved — there was an injunction against releasing the video. I am tempted to say that we should keep our perspective here, but what I really mean is that we should try to gain some perspective. Given what we are talking about, and what the videos manifestly reveal, being concerned about such an injunction at such a time is like Japheth in an SUV running late for the ark, and failing to come to a complete stop at the intersections.
Sobering. Thank you.
Though God is often painted as angry and vindictive I think the simple fact that those that harvest His judgment are surprised by it is indicative of His slowness to wrath and His lengthy mercy
“We don’t just let Planned Parenthood ‘harvest the cals,’ using the spine to reel them out, we pay them to do it. And so I guess if we can call that women’s health care, we can call ourselves kind and generous.”
No, no. See, most of these we just throw in the trash. Very few do we harvest organs from. See? Doesn’t that make us kind and generous?
The sabbath was made for man and not man for it — so the laws we would otherwise not break.
Isn’t the support for PP that comes from your average citizen the result of thinking their procedures — accepted by society generally (albeit begrudgingly sometimes) — might come in handy personally?
It’s amazing how normal these people are.
Having said my piece as well as I believe I can, I will now merely express my hearty agreement with the great bulk of this post.
How long, O Lord?
At around 7:15 the abortionist talks about how it’s so neat that there’s a woman who likes to dig around the baby carcases to try and find organs, especially hearts. “I just have so much respect for [baby organ] development”, she tells us.
We are literally killing our babies for our own convenience and then ripping out their hearts for our own enjoyment. God help us all.
“We are literally killing our babies for our own convenience and then ripping out their hearts for our own enjoyment. God help us all”
No, “we’re” doing no such thing. Sluts and whores are doing that, but if anyone calls them sluts and whores, let alone murderers, Christians denounce them for being hateful. Wilson’s pal Sumpter writes them open letter telling them that when we condemn abortion as murder, he hopes we didn’t hurt their feelings.
Let’s never forget that men are involved in every abortion. Whether through abandonment or control or cultural indoctrination men are responsible for leading women to do this.
This is of course not to say that women aren’t culpable and that such as you reference aren’t also committing abortions, but we must also avoid the trap of sounding like Adam (“The woman thou gavest me, blame HER”)
“Let’s never forget that men are involved in every abortion. Whether through abandonment or control or cultural indoctrination men are responsible for leading women to do this.”
Because women are inherently virtuous and if they do evil it can only be because a man has forced them into it. This is the kind of thinking that led to the removal of cultural, religious, and legal restraints on the actions of women. Abortion, promiscuity, bastardy, all exploded when men relinquished social control over women. Your view of women is unbiblical and flies in the face of observable reality.
A woman can’t get an abortion if a man didn’t get her pregnant.
It takes two. 1,2. Women don’t do this by themselves. Men don’t do this by themselves.
Women got pregnant under patriarchy. They got pregnant by their husbands and rarely got abortions. Women have proven to be unable to handle having full responsibility over their own sex lives. A woman who chooses to have sex with irresponsible men who have made no commitment to her should have little expectation of a marriage proposal should she become pregnant. Aside from that, most of those women would reject the offer anyway. They chose abortion or single motherhood.
The men chose to get pregnant, women they knew they weren’t married to. The men knew they were having sex.
You know why Susan B. Anthony, a feminist, was pro-life, don’t you? Women certainly were having abortions, dangerous ones, under patriarchy.
“Women have proven to be unable to handle having full responsibility over their own sex lives.”
BALONEY.
How many deaths will it take to prove me right? I don’t expect women such as yourself to willingly give up the power your sisters have so murderously abused. I do expect the social consequences will be dire enough that patriarchy returns by means of general social instability and violence.
You think I wouldn’t willingly give up abortion on demand? Barnabas, I’ve never had an abortion. I never would. I don’t want any woman to. I don’t know who you are arguing with but apparently she’s made of straw, whoever she is.
And let me back up that baloney.
I am a woman.
I have never had an abortion, nor have I ever put myself in the position of contemplating one.
So you can take your “proven to be unable” crap and stuff it.
But better tens of millions die then you be put under the authority of your father or husband in the manner that all your female ancestors were.
You have this gross caricature of all women that I think you ought to consider repenting of.
It is quite Biblical.
If I thought that being under the authority of my husband would stop women I don’t know from having abortions, I’d do it. You have entirely failed to connect the dots there.
You skipped over how abortions were had while patriarchy was in full swing.
I think he was generalizing. Women in general make poor mating decisions when not under a wise man’s guidance – whether or not he actually has any veto power over her actions. Men are also generally unwise, but tend to be limited more in their choice of sexual partners than women. Most men are dolts who can barely communicate with women, let alone seduce them. Historically within the English-speaking peoples most men would marry only if they were able to establish themselves. Patriarchy, for all its faults, tends to steer more women into marriage with dependable men who will provide… Read more »
To say “Women have proven to be unable to handle having full responsibility over their own sex lives.” is an insult to every woman. Even women who had fathers who looked out for them, because the implication is that without those fathers the women would be abandoned sluts. Many of us are chaste simply because we are upright people. We are not cats in heat, relying on wise men to keep us shut indoors so we don’t go indiscriminately having sex with anyone sniffing around. Please note that the Ashley Madison hack revealed that, despite the lies told by the… Read more »
Well said.
“Please note that the Ashley Madison hack revealed that, despite the lies told by the folks that ran that site, that the members were evenly split between the sexes, virtually all of the account holders were men looking to have illicit affairs. ” But that is the point: Most women can have sex at any time. Women do not need an Ashley Madison to commit adultery. A minority of men don’t either, but most men simply do not have the skill it takes to seduce women. An average woman can choose to have sex with lots of people (more and… Read more »
What you’re saying is that men are always ready to have sex, and women are more discriminating. I don’t see how you get from that, to women (not men) demonstrating that they can’t control their sexuality responsibly.
No it’s not. I’m saying women’s fathers are more discriminating. Given the opportunity a majority of women choose promiscuity of a sort only available to a small minority of men at the top of the totem pole. That is why it is not necessarily sexist to advocate strict controls on female sexuality.
Your comment is bizarre.
No it’s not. You simply don’t understand the present realities of American society.
You understand that I live in America. Why would you be better placed to understand American society than I am?
You are too old and too blinded by your emotions to make an honest judgement. You think this is a moral issue instead of a policy issue made necessary by nature.
What has my age got to do with nature? If it’s nature, I can’t be too old to see it. Also, when you say “women”, you are including me. Your mother and grandmother, if they are living. Again, how can I be too old to see this? I didn’t stop being a woman when I turned thirty. Finally, there is a complete logic fail when you say most women are more promiscuous than 90% of men. If greater than 50% of women are confining ourselves to 10% of the male population, obviously we are less promiscuous, not more. Somebody has… Read more »
You are completely incapable of forming a logical thought.
And how about this gem: “If greater than 50% of women are confining ourselves to 10% of the male population, obviously we are less promiscuous, not more.” Haha.
Look up the word “promiscuous” in the dictionary. Hint: It doesn’t mean “having premarital sex”.
Irrelevant.
Here are some stats for you.
Percentage of men and women 15-44 years of age who have had five or more opposite sex partners in the past 12 months
Median number of opposite-sex partners in lifetime among men and women aged 25-44 years of age 2002, 2006-2010 and 2011-2013
More evidence that women are less promiscuous than men, especially if we accept your premise that women can have all the sex they want.
Is your grievance that *you* are not getting all the sex with various attractive women that you think you are entitled to?
“Is your grievance that *you* are not getting all the sex with various attractive women that you think you are entitled to?”
I was fully prepared to answer you, but this annoys me. Not only do you keep switching the goalposts, but you accuse me in your snide, passive-aggressive way. You are a wretched, stupid little creature. I feel sorry for your children.
I feel nothing but contempt for you and pity for the men that know you. Our discussion is done, Laura.
I don’t know what else your grievance could be. Apparently you don’t either.
Oh, one more thing. When you talk about strict controls on women’s sexuality, you mean men controlling women’s sexuality, right? How convenient for you that would be. And should women, in turn, put strict controls on men’s sexuality? Of course we should. We can’t let you all languish in sin.
This is what Jesus came for, right? To lock us all down under strict controls.
See, you are can’t even see that patriarchy is not a moral issue.
If it’s not a moral issue, then why are so many people here pushing it as God’s plan for the human race?
I’m convinced that patriarchy isn’t a moral issue. That’s why I am comfortable in setting it aside.
I don’t answer for them. Patriarchy is practical.
I wonder what kind of women you are meeting. I would really question whether the majority of women would choose promiscuity even if it is freely available. I think women are hardwired to find promiscuous, uncommitted sex depressing and even degrading. (I also think that many men feel the same way about it.)
That is one of the reasons why so many women are on antidepressants.
80% of suicides are men. If men has as much self-insight as women, those suicidal men would be on antidepressants too.
Irrelevant to the question of female sexuality.
Relevant to the implication that women are depressed in greater numbers than men are.
Entirely beside the point and not at all addressed to you.
Women are hardwired to want commitment in return for sex but they are also hardwired to be attracted to the most attractive men. If society tells them that seeking the commitment of a man makes them less strong and independent then they will be more likely to have random hookups or a non-exclusive relationship with a college athlete rather than marry an average guy. More and more the trend is for women to chose the option of promiscuity and marry in the final years before their looks and fertility fail.
Without the restraints imposed by civilization (judgmental mean stuff) people will behave sexually like animals do. Men will display and women will chose a mate. Women will tend to chose the same few mates and many males will not mate at all. If a man wakes up one morning and says “I will be promiscuous today” he may still not have any sex at all. He generally doesn’t do the choosing. If even and average woman does the same thing she may have 10 sexual partners before the day is out. Now you can pass moral judgement against the men… Read more »
“Women will tend to chose the same few mates”
Didn’t you just say that the desire for commitment is soldered into women? The wiring is for commitment to men who are also committed to other women, is that how that works?
Women aren’t circuit boards.
“Attracted to the most attractive” is a tautology.
I have to disagree with this idea that most men aren’t capable of seducing a woman. I am a practicing physician, and I see equal problems with multiple sexual partners among the men and women I see. These men and women come from all socioeconomic and educational classes. I don’t see any tendency toward one or two groups of people being responsible for most problems with sexual sin. The simple fact is all men and all women are fallen, and here in the US sex is exalted as one of the supreme values, and so it is sought aggressively without… Read more »
I agree for the most part. Practically speaking, I and others have noticed a system of soft-polygamy forming as the culture degenerates (where most men are relative losers).
Maybe if you’d read my comment, instead of reacting to the first part. Let’s look at the account of the fall, for simplicity’s sake: Eve sinned. Her fault. Adam was supposed to lead her (and squish the dragon). He didn’t. His fault. As the leader, he takes fault first. His failure when God showed up was in blaming her for what was his fault. I believe a clear Biblical understanding of leadership means that the sins of those you lead reflect on you at least to some extent. Again (and again), not to say that a wife/daughter’s sin is not… Read more »
Related: I get peeved when Christian men run around blaming women for being so rebellious.
Ignoring the fact that most men have been such a terrible example of leaders that it’s no wonder women feel a bit queasy about sitting in the passenger seat.
(Again, not saying that bad leaders mean women SHOULD lead, but rather that we ought to be one hefty lot more sympathetic to why they feel the need to, and apply just a tad more responsibility to our side of the equation)
You have some good insight.
I don’t have to run the show. I really don’t. But if I see that something needs to be done, and I look around and no one’s doing it, I’m going to step up. If people don’t want me to lead, they can get there first.
Because of weak leadership women forgo marriage in favor of promiscuous sex and murder the resulting children. Those women really wanted to remain chaste and settle down with godly men but they couldn’t find any. If pastors would only do a better job of shaming the men in their congregations then the sluts walking into abortion clinic would stop getting knocked up by drug dealers. They wouldn’t “feel the need.” I agree that its a failure in leadership but not in the sense you’re thinking. Leaving aside child murdering women I also have no sympathy for the so called queasiness… Read more »
Imagine a car driving down the road, and the man is driving. The car is swerving all over the road as he goes where his whims take him, never caring for responsibility for those in the car or those outside the car. His wife after some time insists that perhaps she should take the wheel. Man reacts by screaming about the monstrous regiment of women attempting to wrest authority. It seems pretty clear to me. Men are supposed to lead, but by and large we don’t want to, and too few people are trying to make us. And then women… Read more »
That’s such a retarded analogy it’s difficult to know how to respond.
It’s a great analogy. I only disagree with it in that I don’t think it’s a sin for the woman to take the wheel. If her life, and his life, and other folks’ lives, are at risk due to his failure to appropriately control the car, it would be a sin for her not to.
I think I’m going to steal “one hefty lot.”
Doug likes to say that the only thing women hate more than leading is no one leading. I’m not entirely certain how true that is in a woman’s experience, but it does seem to fit this situation.
“Let’s never forget that men are involved in every abortion.”
Nonsense. Millions of sluts have killed their babies when the father of the child had no idea she was even pregnant.
Men may be involved in every pregnancy, but pregnancy and abortion are two very different things. Men are most certainly NOT involved in every abortion.
Is there anything so ridiculous that Christians won’t say it in an attempt to deflect blame from the murderous whores who hire someone to slice up their unborn child?
Nearly all Christians today, even “patriarchy advocates”, are actually radical left wing feminists.
This is basically what I’m hearing:
“Behold Lord, these whores thou gavest us. They led us to sin, while behold we knew nothing of their plans, and anyway were too incapable to stop it.”
Or a New Testament variant, “I thank thee, Lord, that I am not as these women, who are always at fault for everything.”
“Nonsense. Millions of sluts have killed their babies when the father of the child had no idea she was even pregnant.”
If only men knew when they were having sex. If only they could control when and how they did it.
Laura, Stoney likes to drop “baits”, via crazy comments to see if he can generate a really crazy, off point thread. Don’t take the bait. Just tell him “nice try”.
Thanks. I try not to feed trolls but sometimes I slip up.
;-) wow Laura! It’s almost like folks here are becoming a team, desipite honest differences!
Who Is Lord around here anyway? Oh! Right! ; – )
Exactly. Men may not be directly involved, in every last instance, in the the abortion *itself*, (although often they are), but if they are involved enough to get someone pregnant, especially if it’s a promiscuous woman they aren’t married to, then they are plenty involved enough be culpable.
You are exhibiting the failure of leadership you blame others for. Women are killing their children. Calling them to task IS leadership.
Calling them to task is leadership, as is calling an adulterous woman to task.
But calling the adulterous woman to task while leaving the adulterous man *out* of the equation is a sin. That is a failure of leadership, and from all I see from Stone, that’s what he wants to do.
You criticize men not because that is something that is lacking in our society, you do it because it is socially acceptable. To actually call a slut a slut is not. You want to pretend that we have a 50% divorce rate because men leave their wives for their secretaries and we have abortions because cruel men force it on women. You have no evidence for this because those are exceptions, not the norm. Abortion and divorce were once uncommon because they were considered socially shameful and abhorrent. They will be common until women are once again shamed and shunned… Read more »
Wouldn’t it be nice if we could just shame men harder and reverse the sexual revolution without sounding mean. The reason that will not work is that the majority of women are already having sex with a minority of men. By that I mean that a large portion of single men aren’t having sex at all while a small population of men have sex with several different women a week. If you successfully shamed 90% of men out of having premarital sex then women will be quite happy to go on having sex with the remaining 10%. Patriarchal men didn’t… Read more »
I can’t argue with someone who refuses to see that men are primarily responsible for the mess we’re in, or comprehend that in saying so I am not in any way excusing the sins of women.
You want proof? The Bible. Try giving it a few read-through’s.
Certainly men are responsible. They are responsible because they allow and encourage women to act like prostitutes and refuse to take the responsibility to prevent such a thing. I’m responsible if my children shoplift but that doesn’t mean anything if I don’t teach my children that stealing is shameful and punish them severely if they engage in it.
Either you missed the part where I agreed from the beginning that women are also responsible for their actions, and in point of fact Stonekirk was trying to absolve men by saying it’s essentially all the women’s fault, or you’re still playing attempting to prove “either-or” responsibility in what is clearly a “both-and” situation.
Kevin, give Barnabas your ear and try to understand his argument. While Christian men have been tut-tutting for decades other Christian men have given some serious brain cycles to ‘game’ and the approach is legitimate and widespread. There are two sides to it (that I see) 1. The secular mano-sphere uses this to bed women. Therefore, in your ministry you will have to deal with the concepts presented. 2. Christian men, the NRx guys being a subset, have taken what these guys have learned and are looking at the mess we see around us from that game perspective and note… Read more »
“If you successfully shamed 90% of men out of having premarital sex then women will be quite happy to go on having sex with the remaining 10%.”
What percentage of women would the 10% be having sex with?
I presume you have your own statistics that prove that the majority of women get abortions because they just darn well please and nothing at all to do with the man leaving or coercing enters in? Somehow you keep missing the fact that I’m saying it’s also the woman’s fault because you want, presumably, to make it out that it’s not the man’s fault. It’s both. 2 out of 5 women cite pornography as a reason for divorce, so using your statistic that means that 40% of divorces at minimum are as a result of the man’s failure to lead,… Read more »
“You make it sound as though abortion and divorce became respectable because WOMEN wanted them to be so, when human nature, Scripture, and undoubtedly most of the statistics indicate that men prefer not to be tied down by such things as wives and children.” You have a corrupt understanding of both scripture and human nature. Those things DID become respectable because women made them so. You might want to check out a timeline of the women’s movement in relation to divorce and abortion as well as who the leaders were and who tend to vote for such things. In a… Read more »
Just to clarify, for men there are rare and few cads who use women, but the greater part of the population of women are rampantly causing the end of civilization? Men had nothing to do with making abortion and divorce respectable?
What about when men lust after women? Probably just the feminist movement’s fault for allowing women to show off their bodies?
“Men had nothing to do with making abortion and divorce respectable?” Do I even need to point out the fallacy here?
“What about when men lust after women?” The lusts of men were checked by other men, through law, social sanction and violence. It was the foolish belief that women have no natural lust and that social and legal restrictions on women were arbitrary and ignorant that led us to where we are today.
They were checked so hard that prostitution was pretty much non-existent in Victorian (and prior) society…
Nice of you to join us Ian. They were checked when they attempted to encroach upon women held under protection and in bonds of duty to fathers, brothers and husbands and even the more extended community. The prostitutes you mention were prostitutes because of particular social circumstances which found them outside that patriarchal protection. Under feminism all women are potential prostitutes and prostitution is celebrated by academic feminists.
I agree completely that the celebration of prostitution and casual fornication by academic (and mainstream) feminists is a great evil. I am more than a bit troubled by the fact that you say men checked other men’s sexual sin. Sure, they checked other men preying on their own women, but a Christian society should check men preying on any woman. Just because a women is debased (or self-debased – while I’m believe that I think more prostitutes were victims than you do, I do believe many prostitutes were wicked, and all of them, victims or not, were sinning) and without… Read more »
That may have been true for the United States, but it was not true for Victorian England. Prostitution was widespread in Victorian London to a degree unimaginable to us today. In 1857 the police estimated that there were at least 8,700 plying their trade in London alone.
Ah, whoops. I was being satirical of Barnabas’s historical claims. I am fully aware (and grieve) the horrible abuse of women (and self-debasement, in some cases) through prostitution in a supposedly Christian nation, and wanted to point out that Barnabas’s claim that men checked the lusts of men in a patriarchal society was ridiculous.
Why is it so hard to detect irony online? It has happened to me many times when something I said as obvious satire has been taken seriously. To their credit, the Victorians did try to fix this, but were successful only when other lines of work became available to single women. Which would certainly not tend to support Barnabas’ thesis.
Well, much as I (truly and honestly, without irony) dislike supporting Barnabas’s claims, I think there is some merit to the idea that a solution to prostitution was tried that attempted to fill the place of the missing father or husband. Charles Dickens formed a house, under his protection, of former prostitutes, attempting to have give them jobs, get them married, or otherwise given a second chance.
In that society, it was very unusual for a woman to be able to support herself and her children in an honorable way.
I have a book, The Lion and the Unicorn, about Gladstone and Disraeli. Gladstone was a complex man. He was a member of a charitable society and he sincerely wanted to help prostitutes – and he did help them – but he was also irresistibly drawn to them sexually, over and over, and he hated himself for it. He had ten (I think) children with his wife, as well. It’s a wonder he didn’t give her syphilis. In his diary he wrote about a day when he went to the usual haunts and saw a woman he knew, and he… Read more »
I knew about his rescue work with fallen women, but is it certain that he actually slept with them? What I have read seems to leave that in doubt, although he certainly derived improper sexual satisfaction from spending time with them. He was a tortured soul who regularly scourged himself for his sexual sins. Are you familiar with Gladstone v. Wright? After his death, a man named Wright wrote publicly that Gladstone had consorted with prostitutes. Under English law, you can’t libel a dead man, so Gladstone’s sons provoked Wright into suing them for slander (or libel, I can’t remember… Read more »
I don’t think anyone in their social circle would have thought it proper at all for his wife to mix with such people.
On the contrary, jobs for single women are plentiful and harlotry in London has never been more common. Only the fees are much lower. The exception being those immigrant populations of London who still live in patriarchal subcultures.
Out of curiosity, which immigrant subcultures in specific do you hold up as admirable?
I hold up as admirable their daughters not acting like whores. The English should take a lesson from them….and then drive them back into their home countries.
So…all of them? The dirty aliens. With their chaste ways. Out with them! (To clarify, the “all of them” refers to your admiration, not shock that you want them all gone. The latter shocks me not at all.)
I wish them all the best in their own lands but I suppose England is a propositional nation now as well. Isn’t the current topic broad enough?
I’m just sitting here trying to figure out where to reattach my head after it spun around several times trying to follow your response.
Also, this is not an argument, but I’m more than a little bothered by the fact that you apparently admire Islam’s treatment of women.
Yeah, its a shame that the Marxist shambles you call your Christian faith requires you to pay them to take over previously civilized Western nations.
Liberte! Egalite! Fraternite! (Said me never.) :)
Isn’t this timely? http://voxday.blogspot.com/2015/10/mailvox-blaming-victim.html
With large Muslim populations, both England and Canada have a significant problem with honor killings. Do you see this as an inevitable outcome of fathers controlling their daughters’ sexuality in a culture in which profound shame attaches even to immodesty, let alone fornication?
Christendom managed to do the job without honor killings but not without any social shaming or other consequences. We have almost no honor killings but we also have no concept of honor. Muslims are a lost people and suffer from many different social pathologies but that being said, how many honor killings did England have last year? Were there twenty? There were 1.06 million abortions in America in 2011.
Funny you were all prepared quite disingenuously confront me with some pathological aspect of their culture until I said that they should go home and suddenly they were sainted again.
Sainted? Not at all. That your response to them is wicked does not make them righteous.
That your response to them is wicked does not make them righteous.
/facepalm
Feminists including Christian feminists seek to maximize female sexual
autonomy and will be happy to use the State or white knights such as
yourself to see that the consequences of that autonomy are shouldered by
the community at large.
That. This describes welfare-queens and baby-daddies and defenders of that system to a ‘t’.
Eve.
Divorce became common when it became convenient, and especially for women. Pornography is not the most common reason for women seeking divorce, and probably not as common the statistic you cite. Chalking up every marital problem men’s “failure to lead” is feminist-complimentarian canard. In any case, divorce and male lust wont’ fly as an excuse for woman having an abortion, and only women have them.
From the beginning, then, we’re disagreeing. I think the language of Genesis is fairly clear on Adam being with her and failing to lead her or fight/slay the dragon. Eve was the first to *act* but for her to be deceived involved Adam failing to lead her. I think this is why part of the curse was Eve’s “desire for her husband” or desire to take his place (Unlike RHE, I of course don’t believe that “he will rule over you” is the curse, but rather that she would bridle under the already established rule) – Adam, as with most… Read more »
Yes, Eve was the first to “act”. Paul calls her action sin (1 Timothy 2:14). I’ll take his word for it. Blaming Eve’s sin on Adam’s failure to lead is hammering the Biblical narrative into the shape of a preferred narrative. Eve sinned and Adam sinned and both were without excuse.
Thank you John for catching that one.
And yet sin entered the world through Adam (Romans 5:12)
Was Adam not supposed to lead Eve by God’s design, and did he not fail in leadership in allowing her to be deceived by the serpent – all the more so because he was “with her”?
Eve’s sin was not absolved by his failure, but if Adam had carried out his duty she would not have sinned. They both sinned, but Adam failed first.
Romans 5:12 demonstrates patrilineality. Nothing it tells us makes Eve’s sin not sin. Nothing in scripture attributes Eve’s actions to Adam’s “failure to lead”; that part you added. To say Adam failed first is to suggest that Eve did not fail at all, whereas you acknowledge she did sin. If you make a distinction between sinned and failed it is a false one.
Was Adam’s failure to lead a sin? If so, then he sinned before he ate the fruit, right? Honest questions here.
I think yes. God told Adam the rules, and Adam essentially stood by to see what would happen when Eve broke them.
This presentation of Adam present and silent during the temptation of Eve has become a very popular teaching on Genesis of late.
“Divorce became common when it became convenient, and especially for women”
I really don’t think history or the Bible shows that women are predominantly the ones desiring divorce. Though, to be fair, I think men give women more than enough cause through our lack of self-control.
No, the Bible doesn’t show what has been happening over the last 40-50 years in the U.S. Recent American history does though. So you counsel women to get divorced pretty regularly? I mean them having more than enough cause and all.
Setting an example by keeping your pants zipped is also leadership.
‘Let’s never forget that men are involved in every abortion. Whether through abandonment or control or cultural indoctrination men are responsible for leading women to do this”
Oh yea and p.s., another tenet of modern Christo-feminism. MEN are responsible for getting the poor darling preggers, by abandoning them to lives of poverty lie yadda lie.
U.S. females have zero responsibility for their own behavior. Not too Christian there! Sounds more like romanticist detritus of Gnosticism. Yeah Kevin you’d make a great ‘pastor’ of a modern American Feel Good Freehouse that they now call churches.
I find it immensely disheartening that one can be shouted down by Christians simply for implying that men also have guilt for abortion, and for making the “shocking” statement that leaders take responsibility first.
We have become fools if we believe that we can blame these sins on “those feminists” or “the woman” and ignore the role we play.
Ray, you really don’t understand. I’m praying for you.
Somebody disagreeing with you isn’t ‘shouting’, little boy. You’re just another emasculated western Religionista.
And YOU are praying for ME. LOL Then you tell me that I ‘don’t understand’.
LOL!!
If you believe taking responsibility is emasculation, then you have no concept of Christian leadership. I can’t argue with someone who won’t be a responsible leader.
You are not authorized to sit in judgment of me, little boy. No more than you are authorized to preach. Yeah right, women committing millions of abortions is due to . . . Mean Bad Men leading and forcing them to do it. Can’t be a female’s fault, gotta find some Other Guy to blame. Then you call your cowardice ‘responsibility’. Whether I am responsible and/or a leader is for the King to decide, when the time comes. You and your fellow castrati aren’t taking responsibility, you’re licking the Pradas of your wives and daughters and your Jezebel society. Then… Read more »
Fascinating…
“Again, the kingdom of heaven is like a NET that was thrown into the sea and gathered fish of every kind. When it was full, men drew it ashore and sat down and sorted the good into containers but threw away the bad. So it will be at the end of the age. The angels will come out and separate the evil from the righteous and throw them into the fiery furnace. In that place there will be weeping and gnashing of teeth.” (Matthew 13, emphasis added)
Eph. 4:29-32 “Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear. And do not grieve the Holy Spirit of God, by whom you were sealed for the day of redemption. Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, as God in Christ forgave you.” Rom. 15:1-2 “We who are strong have an obligation to bear with the… Read more »
“He that is not with me is against me, and he that gathereth not with me scattereth.
Therefore I say unto you, Every sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men; but the blasphemy against the Spirit shall not be forgiven.
And whosoever shall speak a word against the Son of man, it shall be forgiven him; but whosoever shall speak against the Holy Spirit, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in that which is to come.” (Matthew 12)
You keep it right on up, boy.
Well, I’m not sure what that verse had to do with our discussion here.
Oh well. It was good to share Bible verses. Here’s one of my personal favorites:
“This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners; of whom I am chief.” – 1 Tim. 1:15
Gosh stoney! Isn’t it great that you are so much better than them sluts and whores?
I bet they gather taxes too!
Maybe someday everyone else can be as “awesome” as you! ; – )
(Oh, but you are not “hateful”, just a bit dull.)
“A” dad,
Please read my comments above urging careful consideration of these ideas.
T’, my comment to stoney was suggesting that he sounds a lot more like a pharisee than anything else. I don’t think he is offering any honest ideas.
Do you think his comments are anything other than calculated and disingenuous?
I do not think he is being disingenuous.
Typical Stone Kirk comment:
“That’s such a retarded analogy it’s difficult to know how to respond.”
Tim, Stoney spouts comments like this a lot. As I mentioned to Laura earlier:
“Laura, Stoney likes to drop “baits”, via crazy comments to see if he can generate a really crazy, off point thread. Don’t take the bait. Just tell him “nice try”.”
Tim, I was letting Stoney know I was on to him.
What with me being “A” dad of an atypical needs child, anyone like stoney who uses the “r” word is suspect.
It is a very offensive word. I expect the anti-PC crew will now pour scorn on my head, but sometimes it is not a question of bowing to political correctness. It’s a question of avoiding inflicting unnecessary pain.
Hi “A” dad, You may have a point. I commented on his “did you mean African American darkness instead of black darkness’ quip and only after I commented did I realize it was entirely off topic. I was reacting to the out-of-hand rejection of the ‘sexual-realism’/’game’ reasoning and defended Stone on that basis. I continue to hope that you try to understand their p.o.v before rejecting it out of hand. It is a growing body of thought and it is intellectually rigorous. It will endure and the “white knites” of Christianity are but chum to these guys (rightly so, in… Read more »
As C. S. Lewis said, “A cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to Hell than a prostitute.” I think he went on to say something like, “But of course it is better to be neither.”
Of course, in this case, it would be more appropriately stated: “A cold, self-righteous prig who goes regularly to church may be far nearer to Hell than a murderous slut who pays someone $200 to carve up her unborn child.”
Frankly, I’ll take a cold, self-righteous prig over a slut who pays a man to carve up her baby. Any day of the week.
YMMV.
Gosh, A! Isn’t it great that you are so much better than those doctors who perform the abortions? I bet they gather taxes, too!
Gosh, A! Isn’t it great that you are so much better than those terrorists who behead people? I bet they gather taxes, too!
Gosh, A! Isn’t it great that you are so much better than those gays who sue people for refusing to bake their wedding cake? I bet they gather taxes, too!
My, A, but you’re clever! Which seminary did you attend?
Oh poor stoney, you got called out for making manipulative and gratuitously sanctimonious comments and now you throw a hissy fit because you are busted. Are your feelings hurt too? Well, in any case you are still busted so you will probably have to change your DISQUS name to keep doing what you do. Hmmm, let’s see instead of “Stone Kirk” you could change to “pebbles”. While appropriate, that might be too subtle, especially for you. Here, I know! You could change your DISQUS name from “Stone Kirk” to “Stone Jerk”, even you would get it! Pretty clever huh? And… Read more »
Hissy fit? I pointed out how idiotic your point of view is.
If criticizing women who hire someone to slice up their unborn babies is sanctimonious and Pharisaical, then why isn’t it sanctimonious and Pharisaical to criticize those who do the actual slicing? Or to criticize homosexuals who demand that people bake their wedding cake?
Come on Stoney, give it up. you are still busted, and always will be.
Your comments point out your own pettyness pretty clearly.
It is OK to hate sin, not OK to hate sinners.
Otherwise we would all have to hate ourselves.
Matthew 12:7
7 But if you had known what this means, ‘I desire compassion, and not a sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Anyway, let me bless you with a goading poem, to try and poke you to a better frame of mind, heart and spirit.
“Stone heart”
“Stone kirk”
“Stone jerk”!
I do hope you don’t do sidewalk counseling at the abortion clinic! I simply can’t imagine how being called a slut or a whore would make a girl with a crisis pregnancy want to trust the Christians who might otherwise persuade her to choose life.
” I simply can’t imagine how being called a slut or a whore would make a girl with a crisis pregnancy want to trust the Christians who might otherwise persuade her to choose life.” Of course I don’t do “sidewalk counseling”. It bothers me not a bit when sluts and whores get abortions. You’re concerned with dead babies, when millions of out wedlock births destroy entire societies? You need to read your Bible and get your priorities straight. And, besides, if you really want to reduce the number of abortions, you need to start calling promiscuous women sluts and whores.… Read more »
There is no doubt that I need to read my Bible, but I am wondering which version you are reading. You really don’t oppose abortion, but condemn out of wedlock births?
I think Stone Kirk is The Onion of commenters.
I’m really puzzled at all the troll feeding for this one. It’s clear they’re not interested in engaging, or even terribly coherent.
You both have a point, and every situation calls for discernment; I’d refer back to Pastor Wilson’s distinction between refugees from the world and apostles of the world. Some of the women those sidewalk counselors encounter will be receptive to the Gospel; others are hard-hearted whores. Christian love requires not confusing one group with the other.
Right, Stone.
Abortion on demand is the fundamental plank in feminism. It’s a A Woman’s Choice — the controlling ‘spiritual’ value in u.s. society the past four decades. In reality and practice, A Woman’s Choice supersedes all other values, commandments, and dilemmas in American culture. So it’s the national deity, figure-headed by the Statue of Liberty. Yeah America’s female became liberated and everything went straight down quickly thereafter, beginning with mass broken families and excluded/degraded fatherhood.
So here’s a snippet from Prov 24: “Rescue those who are being taken away to death; hold back those who are stumbling to the slaughter. If you say, “Behold, we did not know this,” does not he who weighs the heart perceive it? Does not he who keeps watch over your soul know it, and will he not repay man according to his work?” The question that keeps perplexing me is how we as Christians rescue those who are being taken away to death? I don’t think it’s bombing an abortion clinic (that is beyond our authority under Rom. 13),… Read more »
Given that the mothers are willing participants, taking away the source of the abortions only helps one side of the equation. Even if we shut down PP (or any other clinics,) women will still find themselves in unwanted pregnancy situations. Local pregnancy resource centers are doing the daily work of talking women out of abortions and showing them their other options. It’s a slow, one person at a time process but it is effective as God often works one heart at a time. Only he can change hearts. I encourage you to go visit your closest PRC and be encouraged… Read more »
Thanks, Kelty – very good advice!
I think you’ll be very encouraged by what you see there. I certainly have been!
Lexi, you sound like a guy. I am a guy. Do you have any guy friends who are sexualy active outside of marriage? Jesus spoke to a woman at a well. That woman was sexually active out side of marriage. Jesus did not clobber her, he engaged her in conversation and brought her around to the good side of the living water. You and I are not quite Jesus, but we are supposed top be getting more like Him. Rescuing those staggering away to slaughter is often really hard, but look for ways to do that on an individual level.… Read more »
Hello, A dad. Sorry for the delay in responding. Yes, I indeed am a guy. I appreciate your response. I agree with your point, but the only nagging I have in my gut is this – I think there is a difference between seeing somebody about to kill another and seeing somebody who is committing adultery. I think there is a bit more urgency to the former, and that’s a bit of a different scenario than Jesus talking to the woman at the well. If the woman at the well were about to drop her baby into the well, I… Read more »
Good questions Lex, even within our agreement about the principle. One thought is that God Himself is, or is not holding our friends back from sin. The Father of the prodigal son, let the boy go. The Father was still around when the boy came back to have his pieces put back together. The other thing is, while I don’t think of my self as a big prayer warrior, we can always appeal to God when it seems like we can’t do anything else. Let’s hope we remember to pray for each other, and the folks who comment on this… Read more »
Ummm….don’t you mean “African-American damnation”?
I’m really not sure whether you’re a liberal pretending to be a caricature of a patriarchy advocate, or one who self-consciously actually believes the vitriol you’re posting here today… Agreeing that we all have this blood on our hands is not white-washing the sin. Failures of leadership in no way excuse failures of the followers. The blind lead the blind into the ditch. Pretending that our ghastly cultural morass is the fault of all the adulterous women over there (John 8) without recognizing that the hands holding the stones are stained with infant’s blood is foolish. We did this. Biblical… Read more »
That would also be responsability for correcting the problem not merely figuring out who created the problem.
^ All of this.
I think it was a reference to the majority of abortions (either by absolute or percentage measurements) going to African Americ—screw it, they are American’s–going to black women. Interestingly, the feedback mechanisms both Stone and Barnabas mention above are abundantly clear in that culture. Men are not needed, there is little marriage, lots of baby-daddies and a feminized state paying for it all. Again, lend an ear to what Barnabase and Stone are saying. This stuff is only going to get more important as time goes by (barring God’s judgement and a massive change of hearts, which I believe is… Read more »
“White-washing” … don’t you mean “Western European Caucasian washing”?
(Sorry, had to play the Stone Kirk “I don’t understand metaphors” game.)
Nice try on the “plant” Stoney, but I think Wilson actually means “All-American damnation”.
“In the previous post I mentioned in passing that the hacked release of
the CMP video was heroic. But one person in the comments took issue
with the lawbreaking involved…..”
I like to think of Peter who once wrongly lopped off a man’s ear. My point being, stuff happens and none of us are perfect. Much like the pharisees did, some of us get so busy arguing for the law, we can miss the Lawmaker standing right in our midst.
Attn K2! No fair, you went to law school, so you already know the answer. So let this one play out, OK?. ;). Secular law rears its ugly head yet again . . . woman gets raped. Her dad and two of her bros find the perp, beat him to a pulp, he signs a confession. Drag his bleeding, messy hide to the sheriff. Turn in him and the confession. DA presses charges on the perp, but not on the dad/bros. They go home, perp can’t make bail, trial, the dad and both bros all admit they beat the confession… Read more »
Not gov agents so no 5th issues.
Ding-Ding-Ding. We have a winner!
Unless the DA somehow (forget THIS Dept of “Justice”) told the staffer to leak it, it’s admissible as evidence against the dr in the video.
I will have to toss a flag down on myself; I have an advantage from decades of writing search and arrest warrants.
Then we have three lawyers (active or retired) on the blog. K2 is a former (left law for something else) and I’m a retired, although I barely practiced and only touched one crim case.
Going off air until after supper. Must help w/booth at a convention.
Sir! I protest, why would you accuse me so harshly. ;)
Not a lawyer, and did not stay at a Holiday Inn Express either.
;). Come home, Bill Bailey – – all is forgiven?
Nothing to forgive…I enjoy your posts.
Not everybody does . . . I was halfway expecting to instead get another lecture on my unwillingness and/or inability to distinguish first things from second things. At bottom, we believers either have to voluntarily convince a majority of our neighbors to see things our way, or we have to win the next civil war . . . which I submit any fair-minded person must pray does not happen. FWIW, my read of recent events is that the status quo (“Ruling Class” by Codevilla) is firmly in control, albeit worried that their hands are weakening. PP surely has nothing to… Read more »
“… convince a majority of our neighbors…”
Quite often it is as difficult to convince other Christians. Continue the mission.
Reading this blog and the comments, I feel I have stepped back in time into “The Twilight Zone”
If you want to see Twilight Zone stuff just watch the videos.
You mean how something obviously murderous and horrendous like the work of Planned Parenthood is treated as blasé and necessary by a complicit American culture? Oh yeah, that does sound like something Serling could work with.
Good stuff. It’s a strange truth that those who hear words like these and are filled with fear are the ones who have nothing to fear.
I was under the impression that this was a Christian blog site. Since reading the blog and the comments I realize I was wrong, please, all of you, read The Holy Bible. Whatever version you choose. May the Holy Spirit direct you to Jesus. My heart aches for you.
The blog and the comments are written by different people; careful judging as a whole.
He who asserts must prove… Therefore, what proof do you have that this is not a Christian blog? Cite pastor Wilson’s supposedly un-Christian writing, please, and show how (explicitly) they differ from the Bible.
Start at 1 Corinthians 13:1.
OK, what *specifically* did Doug Wilson say that is contradicted by 1 Corinthians 13:1?
Is Doug a pastor? Can you scripturally show that he us?
Do we scripturally need to show that he is. His denomination seems to think so. How did you get to this blog anyway?
This is quite clearly a christian blog.
Agreed. But so far Leslie hasn’t been able to substantiate her accusations that it’s not. Oh well. Trolls will be trolls.
I’m sorry, were you looking for the roped off section with the acoustic guitar playing Kum-by-ya? That’s nice. But please do note the lack of fainting couches in the room.
What on earth are you talking about? Seriously.
It us most interesting that Doug throws down the gauntlet and then lets the games begin . Kind of like “Let the odds be ever in your favor” sort of way. . But in a pseudo Christian-intellectual sort of way.
I don’t know which is more ridiculous; that you referenced The Hunger Games, or that you compare someone who just uploaded an illegal video to start a dialogue on national repentance to The Capitol and not the Mockingjay.
You say this was done in a “pseudo Christian intellectual way”. Care to elaborate?
Hiding runaway slaves broke secular law. Refusing to sit in the back of the bus broke secular law. Drinking out of the “white only” water fountain broke secular. Lying that Hebrew women give birth at exceptional speed broke secular law. I’m sure this group can think of another few zillion examples . . . .
Amen. Let us particularly focus on how abortion does not stand in isolation: much of Christian response to it has acted as if we can get rid of it and still keep the rest of secular liberal democratic society. Our repentance must be deep.
To poke at the edge of some of y’all’s comfort zones: who predicted the current state of society better — the advocates for, or opponents of women’s suffrage?
The last sentence had me laughing out loud. And I agree with you