Virgins and Volcanoes

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Introduction

There are only two “ways,” two fundamental religions in the world. One of them feeds people, and the other one eats people. We see this contrast in vivid relief in the juxtaposition that Mark gives to the death of John the Baptist. That sad but typical episode is followed immediately by the feeding of the five thousand.

“And brought his head in a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel gave it to her mother” (Mark 6:28).

“He answered and said unto them, Give ye them to eat.” (Mark 6:37).

At the banquet of the first king, the head of a preeminent saint was brought to him on a platter, on a serving dish. “Have all the workers of iniquity no knowledge? Who eat up my people as they eat bread, and call not upon the Lord” (Psalm 14:4). And in the next scene, at a banquet hosted by a completely different kind of king, all the people were invited to sit on the grass, and they were there fed by the prayer and power of that king, and the hands of his disciples.

Because people don’t like being devoured, various tricks have to be employed to keep them in a cooperative frame of mind. They have to be told something else is happening, or is going to happen. I hear Bernie Sanders was going to give everybody a free college education—all you have to do is agree to live in this little veal cage. As it happens, the one behind all of this is very good at lying. When he lies, Jesus tells us, he is speaking his native language (John 8:44). He is fluent in falsehood, and the people he cultivates in order to fill out his cupboards are gullible enough. As long as he keeps changing his story, they keep going along.

Keepers of the Volcano

So picture this devouring system as typified by the virgin and volcano set up. We can use that as place holder. It doesn’t always have to be virgins, just as it doesn’t always have to be volcanoes. But there must be blood. Someone has to be lied to. Someone has to be ripped off. Someone must be shredded. Someone must be pitched headlong.

A generation ago, the sexual revolution began with the demand that we “make love, not war.” It ended with us making war on the inconvenient children who resulted from all the lovemaking. It turns out we live in the world that God made, and not in the world we claimed we were making. We have killed 50 million so far, selling a number of them for parts. This is a religion driven by bloodlust. Abortion is not an aspect of this that the secularists wish they could get rid of. It is an essential part of the point. “Let’s keep abortion safe, legal, and sacramental.” This is also why policy shifts won’t get at the problem. This is a disease that can only be addressed through national repentance, and that cannot happen without a proclamation of the death of Jesus. His guiltblood is the only answer to our bloodguilt.

The blood of our innocents must be shed because this is how pagan temples are always built. Blood must be mixed with the mortar. But something else must be present as well. The lies must also continue. Killing is what they do, and lying is also what they do. As it works out, they can easily combine the two. The priests of this system have two basic jobs. The first is keep throwing virgins into the volcano. The second is to keep up an unrelenting stream of criticism of the Christians, heaping scorn on how we treat our virgins.

They slaughter virgins by the tens of thousands, and they also want to maintain their appointed role as the sole arbiter what constitutes respectful treatment of virgins. If you doubt that the system works in this way, then ask yourself what countries have a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council. Heh. That list of worthies includes, natcherly, China, Cuba, Saudi Arabia, and Venezuela. You will pardon me if I no longer go along with your little games? You know, because all of them are a Colossal Fraud?

So the secularists, the progressives, the enlightened among us, have flooded our nation with porn, have made it legal to chop babies up into little pieces, have appointed officials of a leering state to slip condoms to horny teenagers, have made it legal for two dudes to be united in the unholy bonds of same sex mirage, have made it illegal to object to such things, and have done whatever else they could to batter down any of the few remaining cultural restraints that have kept us from joining up with the cities of the plain.His guiltblood is the only answer to our bloodguilt.

AND they have taken it upon themselves to chide us for our “purity culture.” Taken to extremes, this concern of ours for purity might have a deleterious effect on our, ahem, virgins. We want them to be in good shape before their big day at the volcano.

Suppose I lived next door to a guy who was the original wife-beater, down to the T-shirt named after him. Not only so, but he was good at it—every time we called the cops on him, he (and she) would have a story that fully explained the newest black eye. So one day he happened to see us loading up the car to go to the church potluck, and he beckons me over. He explains that he noticed that the prepared hot dishes were being carried out the car by our womenfolk, and he wanted to know if that was on purpose. “Because,” he argued, “I think that going along with stereotypical roles like that does a disservice to women in the long run.”

Now even if there were a point here—there isn’t, but work with me—I don’t want to hear about it from a guy who punches his wife. Neither do I want an exceptionally nice Christian who lives across the street to admonish me about using terms like womenfolk in the previous paragraph—did you think that was an accident?—because our friend the thug might get the wrong impression. He might think that we think that mistreatment of women is okay. Whatever we do, my Christian friend argues, we gotta work at not alienating the wife-beaters.

Assistant to the Regional Manager

So the class of secularist opinion managers are Keepers of the Volcano. They throw the virgins in, but they are also critics of the Christians who labor to keep their virgins away from the volcano. They are contemptuous of our attempts to keep our young women away from what they call a genuinely authentic experience. They sneer when they think of us. They scoff at all of us as red-statey rubes.

But there are also many Christians who have been cowed by the bright robes worn by the Keepers of the Volcano, and these Christians are urging the rest of us to moderate our language. They are not critics of our position proper—they get where we are coming from—but they nevertheless think we should temper our tone somewhat. After all, they reason, if you react too strongly, unbelievers will probably think, and will certainly say, that we treat our women poorly. But, I reply that—and I think not unreasonably—they throw their women into volcanoes.

Take a deep breath. Testimony. All about testimony.

“Your voice is too strident, Wilson. Surely there is a time and a place for the tone you have adopted, but we are not there yet.”

“I see. When will we be there?”

“Oh, lots of things would have to happen before Christians would be justified in taking your Juvenalian canoe paddle to the whole thing.”

“Like what?”

“Oh, like trannies in junior high girl locker rooms, hard core celebration of homosexual marriage, dudes winning “women of the year” awards, women deployed on submarines, outlawing evangelical baking and flower arranging, things like that . . . oh, I think I see what you think you might be getting at.”

Out of My Mind. Clean Out of My Mind

The apostle Paul really did not like getting maneuvered into talking about himself in ways that could be considered boasting. If you played it just right, and you maneuvered like the dickens, you could get him into a corner. But then he would come off the top ropes at you. There are parts of his letters that reveal that he had some very odd views on what constitutes ministerial credentials, or what was appropriate for a resume that a pastoral search committee wouldn’t immediately round file (2 Cor. 11:16-33).

I am not worthy to imitate such a great apostle, but I am going to do it anyway. I apologize for this deficiency at the very beginning. My reputation is nowhere near as soiled as his was, I don’t have any riots to my name, and no stonings. I had one of my books burned in Jakarta once, but that is as close as it gets. I am not anywhere disreputable enough to black the boots of an actual apostle.

But one of the things I have been doing for approximately four decades now is that I have been trying to warn people that B follows A. In fact, I have been warning the saints that Q follows A. And, not to put too fine a point on it, you know what else follows A? The answer to that is LGBT and Q. They all follow A. My father once joked that we needed to have Richard Weaver’s great phrase, Ideas Have Consequences, carved on my tombstone.

Look, I would plaintively say. You can’t say THIS, without at some point in the foreseeable future, also saying THAT. The crowd would roar. You’re a nutter! Nobody is saying THAT. Find us one example of anybody saying THAT. We are simply maintaining THIS. You are grievously misrepresenting us when you try to intimate that we are in any way in favor of THAT. There is no way THAT could ever happen in white bread America!

Fast forward a few years. Crowds of thousands are marching down the boulevards of all our major cities, a big banner stretched across the front of their columns. The banners read POWER to THAT! Hand-held signs coming up behind say things like Yes, That! or THAT’LL DO!

I look up one of my old interlocutors to at least obtain the mild satisfaction of hearing him say, “Okay, you had a point.” But instead he stares at me blankly when I try to remind him of our old interminable conversations. I feel like Jeremiah having to stand with some of the false prophets as they watch Nebuchadnezzar’s engineers pulling down the last great tower in Jerusalem. And that is the moment when one of the false prophets turns to Jeremiah and says, “I bet you’re sorry you made all those big prophecies now, aren’t you, big fella?”

What was it that first impressed me about Dabney when I first encountered him back in the seventies or early eighties? I can assure you that it was not because I went to a librarian, and asked her to find me somebody down in the stacks I could like—from the nineteenth century, say, and preferably an irascible slave owner. That is not what happened at all. No, it was because I read statements like this one:

“So the actual and consistent secularization of education should not be tolerated. But nearly all public men and preachers declare that public schools are the glory of America. They are a finality and in no event to be surrendered. We have seen that their complete secularization is logically inevitable. Christians must prepare themselves then, for the following results: All prayers, catechisms, and Bibles will ultimately be driven out of the schools” (emphasis mine).

So he wrote this in the century prior to when it all happened, and I was reading his words while surrounded by a multitude of Christians who were all scratching their watches and winding their rear ends. “What is happening to our schools?” Dabney was not a prophet, or the son of a prophet, but he was a principled thinker. He was someone who knew that he who says A must also say B, and eventually will.

I gave myself to learning how to think in the same way. And not to brag or anything, because (as Paul would say) this really is demented, but I have been warning everyone about this for decades. So there are two things that have to happen. The church needs to find people to help explain what is happening to us. They should limit the search to those who predicted it happening long before it did. They should exclude from consideration those who stoutly maintained that “THAT could never happen here. Because America has magical defenses. Because America is our idol.”

So when you understand the play that has been run on us, and not until then, you will come to understand the plays that are being run, by a handful of people, in opposition. And none of that will happen until we come to see the sins that have blinded us as evangelicals. Why have we not be able to see what was visible to some in the nineteenth century?

The Sin of Soft

The modern evangelical church is effeminate. That is the problem. That is our besetting sin. When the apostle Paul rebuked the malakoi, the soft ones (1 Cor. 6:9), he was talking about the effeminate objects of sodomite lust. But that kind of softness can also trickle into bed with a girl. That kind of softness can remain heterosexual, and can get institutionalized in the overarching directive to all faithful evangelicals, which is, be nice and don’t be mean.

Worse, we give all the credit for our effeminacy to the Holy Spirit. We call what we are doing gentle, but what we are actually doing is refusing to protect our women, and we do this by imitating our women, in the wrong way, at the wrong time, and with wrong motives.

And of course I need to take a moment to explain why using a word like effeminate is not an insult to women. When a woman seeks to be womanly, she is being obedient. When a man does it, he is being disobedient, and the results are consistently perverse. And when men abdicate their role in leading and protecting their wives, the result is that this opens up room for women to abandon their assigned role. They start to become arbiters of “nice” in ways that they are not suited for. And does the phrase assigned role chafe you? Congratulations—your indoctrinated compromises are coming along nicely.

Now of course, I accept the injunction to not be mean as biblical (Eph. 4:31). But evangelicals—babes in the woods when it comes to this kind of thing—have confused the biblical requirement to not be mean with the impossible requirement to never be accused by liars of being mean. Once you accept the latter as your standard, you can always be steered, no matter how nice you are.

When controversy around such subjects erupts, the point is to win the controversy, not to get out of it. The point is to “fight the good fight,” not to “run the good retreat.” The point is to be men. “Watch ye, stand fast in the faith, quit you like men, be strong” (1 Cor. 16:13). But in order to quit yourself like a man, you have to start thinking like a man.

Cracks in the Dam

I talked a bit about predictions made back in the day. But anybody who believes that the time for predictions has ceased is simply not paying attention. We have a vast array of evangelical institutions—colleges, publishing houses, seminaries, television and radio networks—and the pressure to acquiesce that is going to be brought to bear on all of them is going to be simply enormous. Now when some of them start to go over—say an otherwise evangelical seminary is now employing a homosexual bursar, not to worry anybody, he’s not teaching anything—what will the others do? And remember, whatever you do, it can’t be mean!

They are only cracks, not to worry, but they are cracks in the dam. Consider this short review in the latest edition of World magazine.

“I can anticipate the objections to Very Married by Katherine Willis Pershey (Herald Press, 2016). She’s a female pastor in a very liberal denomination and, no surprise, favors same-sex marriage. But her book on marriage, told in the form of a memoir, gets much right—and it might be the perfect book for someone who’s more theologically liberal. Of marriage v. premarital sex, she writes, ‘The covenant of marriage—the vows to love now and forever—changes everything.’” (World, 3/4/17, p. 21).

But is it our job to help people who are “more theologically liberal” stay that way? Because I can assure you that the pressure is actually being applied in the other direction.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
144 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
jigawatt
jigawatt
4 years ago

Look, I would plaintively say. You can’t say THIS, without at some point in the foreseeable future, also saying THAT. The crowd would roar. You’re a nutter! Nobody is saying THAT. Find us one example of anybody saying THAT. We are simply maintaining THIS. You are grievously misrepresenting us when you try to intimate that we are in any way in favor of THAT. There is no way THAT could ever happen in white bread America! Fast forward a few years. Crowds of thousands are marching down the boulevards of all our major cities, a big banner stretched across the… Read more »

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
4 years ago
Reply to  jigawatt

Where is the “We Were Right” book? —

That is the subtext of dispensational postmillenialism: “Just you wait. Even THEY will acknowledge how right we were.”

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

“Dispensational postmillennialism”?

I reckon the books on that are shelved right next to ones on the philosophy of Marxism-Nixonism.

Ministry Addict
4 years ago

I like this post, but what’s a Juvenalian canoe paddle?

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
4 years ago

It’s a vaudeville stage prop. Not literally. Literally it’s a reference to the first century Roman satirist Juvenal and his vaudeville stage prop.

Ministry Addict
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

Thanks. I suppose in the context it means to tear apart with satire?

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
4 years ago

To whack on the butt with satire, yes.

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
4 years ago

The problem confronting millions upon millions of evangelical men is this: They are married to women who will definitely divorce them if they suddenly start acting like the men you describe. Their game has been to live to fight another day, hoping something will change the circumstances later. Meanwhile their masculinity ebbed away. And the circumstances did change, for the worse.

Now what? Are we in the “Ezra” situation where you think mass marital calamity has actually become the right thing to do?

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

Bro. Steve, From one female perspective, it seems that women have resented having to take that role because men won’t do it. With the resentment comes the desire to ‘lord it’ over the men. I expect both of our perspectives have truth. Having said that though, the first step to recovery has to be the recognition that the relationship is out of whack. With straightforward sin, we could ask, “Do you steal? How many lies have you told in your lifetime?” The recognition that these are wrong acts are obvious among pagans and Christians alike. But how do we point… Read more »

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  JL

From my observation, here’s the deal-ee-oh. The Secular Woman thinks submission is a cuss word. Millions of Christian women see things her way and justify themselves by saying their menfolk are wusses, can’t be respected/trusted, unfit to lead, etc. For the Christian man, the logical options are distressingly few and simple: His wife either will or won’t be in submission to him. If she is, fine. End of conflict, and God bless ’em. If she is not in submission, then he can either accept that as-is, or he can try to get in front and lead. But if the men… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

Sure, unsustainable things don’t last, and women ruling in marriage, as a cultural norm, can’t endure either. You could well be right. We aren’t from that now – a man who rules at home is behaving in congruence with his creational abilities to beat everybody up, should the need arise. It is natural that the human who is biggest, strongest, and loudest, with the largest natural capacity for violence should be in charge.

For him to use his natural position for service rather than tyranny is the wonder of Christian marriage.

Montana Mark
Montana Mark
4 years ago

Yes, it is, and it is only by the work of the Holy Spirit in believing husbands that it ever gets done, I think. Just this weekend, I had an argument with my wife. Afterwards, knowing that on the core issue I was actually right (my lovely wife acknowledged that), I sat in my kitchen wondering how on earth I am supposed to lead my wife and family in such a way as to mimic what Christ did for His church – washing their feet, feeding them, rebuking them, dying for them… The rebuking part seems to be easy, always… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
4 years ago
Reply to  Montana Mark

Indeed. Well said.

steghorn21
steghorn21
4 years ago
Reply to  Montana Mark

It’s a tough one, Mark. But by asking the questions, you’re probably already there.

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

Thank you, Bro. Steve.

Being a husband is very difficult, and good husbands are truly a gift from God.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

My experience comports.
But at least it has put me into the mindful position of trying to help inform the young dudes to start taking their stands early & often, before they get rolled by virtue of their own earlier waffling and her latent intransigence.

"A" dad
"A" dad
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

Oh, and don’t forget that the “Church” confusing “nice” with “love”, will not only side with the wife, but make her worse in the wrong direction, all the while haplessly crapping on the Husband for being Word grounded, in areas where the church is not.

Case in pont, my surprise charge at our wedding was “Give up being right.”
Makes one wonder by what authority the pastor said that! ; – )

fp
fp
4 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

The contrarian in me would respond to the pastor with something along the lines of, “If you’ve given up being right, how do I know you’re right about giving up being right?”

"A" dad
"A" dad
4 years ago
Reply to  fp

I asked much the same!
Wilson is correct in this post, certainly as pertains to alledged evangelicals in New England.

Bdgrrll
Bdgrrll
4 years ago
Reply to  "A" dad

Well what about the premarital counseling my husband and I received? The key to a happy marriage is this: a husband who puts his wife’s best interests above his and a wife who puts her husband’s best interests above hers. Has worked for almost 31 years and continues to work. Yes, I do submit to my husband but being married to a man who puts my best interest above his and vice versa, there have been very few times I have had to submit to him on important decisions. Unfortunately, my husband is now severely disabled and my submission to… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
4 years ago
Reply to  Bdgrrll

If we are serving properly, our service has to be “right”. Otherwise we will be giving our kids cans of frosting for lunch!
????
There is a right way and a wrong way to “serve”.
We are not supposed to “lord ourselves ” over one another, but sometimes that happens, by either gender.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

You have explained this really clearly. I have read advice to men on persuading their wives to submit by withholding cash, attention, and sex, but all submission is, as you note, voluntary. No man wants his meals cooked,his children tended, and his bed shared by a woman who, while superficially submissive, is furiously angry with him over a long time. I wonder if men and women need to spend more time making sure they agree about this before they announce the engagement.

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Might help to put “obey” back in the marriage vows so she knows what she’s getting into (and so he can’t blame her when things go off the rails).

Indigo
Indigo
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Personally I prefer ‘submit to’ in the vows because even though it has a similar meaning, it has a slightly different nuance that helps distinguish the marriage relationship from parent-child and master-servant relationships, which I think is vital to a healthy marriage. But I hope a couple would work on defining their terms and expectations before they were standing at the altar! Maybe with the help of some pastoral counselling. Ultimately both husband and wife will find it easier (him to lead sacrificially, and her to submit graciously) when they remember which of them is going to give an account… Read more »

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  Indigo

What is the distinction exactly?

Indigo
Indigo
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

To obey means to follow orders. It relates more to behaviour than to attitude.

To submit has a broader meaning that I think includes outward obedience or yielding, but also the attitude of voluntary subjection and deference (according to Collins).

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  Indigo

A difference lacking distiction…? Children submit; and that volitionaly.

Bdgrrll
Bdgrrll
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

Sort of. Haven’t you ever seen children (your own or others) “choose” to do so something because it was the better of two bad options? “Eat your broccoli or you’ll go to your room after dinner while the rest of us watch a DVD.” Some choice. Or some kids are so stubborn that they could be spanked until a parent could see blood on the kid’s buns and still not give in.

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  Bdgrrll

What?!, I think your reaching-so as to not equate childrens dread with a wifes ‘sophisticated subjection’. This IS the mistake! Fear and obedience go hand in hand. The reason women flaunt the law of their husband. AND i might add; the reason children are prolonged in adolescence! Subjection is subjection; any who bristle at against sharing a certian state with a child should question if they deserve such an honor.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

A wife is to be a help to her husband. Childish obedience is wonderful from children. Childish obedience from a wife suggests an immaturity that will limit her usefulness as a helpmeet, a trusted advisor, or even an occasional second opinion.

If you expect your wife to obey you because she regards you with dread and fear, I think you are missing out an important benefit of the marriage bond.

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Sophistry wont help you. And like most men are missing out/exactly because it has been redefined by critical theory in to an at-will situation. Jesus was ok with ‘childish’ obedience wasnt He!? Go ask yours; if you call him ‘Lord’ like Sara u might receive something.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

I see a difference between Jesus and the average husband. Jesus didn’t need other people; husbands do need intelligent, loving support from wives who willingly accept a subordinate position.

I would find it very creepy indeed to be involved in a sexual relationship with someone who wanted me to behave as if I were an obedient child.

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Go ask ur husband. Ur a waste of time

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Doug Wright

In other words, you can’t think of a suitable rejoinder! I haven’t got a husband, but when I did, I was a sweet-tempered and compliant wife. I did not, however, insult him by assuming he wanted a brainless wife. But tastes differ, and I hope that you and your child-bride are blissfully happy together.

Just a thought. There’s some research suggesting that women carry some of the genes for intelligence. To get a suitably childish wife, you might have to settle for some not very bright kids. But I am sure it will all work out for you.

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

No hubby?! Shocking!, libelous inflamatory bullying/not so much.

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

You dont do what they like and then get accused of criminal behavior, but its only semantics -hey dougiw!?, enjoy guys/neo liberalism is still conservative enough”””? Right?

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  Indigo

I would agree except for the way American evangelicals have twisted the word “submission” out of all recognition. The marriage relationship is certainly more than the parent/child or master/servant relationships, but it’s not less. (Been a long time since I’ve been to a wedding at my church, but looking over the PCA book of church order, it does still have the phrase “faithful, loving, and obedient wife” in there.)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  Indigo

I understand what you’re saying, but the scriptures also use the word “obey” in the context of husband and wife, as well as submit. That’s why it was put in the vows to begin with, after all. :-)

mkt
mkt
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

I’m not sure why, but I skimmed an article about “The Bachelor” show, which I’ve never watched. One of the women got on a soapbox about female empowerment (or something) and said this: “You deserve to be fought for. You are worthy of love. It doesn’t matter your shape, it doesn’t matter your sexual past. It doesn’t matter what you have done. You deserve a man who loves you for who you are.” I wouldn’t be surprised if some churches replaced their current vows with that jewel. It’s all on the man to love and cherish his snowflake, regardless of… Read more »

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Wouldnt help

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

I was thinking about this all day yesterday, wondering how it is that the typical marriage is so backwards. Then it dawned on me. It’s training. I always hated the idea of a big wedding, but I believe the wedding is the training ground. They call the wedding day “Her special day”, but in reality it’s probably closer to her special year. A year of “I want” from the bride, and “Whatever you say, dear,” from the groom. By the time they get to the wedding day, the relationship model has been set. Perhaps the final test for a young… Read more »

steghorn21
steghorn21
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Good comment, as always.

Mariano Ifran
Mariano Ifran
4 years ago

Great article. ‘A generation ago, the sexual revolution began with the demand that we “make love, not war.” It ended with us making war on the inconvenient children who resulted from all the lovemaking’ … John 14:27

steghorn21
steghorn21
4 years ago
Reply to  Mariano Ifran

Yes. This is where it all ended. It began with Woodstock and flower power and (maybe) a genuine attempt to do things differently; it ended with a gaggle of shrews laughing over their Beaujolais about baby body parts.

ashv
ashv
4 years ago

And this is why I stick around — I agree with y’all on nearly all of the diagnosis of our social and cultural ills. I just happen to believe that consistent thinking in this direction will lead to discarding a bit more of American political philosophy than our esteemed host has done so far. Anyway, I can’t ever get really mad at someone who appreciates Dabney.

ME
ME
4 years ago

“Now even if there were a point here—there isn’t, but work with me—I don’t want to hear about it from a guy who punches his wife. Neither do I want an exceptionally nice Christian who lives across the street to admonish me about using terms like womenfolk in the previous paragraph—did you think that was an accident?” Here is my conflict with Wilson in a nutshell, my gentle and respectful conflict. The kingdom of God does not work on a plea bargain system. You do not get extra credit points for saying, “we’re righteous because we sacrifice less virgins than… Read more »

Heather Wilson
Heather Wilson
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

My gentle and respectful reply.

You are flat out wrong and you are speaking slander against a pastor who has worked for decades protecting women and working with victims. I’ve interacted with numerous women in our church who are infuriated by comments such as yours that contradicts everything they have experienced in our church. Read a few of their stories at http://www.womenfreed.com/ Some of these stories I knew, some were new to me but they represent just a small sampling of women in are church that felt the need to say something.

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Heather Wilson

I am not speaking slander against Wilson, I am speaking the truth about how many, many victims feel when they read his words. If you cannot hear that, I doubt your own authenticity, your own compassion towards others who follow Jesus Christ. Wilson has become a cult of personality on the internet, and like all cults of personality, it is quite common to have women writing in someone’s defense. Such things mean nothing to me. Was Eve not deceived? I have seen Eve deceived a lot. If you want to impress me, show me men who have read Wilson’s words… Read more »

Zachary Hurt
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

How do you support your assertion that Doug “has the wife beaters’ approval”? Also, is what he says to be judged by how it makes certain people feel? How is that a legitimate standard to criticize him by?

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Zachary Hurt

“Also, is what he says to be judged by how it makes certain people feel?”

I think so, yes, at least when it comes to recognizing the nature of evil and identifying who the actual enemy is. Just for the record, the enemy is not Potiphar’s wife, not a goddess, and not a dancing girl from long ago. Has Wilson ever stated that the enemy’s face is not actually a feminine one?

Zachary Hurt
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

ME, how can someone’s feelings be the measure of truth, or the guide to what is evil or who is the enemy? That is a subjective conception of truth, which is no truth at all. The truth makes people feel bad all the time. I know that from personal experience. Of course, lies make people feel bad, too. That being the case, you have to evaluate the truth of Doug’s statements by an objective standard (e.g. the Bible), not the emotional barometer of people who already disagree with him. I don’t understand your question “Has Wilson ever stated that the… Read more »

Farinata degli Uberti
Farinata degli Uberti
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Fine. Me. Happy now?

JL
JL
4 years ago

My husband also.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  JL

And mine. His books have been very helpful to our family.

D.L.
D.L.
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

I have read Wilson’s words, and am a better man as a result, I love Christ, and I love my wife. However, I have never beaten my excellent wife, so perhaps I don’t meet your qualifications to comment on your ridiculous charges.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“… I am speaking the truth about how many, many victims feel when they read his words.”

Who needs facts and evidence when you have feelings?

ME
ME
4 years ago

You actually mean, who needs feelings when you have facts and evidence to justify your total disregard for others.

So, we are compelled, mandated, ordered to love one another. When our words are needlessly cruel to others who are broken and hurting, I call foul.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

You can call foul with exactly zero facts or evidence that a foul took place because you FEEL it took place, and that’s all that matters, right?

ME
ME
4 years ago

“You can call foul with exactly zero facts or evidence that a foul took place because you FEEL it took place…” Yes dear, “I feel.” I feel hostility when I am called a liar. I feel hostility when I am labeled a feminist. I feel hostility when I am called Potiphar’s wife. I feel hostility when I am called a misandrist. I feel hostility when I am told I’m doing my 30 yr marriage all wrong. I feel dismissed, demeaned, degraded,when my faith is called into question. Now it is quite possible that I am insane and perceiving reality all… Read more »

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Sure, it’s possible. But we both know it’s 100% true that you’ve still provided zero facts or evidence – only FEELINGS – to support your false accusations.

ME
ME
4 years ago

I’ve provided quite a bit of evidence, the exact words used, the hostility that is self evident in these comments.

But I know from experience that when one is facing hostile men who believe women are all flimsy creatures who base everything on feelings, no amount of evidence will ever suffice.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“I’ve provided quite a bit of evidence…”

“Yes dear, ‘I feel’. I feel hostility when I am called a liar. I feel hostility when I am labeled a feminist. I feel hostility when I am called Potiphar’s wife. I feel hostility when I am called a misandrist. I feel hostility when I am told I’m doing my 30 yr marriage all wrong. I feel dismissed, demeaned, degraded,when my faith is called into question.”

Feel, feel, feel, feel, feel, feel, feel. FEELINGS are not evidence.

Where would anyone get the idea that you “base everything on feelings”?

ME
ME
4 years ago

The actual words that triggered the feelings are called evidence.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

The FEELINGS are what you presented as “evidence”. Just because you FEEL something exists doesn’t mean it actually exists.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

You are so frequently cruel to people who may be broken and hurting that I wonder how you can type such a thing without being struck by a flash of self-awareness.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Because she possesses none.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“Flat out, you don’t. They love you. You have the wife beater’s approval.” Do you have any actual evidence for that? Or is that just your unfalsifiable hypothesis about cause and effect? Not being a patron of publications that promote wife-beating nor being acquainted with any men who volunteer their support for said behavior, I don’t have any contradictory evidence. But what I have noticed is that every time Doug writes something about husbands who needing to get metaphorically slapped around a bit for actual cold-hearted behavior toward their wives, or worse yet, suggest that the man who thinks that… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Dunsworth in the entire time I have known you, you have never said a kind word to me. You have been harsh, judgmental, and dismissive. You do not want to help anyone understand things or to grow in faith,you simply want to slap other women around. It’s somewhat ironic, but amusing,I often use the caricature you present and evidence of why I do not ever want to see women teaching or preaching. Does that sound mean? Too bad.I believe the last time I read your words, you were gleefully celebrating poetry about dancing on someone’s grave. The amount of disrespect… Read more »

mastodon176
mastodon176
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Holy McMoly. Set your cross down, Jesus.

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  mastodon176

Why would you tell me to set my cross down, when the bible clearly tells me to pick it up and follow Him?

mastodon176
mastodon176
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

If that’s what you think you’re doing here, then I can’t wait to hear how you misinterpret the rest of scripture.

Nat
Nat
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

You go all ad hominem on Dunsworth but don’t deal with her very much to the point (and kindly stated) argument. Someone needs to call a whaaambulance. I think you need to take a deep breath, let it out real slowly, apologize and take another run at it.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

I went over Jane’s comment three times, looking for harshness and unkindness. I can’t find a single word that strikes me as judgmental or dismissive. Jane asks if you have any evidence for a very unkind statement that you made about Pastor Wilson–that his writings please and encourage wife-beaters. You don’t see anything wrong with making an accusation about Wilson which is probably false–but Jane is just a big meanie for asking you for evidence? You use your words to slap people around on this board every time you get angry with someone for disagreeing with you. “Does that sound… Read more »

John
John
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

If you want to engage in a discussion, especially one in which you make strong accusations, then you can’t take any and all challenge as a personal attack. You are under obligation to provide evidence of your accusation. If you are unable to do so, then you’ve committed clear unfounded slander. Have you ever considered that you feel like the enemy because you see everyone else as your enemy? It sure seems that way. You’ve successfully taken on the cloak of unquestionable victim in your own eyes, but the problem, of course, is that feelings do not substitute for truth,… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

I think you mean “palpable”; palatable means it doesn’t taste too bad, which is clearly not the case.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

I’m well aware there’s no point in attempting to dispute ME’s subjective impression of me. However, as a matter of objective accuracy, I notice that her final paragraph, besides appearing to be an almost wilful misrepresentation of Valerie’s little ditty via excessive literalism, entirely makes up information in order to accuse me. If you check the subthread with Valerie’s ditty, you’ll notice I didn’t even respond directly to it, or to any responses to it, and only joked around a bit with a couple of puns concerning poetic meter in response to things posted above that in sequence. The “celebrating… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

“But let the record show that I was lied about.”

And let the record show that I have never had an encounter with Dunsworth where you have not accused me of lying. The other day you asked another woman you didn’t even know, what makes you think you’re even worthy of answer when all you do is lie?

For the record, accusing people of lying is not “disputing” anything,it is an attempt to disqualify them from the conversation.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

I simply cannot believe this. You’re not even defending against the point that you did in fact claim I said things I never said. You’re just disqualifying me from the conversation because I used the word lie in reference to a lie. And in fact accusing you of lying is disputing what you said I did. You said that I was “gleefully celebrating poetry about dancing on someone’s grave” when all the world with an Internet connection can see that I said absolutely nothing about, in the context of, or in response to that limerick. So I dispute that I… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

“I simply cannot believe this.”

That’s probably because you simply dismiss everything I say as a lie. So now that you have totally disqualified me from all and any conversation, why in the world should I care about what you believe?

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Why in the world are you being mean to Jane? She is truthful. She is witty. She is logical. People here really like her. What possible pleasure can you get from accusing her of things she didn’t do? What possible pleasure can you get from irritating the many people who admire Jane?

mkt
mkt
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“I have never had an encounter with Dunsworth where you have not accused me of lying. ” Flake News, 9 days ago. Dunsworth’s reply to you (no accusations of lying): “If he has exposed three pedophiles, that’s good. Unless he was either forced at gunpoint to say the stuff in the video, or the video was an amazingly good sound-alike and look-alike, it’s plenty bad enough to be a reason to disinvite him from any group of decent human beings that requires an invitation.” https://disqus.com/home/discussion/dougwils/flake_news/#comment-3176666513 Do I get a finder’s fee for locating that? If so, I could find plenty… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Bethyada saw that coming! You have not lied about anything ME said. It is impossible to interact with ME without being charged with telling lies or accusing her of telling lies. I thought it was a very clever limerick, and I would not let my pleasure in it be spoiled by someone so clearly motivated by malice and envy.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Well, she did tell a lie on this particular occasion and apparently the real issue here is that I said she did, rather than whether she did.

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

I agree that we are dealing with false statements. I am not certain whether ME’s mental state makes these statements lies in the same way they would be lies if you or I said them. There may be an absolute inability to separate truth from fiction. There is a gas lighting effect here that makes you question your senses. So, listen to everybody here who knows that you don’t tell lies, you are never mean, and you don’t conduct celebratory dances on graves.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  jillybean

Thanks, I do appreciate that y’all are backing me up on this and I’m not defending myself for fear that anyone will take ME’s account over mine — if for no other reason than that what I wrote (and didn’t write) is in black and white. Y’all can read. I guess I didn’t consider that there might be a “mental state” of some kind going on here. I don’t know. I do want to say that I never intended to equate “that’s a lie” with “you’re a liar and you should feel bad and everyone should hate you and not… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

“I guess I didn’t consider that there might be a “mental state” of some kind going on here. I don’t know.” I’d like to thank you two fine Christian ladies for not only calling me a liar, but for carrying on like a couple of gossipy old hens about my alleged mental state. Did you ever consider that perhaps relentlessly calling someone a liar and labeling her mentally ill might be hurtful, abusive? Also, like wrong? Are you two the fruit of Wilson’s work? Do you reflect what he teaches? I think you are, you and the angry men who… Read more »

Bibcnsl
Bibcnsl
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

ME, Consider this a friendly caution, and not further evidence to support your case. In order for your accusation to stick, namely men who want nothing more than to find a woman to slap around are the fruit of Wilson’s work, you have to do more than simply point to behavior that you do not like among his commentators, or find ungodly in some way, and draw a dark line in the sand to Wilson. You have to show how the behavior that you do not like from Wilson’s readers is grounded in Wilson’s teaching. Until you do this, your… Read more »

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

ME, you say things that everyone here can see are untrue because we have both sides written in black and white. If challenged about truthfulness, you double down, get angry, deny everything, and accuse people of saying you are lying. I suggested to Jane that perhaps your mental state makes it impossible for you to separate truth from fiction. I did not call you mentally ill, although I do think your emotional reactions to Jane and me are not rational. I would rather think of you as emotionally troubled than as a liar. It is not wrong or abusive for… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Let the reader judge, then, whether my (a woman who neither supports nor is the victim of wife-beating) reaction to having demonstrably untrue things said about me constitutes evidence in favor of the proposition that wife-beaters approve of Wilson, and that if so, it is his fault.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“That is the evidence that I present to Wilson, the fruit of his work that I see reflected in behavior like yours and the comments here.”

An open comment section on the internet is not representative of the fruit of a persons work. For a reflection of what Wilson teaches go look at the members of his church.

Bdgrrll
Bdgrrll
4 years ago

I have looked. That’s what scares me, frankly. Decent people, to be sure. Women in leadership: none. As far as I can see, there is a Ladies Fellowship open to women, their Parish Fellowship groups, and (presumably) their Mercy Ministry, although that section of the website was under construction. Leadership Training only open to men. (Not sure about Beer and Psalms, though.) The only two women on staff that were not secretarial were an accountant and a graphic/web designer, I believe. A couple led their Campus Ministry, which sounds fine. However, the women leading the Bible studies for female college… Read more »

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  Bdgrrll

“Leadership Training only open to men.” Of course. It’s leadership training for church leaders, which is biblically only open to men. I agree if it were a general leadership skills course that might be a problem, but I don’t think that fits the context of what they’re doing there. “However, the women leading the Bible studies for female college students encouraged her students to get more “girls” involved.” Is there a problem with this? The only thing I can possibly think of is an objection to the word girls, which I can’t wrap my mind around. While some young women… Read more »

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
4 years ago
Reply to  Bdgrrll

So what’s the scary bit?

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“The amount of disrespect and contempt you have poured on me is palatable.”

Is that supposed to be palpable?

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

LOL you can’t even recognise yourself in a metaphor

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

When you say that the Christian man has the wife-beater’s approval, you’re assuming this is against the wife’s will. But the reason this issue exists at all is because real submission cannot be anything other than voluntary. What you seem to be presuming is that any relationship that involves subordination necessarily involves exertion of force. The truly Christian home involves submission, but it’s voluntary, not based on dominance and forcible conquest.

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Bro. Steve

I’ve been married for 31 years. Have I ever posted a single thing objecting to submission? No.

And yet, I am still perceived as the enemy. The fact that I am automatically perceived as the enemy, indicates to me that Wilson’s words are very good at inflaming hostility towards women.

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Don’t hit me, ME. :) I have noticed that there are some topics that reveal a real underlying wound for people here. This is one of them. I hate to see this become a boy versus girl fight. There is a deep something (bitterness? frustration?) here that men are feeling toward women. I’m not making any judgment over whether this is warranted or not, but it’s there. “This woman you gave to me …” We women are no better either. We are too often eager to correct and point out inadequacies of men because we can’t figure out why God… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  JL

“There is a deep something (bitterness? frustration?) here that men are feeling toward women. I’m not making any judgment over whether this is warranted or not, but it’s there.”

Yes, exactly. But after a couple of years of watching this blog you start to notice, this is a feature, not a bug. It is an entire state of being.

“The curse is real, my friends.”

Yes, but I could have sworn the curse was broken. Didn’t Jesus Christ go to the cross and break the curse?

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“Yes, but I could have sworn the curse was broken. Didn’t Jesus Christ go to the cross and break the curse?” Yes he did, and we hold the shame for falling back into our old ways. As for it being a feature, not a bug, I do disagree. I think the response here is a result of unresolved sin (for both men and women). Those things that show up externally are more often than not internal matters. Don’t ask me how I know ;) Pastor Wilson, with or without intention, is holding up a mirror for us to look at… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  JL

“I expect the day that both men and women admit their guilt will be the last day he writes one of these types of posts.”

Now hold up here, JL. I already have a Savior, one I confessed my guilt too. That Savior is not Pastor Wilson.

Jesus Christ Himself went to the cross on our behalf, “despising the shame.” That’s in the bible. It says so. The only one who holds up a mirror and tries to make us feel ashamed of who we are is actually called the Great Accuser.

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

NOOOOO! (DH just gave me a funny look because I yelled that out loud!) What I meant was – Don’t we all act as mirrors for each other in regards to sin? If I see another woman who is always gracious and kind in person, I am bound to look at her either with gladness for how she exemplifies Christ or I will look at the deficiencies in myself when I see her. If I see those deficiencies in myself, this is when Satan is ready to leap upon me. Do I A) Say, “Oh, how beautifully she exemplifies a… Read more »

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  JL

“Don’t we all act as mirrors for each other in regards to sin?”

Well, I was kind of hoping a few of us might actually act like mirrors reflecting the righteousness of Christ, the power of grace, His sacrificial love for mankind?

JL
JL
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

There was only One who could be that 24/7 365.

I think his sheep take turns revealing each other’s weaknesses by being light and then stand at the ready to help each other up. Sanctification is a team sport.

Bro. Steve
Bro. Steve
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

ME, I don’t perceive you as an enemy; I didn’t say you had “objected” to submission, and I’m not drawing any conclusions about the state of your marriage. I do, however, find fault with the apparent presumption embedded in your argument that submission involves the husband imposing his will against his wife’s will. If you read my rejoinder at face value, I’m countering that by saying that submission, to the extent that it exists at all, is a thing the wife does voluntarily, else it doesn’t exist at all. The church, generally speaking, is lying face down in a feminist… Read more »

John
John
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Can you clarify how you know that you’re seen as an enemy inherently and not based on what you post? (Assuming you are seen as an enemy at all, not something that I would have guessed by reading many of your comments and those who’ve responded to them.)

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  John

This is what I mean by “unfalsifiable.”

jillybean
jillybean
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

There is a logical fail here. If anyone takes you so seriously that you are seen as the enemy–which I doubt–how do you know it is because you are a woman? If men have hostility toward you–which I also doubt–it is more likely to be based on your words rather than Wilson’s.

Christopher Casey
Christopher Casey
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“The fact that I am automatically perceived as the enemy, indicates to me that Wilson’s words are very good at inflaming hostility towards women.”

I’m pretty sure people brought their hatred of women with them, and it shows up here because the comments are not aggressivley moderated.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

> You have the wife beater’s approval.

What if he does? He might have the introverted philatelists’ approval too but it doesn’t mean he courts them. He regularly lambasts chest thumping authority asserters. If they like him they probably can’t read very well.

Edit: which is not to say there is no place for chest thumping, just not toward your family.

ME
ME
4 years ago
Reply to  Rob Steele

“….but it doesn’t mean he courts them”

Sure he does. Intentional or not, he courts them. And because he courts them, the hostility and resentment towards women soon becomes tangible and self evident in the comments on these threads.

Rob Steele
Rob Steele
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Is accidental courting a thing? If abusive men approve of Wilson then they’re idiots, which, come to think of it, some of the commenters here are. So maybe you’re on to something.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“Intentional or not, he courts them.”

Connect that statement with the previous…

“… I am speaking the truth about how many, many victims feel when they read his words.”

… and you have the perfect feminist accuser, who can read a man’s mind better than he can read his own because of her FEELINGS. Potiphar’s wife would be proud.

ME
ME
4 years ago

“Potiphar’s wife would be proud.”

Right. Because pointing out that a man’s words reveal an insensitivity towards victims is exactly the same thing as sending an innocent man to jail.

I’m so glad men are always so unemotional and reason based.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

No one said that “is exactly the same thing as sending an innocent man to jail.” Nor did you point “out that a man’s words reveal an insensitivity towards victims “.

You, instead, pretended to read a man’s mind…

“Intentional or not, he courts them.”

… and falsely accused him with zero facts or evidence – only FEELINGS – to support your accusation…

“… I am speaking the truth about how many, many victims feel when they read his words.”

… just like Potiphar’s wife in Pastor Doug’s post.

ME
ME
4 years ago

“You, instead, pretended to read a man’s mind…”

Did I? Well, first I read several of his books, two years of blog posts, and engaged in his comment section. Then I spent sometime researching where his words show up on the internet, who his fan base is, and what is the temperment of those who appreciate Wilson the most.

Than I observed, angry men with deep seated woman issues always seem drawn to Wilson. Hmm, I wonder why?

So it is not as if I have engaged in some kind of Vulcan mind meld or something.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“Did I?”

Yes.

“Intentional or not, he courts them.”

ME
ME
4 years ago

“Intentional or not, he courts them.”

And here you are. And here are dozens of others expressing resentment towards women. And there are the red pills like Dalrock and Vox Day quoting Wilson.

Hence the conclusion, “intentional or not, he courts them.” It’s not a bad thing to court angry men, but let’s not pretend he doesn’t court them.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Pretending is exactly what you’re doing. You “pretend” that your FEELINGS are evidence. You “pretend” that you can read others’ minds.

Pretending isn’t all you’re doing, though. You’re also falsely accusing a man while providing exactly zero facts or evidence – only FEELINGS – to support your false accusations.

ME
ME
4 years ago

1. I am not pretending
2. I offer you words as evidence of the hostility
3. If it is a false accusation, it carries no penalty anyway
4. FEELINGS are not a bad word.

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“1. I am not pretending”

Yes, you are pretending you can read a man’s mind. “intentional or not, he courts them.”

“2. I offer you words as evidence of the hostility”

No. You offer your FEELINGS as “evidence” of Pastor Doug’s supposed “insensitivity towards victims”.

“3. If it is a false accusation, it carries no penalty anyway”

Right. Because no one who’s ever been slandered paid any penalty for it.

“4. FEELINGS are not a bad word.”

Nor are they facts or evidence.

ME
ME
4 years ago

“Nor are they facts or evidence.”

No one else can see it on disqus, but I received your big and bold font, your all caps, your internet lingo that seems to suggest you are yelling at me.

Are you having some FEELINGS?

Does the fact that no one else on disqus can see the graphic evidence of your FEELINGS mean I am lying?

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

“Are you having some FEELINGS?”

No, but right on cue, you’re projecting. Emphasizing a word is not yelling.

So, when will you to provide facts and evidence – not FEELINGS – to support your false accusation of Pastor Doug? Never?

ME
ME
4 years ago

I believe you “emphasized” an entire sentence and made it 3 inches tall.

You have now become the evidence of my statement that Pastor Wilson, “intentional or not, he courts them.”

Oscar Schneegans
Oscar Schneegans
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

You believe falsely. I did no such thing. Which means you once again accused a man falsely with zero evidence.

So, when will you to provide facts and evidence – not FEELINGS – to support your false accusation of Pastor Doug? Never?

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
4 years ago

The modern evangelical church is effeminate. This is patently true on so many levels, but if we are not careful, the pushback against this can get out of hand. It takes disciplined moral thinking to get this balance right. Many of my friends nowadays like to tell me I’ve gone soft, by which they mean I don’t drink like a fiend and fight people for not saying excuse me. That is all true enough. In fact, it is precisely because the Lord saved me that I don’t do those things anymore. Being self-controlled is not the same thing as being… Read more »

ashv
ashv
4 years ago

Well said.

We have historical models of how the Church refined masculine pursuits and virtues and restrained masculine vices.

I don’t know of a historical model for the Church drawing men back from effeminacy.

Kilgore T. Durden
Kilgore T. Durden
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Me, neither. I think if we look at history, the places where we see men going all effeminate, the results were usually societal annihilation and death. This doesn’t bode well for a good ending.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Well, the first time they refined masculine pursuits and virtues and restrained masculine vices they didn’t have a historical model for it, either. I’m not overly optimistic about the outcome but the first people to do anything positive never had a model to follow, yet they did it.

Melody
Melody
4 years ago
Reply to  ashv

Didn’t Adam become effeminate when he followed Eve rather that God? Seems to me that this problem was actually the very first one.

PerfectHold
PerfectHold
4 years ago

Lake Wo-Be-Earth, Where all the women are strong, all the men are good-looking …

Evan
Evan
4 years ago
Reply to  PerfectHold

Well crafted sir.

mastodon176
mastodon176
4 years ago

“And when men abdicate their role in leading and protecting their wives, the result is that this opens up room for women to abandon their assigned role.” This is correct as far as it goes. But the following needs to be said also: “Even if the man is being a fantastic leader and protector, there are women out there who will sometimes abdicate their role as wife simply because they have a rebellious heart.” When women rebel and refuse to fill their role, it’s not always just because the husband screwed up. Women are just as bedeviled by their own… Read more »

"A" dad
"A" dad
4 years ago
Reply to  mastodon176

No, you are wrong, if Jesus was a better God, I wouldn’t be in this mess! ; – )

(Just kidding)

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
4 years ago

The problem, (as I see it) is that our culture can’t see the difference between a Jael and a Jezebel.

Dunsworth
Dunsworth
4 years ago
Reply to  Capndweeb

“Well behaved women don’t make history” and whatnot, which is rather confounding to anyone who knows anything about Queen Victoria.

Capndweeb
Capndweeb
4 years ago
Reply to  Dunsworth

Or Mary.

lloyd
4 years ago

“Come for the commentary. Stay for the cat pictures.” – Me.

ME
ME
4 years ago

This is from Wilson, “The modern evangelical church is effeminate. That is the problem. That is our besetting sin….”

And this is from a comment, “The problem confronting millions upon millions of evangelical men…”

Has it ever occurred to anyone that when you start to believe that millions and millions of Christian men are all doing it wrong and only you possess the Real Truth, you’ve crossed over into a very cultian mindset? A very red pillian, Matrix like mindset.

ashv
ashv
4 years ago
Reply to  ME

Yeah. Sort of like Elijah and Jeremiah.

(I don’t hear much of this from people who think only they possess the Real Truth. Just from people who think that most of the people who possessed it are dead.)

Doug Wright
Doug Wright
4 years ago

I think you have offended polynesian culture?, i mean is that how you get your holy rocks off the reconstruction site?! Aloha e komo mia; cooke loco moco/which means,of course; “,sorry the big kahuna ate your capitan, but we were able to save you the tastiest organs!” Point is(not just on your crater) that when the kings were converted things did change. Nations do need to repent; thats a great policy, but policy change doesnt change anyth….”..?! Anyway look when Kam 3 dropped in it was back to the old hula/no mumu optional. Just curious how one can advocate true… Read more »

mkt
mkt
4 years ago

He also attracts his share of feminists and misandrists. ME falls into the second group, if you read her honestly.

steghorn21
steghorn21
4 years ago

The “same-sex mirage”. Perfect.

Keith Knowlden
Keith Knowlden
4 years ago

I want more of this one!