Month: March 2017

Theology For Men of the West: One Flesh

Artisanal Toad25 Comments

Toad has been questioning his assumptions. As a result…

I believe that up until now I have been wrong with regard to my exegesis on the issue of becoming one flesh as mentioned in Genesis 2:24.
Whereas previously I believed the one flesh bond between man and woman was the result of marriage to a virgin, I now believe the spiritual bond created by God known as “one flesh” occurs each time a couple has sex regardless of their marital relationship or even the legitimacy of the relationship. This is in harmony with Matthew 19:6 as well as 1st Corinthians 6:16, as I will demonstrate below.
From an exegetical standpoint this solidifies the doctrine that marriage begins when the eligible virgin has sexual intercourse. By giving a better understanding of 1st Corinthians 6:16 it is easier to understand the interpretation of dabaq in Genesis 2:24.
The lack of a prohibition that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex points to the fact that “sex outside marriage” is not a sin. Unfortunately this creates the specter of unrestrained sexuality in the minds of many, but perhaps a better understanding of becoming one flesh will ease those fears.
Recognizing the one flesh bond is created and strengthened with every act of sex reinforces the point that the man gives his consent and commitment to marriage every time he has sex, which results in a one flesh union of the man and woman. If his purpose is marriage, he does nothing wrong. If the purpose is any other reason his motives are questionable because once the one flesh bond is created, breaking it later will cause harm to the woman.
Yet, we live in a world filled with broken women and it isn’t that it’s necessary to break some eggs to make an omelet, the eggs are already broken. A man must have wisdom.

Discussion

Scripture only uses the term “one flesh” in Genesis 2:24 and when Genesis 2;24 is quoted elsewhere (Matthew 19, Mark 10, Ephesians 5 and 1st Corinthians 6). Genesis 2:24 is the law of marriage and the bond of one flesh is a synonym of marriage within the church.
Because marriage occurs at a certain point and then one is married, it’s assumed the bond of one flesh is created once and exists afterward in the same way we assume the husband only gives his commitment to marriage at a wedding ceremony. Yet, marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and His church so we should understand there is more to it than that. There is a point at which a person is justified (becomes a Christian), but following that a Christian goes through the process of sanctification as they grow in Christ. First one becomes a Christian, then one grows as a Christian.
In the same way a marriage is formed with sexual intercourse and that act produces a spiritual bond (one flesh). The husband makes his commitment to the marriage with the initial act and thereafter renews his commitment with succeeding acts of sexual intercourse. Likewise the one flesh bond is created with the initial act and renewed and strengthened with each succeeding act. The two are married and over time the married couple grows closer together.
I was confused about the one flesh bond because of the reference to a covenant marriage in Malachi 2 (in which God is speaking to the priests), which references the command in Leviticus 21‘s instruction to the priests that they must take only a virgin as a wife. This caused a study of covenants and as a result I viewed the “one flesh” union as being synonymous with a “covenant” marriage that only occurs with a virgin.
As a result my view of “become one flesh” was it occurs as a single act of God when the couple is married. It followed that after God has joined them they’re now joined in a “once and done” kind of way, but only with a virgin (due to my confusion with the reference to covenant marriage).
Yet, Paul’s admonition in 1st Corinthians 6:16 continued to bother me because he was speaking of becoming one flesh and the men were most certainly not being married to the prostitutes in question.
The question arose: What if the one-flesh union is a product of having sex that does not require marriage and only the covenant marriage is what is restricted to the virgin? In that case the “covenant marriage” is not the same thing as becoming “one-flesh”.
There is only one way to deal with questions like that. Test them.
Assume the spiritual union of one-flesh results every time a man and woman have sex, regardless of their marital status. Test that according to the Scriptures.

Re-Evaluating 1st Corinthians 6:16, “do you not know?”

Notice Paul states that being “one body” is to become “one flesh” in this passage. It is a progression: first joined physically (one body) and with that act, joined spiritually (one flesh). Yet, they are not married.

Or do you not know that the one who joins himself to a prostitute is one body with her? For He says, “THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH.” (1st Corinthians 6:16)

What we know:
  • The Apostle Paul and the men at that time knew that sex with a prostitute was not a sin because that activity was not prohibited and therefore was not and could not be immoral.
  • The prostitutes were eligible to marry and thus were not committing adultery.
  • Paul gave his prohibition within the context of Genesis 2:24 and quoted part of that verse (the two shall become one flesh).
  • The prohibition ONLY applies to Christian men.
  • The men were NOT becoming married to the prostitutes with the act of sex, because a woman who is no longer a virgin is free to marry whom she chooses (1st Corinthians 7:39) and must agree to be married (Numbers 30:9) before sex makes her married. Prostitutes were the one group of women who didn’t want to marry the men.
Therefore, we cannot place the bond of becoming one flesh only within the domain of marriage. If not occurring solely with the act of becoming married, it must be the result of having sex and it must occur every time one has sex. This is the same as the man giving his commitment to marriage every time he has sex with a woman. He “renews his vow” every single time he has sex with his wife.
Therefore, a superior exegesis of 1st Corinthians 6:16 is that Christian men are not to have sex with a prostitute because sexual intercourse with her results in the one flesh bond and thereby joins Christ to her in the process. Because marriage is not required to become one flesh.
Think of sex and the one flesh bond as playing with fire. Fire can be a useful servant if controlled, but a dangerous master that destroys if it gets out of control.
I previously concluded that Paul gave his prohibition on using prostitutes for sex because it was an abuse of the man’s authority to marry. This correction strengthens the case that the men were abusing their authority to marry, becoming one flesh with no intention of being married.
With the view that the one-flesh union is created any time a man and woman have sex (without regard to marriage), we have Paul saying that because Christian men are spiritually joined with Christ, they are not to form spiritual one-flesh unions with prostitutes because in doing so they join Christ in that union. In that case, it makes perfect sense to quote Genesis 2:24 saying “they shall become one flesh” because that is the justification of his prohibition. Becoming “one body” causes the man to become “one flesh” with the woman.

Re-Examining Matthew 19:6, “Let no man separate”

Jesus, in Matthew 19:6, speaking within the context of divorce (which can only occur when there is a marriage) said “so they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” This is the statement that tells us that the “one flesh” bond is something that God does, which allows us to better understand Paul’s comparison between the one flesh bond and becoming a member of the body of Christ in Ephesians 5:28-32.
  • The mere act of sex produces the one-flesh union, a union created by God.
  • This occurs whether it’s within or without marriage.
  • Once the two have been joined in marriage, they are not to be separated.
  • That which is joined by God cannot be successfully separated by man.
This reinforces the point that marriage is begun with the act of sex and for that reason there is no prohibition anywhere in Scripture that forbids a man and woman who are eligible to marry from having sex. At the same time it informs us that the act of sex is to create the one flesh bond which is an act of God. Separation following that is not something that man was authorized to do.

Conclusions From Scripture

  • The one flesh bond cannot be tied to sex with the virgin because that would associate it only with marriage. If it were tied only to the virginity of the woman we have a two-tiered marriage system of one flesh marriage and civil (by consent) marriage. If this were the case Jesus is saying that it is acceptable to divorce in the case of tier-II marriages because they are not one flesh.
  • The one flesh bond cannot be tied solely to marriage because Paul is stating that becoming one body with a prostitute is to become one flesh with her. This act takes place outside the bonds of marriage (by definition) and will not result in marriage because the prostitute does not agree to be married.
  • All marriages are initiated with sex and therefore all marriages are characterized by the bond of becoming one flesh.
  • The act of sex causes God to join the two as one flesh, so each act of sex renews and strengthens the spiritual bond of one flesh between them in the same way that each act of sex is to renew the husband’s commitment to his marriage.

Science and Observation

The question of becoming one flesh has some interesting possibilities on the physical level that modern science is just beginning to explore.
Each person has a specific microbiome profile of the various flora and fauna living in them. The microbes in their bodies. What that means is everyone has about ten trillion cells that make up their bodies, but in addition the body is host to about one hundred trillion cells living in it that are microbes. The human genome has about twenty-one thousand genes, but the microbes living in each person have around eight million genes that interact with the body, turning genes on and off, tinkering with the immune system and things of that nature. The microbes in everyone’s body are part of who they are.
When a woman has sexual intercourse with a man she isn’t just getting his semen, she’s getting a big dose of his microbiome and as time passes they literally become one flesh. The microbiome affects who you are, how you think and how you feel. It has a huge impact on things like digestion, allergies, diabetes, obesity, bowel disorders and even psychiatric disorders like schizophrenia and depression. Researchers are just getting started looking at this, but it’s now safe to say that in some ways, mental disorders are sexually transmissible. Crazy could be considered an STD in another generation.
In a sexual relationship the woman will be receiving the man’s microbiome in the act of sexual intercourse and over time they will develop a similar profile as her body becomes more like his. In addition, during intercourse his semen is absorbed by the woman and as a result his DNA is entering into her bloodstream and tissue. As a result of regular sex, over time the man’s microbiome and DNA becomes part of the woman’s body.
This is even more pronounced when a woman gets pregnant because fetal cells will invade her body. These are almost always stem cells and they’ll go to any part of her body that needs help and set to work repairing the damage. Fetal cells are half her DNA and half his DNA. That means through the action of sex and pregnancy the father will literally become a part of the mother’s body with every baby he fathers in her because those cells don’t go away. His DNA will be with her for the rest of her life along with his microbiome.
At one time doctors thought semen was just the delivery vehicle for the sperm, but not any more. Semen is now considered the most complex fluid the body produces, more complex than blood. It’s loaded with enzymes and prostaglandins that a woman’s body does not produce. Her vagina, cervix and uterus will absorb the semen and within a few hours after intercourse the woman’s bloodstream shows measurable amounts of the ingredients of semen. The effect of this is to improve the woman’s sense of well being.
This the definition of becoming one flesh on a physical and emotional level.
Dr. Lazar Greenfield was the president elect of the American College of Surgery, a man at the top of his profession. His career was destroyed by feminists because he wrote a Valentines Day article in “Surgery News” that discussed the benefits of semen for women.

Dr. Greenfield noted the therapeutic effects of semen, citing research from the Archives of Sexual Behavior which found that female college students practicing unprotected sex were less likely to suffer from depression than those whose partners used condoms (as well as those who remained abstinent).

Read the entire story that I linked to get the rest of the story that discusses the research. Although the newsletter retracted the entire issue, the essay in question is here at retractionwatch.
I believe an understanding of “become one flesh” is the final piece of the puzzle for understanding Genesis 2:24 and the real-world applications are interesting.
And this means I have a lot of editing to do on posts from years gone by.

Theology For Men of the West: Fathers and Daughters

Artisanal Toad10 Comments
The authority of the father over his household has been under attack by the leaders of the church for over 1000 years. Small wonder that today, fathers are an afterthought when one thinks of a family. Before we get to the Scripture and the history to be examined, let’s look (again) at the impact of a father on his children. The following table lays out the religious attendance of adult children according to the attendance practice of their parents.
Our first table shows us the father present in the family, a man who places importance on worship attendance in church. Notice that when his wife is also in regular attendance with him, only just over 1/4 of the children will have no attendance in church as adults. However, as the mother is less submissive to him both the percentage of children who attend regularly as adults as well as the children who attend irregularly rises. A devout father with no wife present will see almost half of his children become regular worshipers as adults.
Father Mother Regular
Attendance		 Irregular
Attendance		 No
Attendance
Regular Regular 32.8 41.4 25.8
Regular Irregular 37.7 37.6 24.7
Regular None 44.2 22.4 33.4
The chart detailing what happens when the father is only in irregular attendance.
Father Mother Regular
Attendance		 Irregular
Attendance		 No
Attendance
Irregular Regular 3.4 58.6 38.0
Irregular Irregular 7.8 60.8 31.4
Irregular None 25.4 22.8 51.8
Finally, we have the chart in which the father does not attend church or is absent from the home.
Father Mother Regular
Attendance		 Irregular
Attendance		 No
Attendance
None Regular 1.5 37.4 61.1
None Irregular 2.3 37.8 59.9
None None 4.6 14.7 80.7
The data demonstrates the influence of the mother on the regular attendance of their children in adulthood is negligible. Indeed, the less a mother goes to church the more likely her children will regularly attend church as adults.
Fathers Have An Incredible Impact that cannot be understated. The authority that God granted to fathers is likewise broad and deep.

The Authority of Fathers

In Numbers 30:2-5 we read the following:

If a man makes a vow to the Lord, or takes an oath to bind himself with a binding obligation, he shall not violate his word; he shall do according to all that proceeds out of his mouth.
Also if a woman makes a vow to the Lord, and binds herself by an obligation in her father’s house in her youth, and her father hears her vow and her obligation by which she has bound herself, and her father says nothing to her, then all her vows shall stand and every obligation by which she has bound herself shall stand. B ut if her father should forbid her on the day he hears of it, none of her vows or her obligations by which she has bound herself shall stand; and the Lord will forgive her because her father had forbidden her. (Emphasis added)

This passage details the blanket grant of authority of the father over his daughter, which points to his responsibility to his daughters. The father has the authority to command his children and direct their lives. The Bible provides several examples that generally make feminists want to scream because they point to the lack of agency for young women.
In Exodus 21:7-10, we observe that the father has the authority to sell his daughter as a female slave to become the owners’ concubine, a wife for his son, or the wife of one of his slaves. A concubine is the wife of a free man, but she is not a free woman. If the man purchases the woman for his son, she will enter the marriage to the son as a free woman (according to the custom of daughters). If he purchases her to be the wife of one of his servants, she will become that man’s wife but as a slave she is not held to the same standards as free women are. For example, if a married free woman commits adultery, they are to be put to death but in Leviticus 19:20 we can see that if a slave woman commits adultery,

“there shall be punishment; they shall not, however, be put to death, because she was not free.”

In 1st Corinthians 7:36-38, we see the father has the authority to refuse to allow his daughter to marry. But what if she gets married without her father’s permission?
In Exodus 22:16-17, we see the effect of a daughter choosing to agree to get married (she was seduced and agreed to have sex). According to Numbers 30:3-5, we see in verse 16 that the father hears of it and says nothing. She is his wife. In verse 17, the father forbids it and refuses to give his daughter in marriage. Thus, because the father forbid it she is not married, even though they had sex.
This passage records a judgment of Moses and the question before Moses was a conflict of Law between the Law of Marriage and the Law of Vows. According to the Law of Vows, the father has the right to pass judgment on any agreement his daughter makes and if he chooses, he may forbid that agreement. However, the Law of marriage says that when the eligible virgin has sex, she is married.
Since the father would not hear of the agreement of his daughter to marry until after the deed was done, does the father have the right to forbid her agreement to marry that resulted in the marriage immediately afterward when she gave him her virginity?
As it turns out, the answer is yes and that is illustrated in Exodus 22:16-17. In forbidding the agreement to marry, the father is forbidding her marriage to that particular man. The effect of doing so means he was not eligible to marry her and thus the sex did not result in a marriage. Readers of the Bible generally do not understand any of this and exegesis is further clouded by the fact translators place extra words in the passage that completely change the meaning. Verse 16:

“If a man seduces a virgin who is not engaged, and lies with her, he must pay a dowry for herto behis wife.”

Notice the words that have been struck out. Those words are a translators addition, but completely change the meaning of the passage by creating the illusion that they are somehow not married yet. Those who care to confirm this may do so here if they wish, translators additions are in brackets. Now look at verse 17:

“If her father absolutely refuses to give her to him, he shall pay money equal to the dowry for virgins.”

Following the form set out in Numbers 30:5, first we see the father obviously says nothing and the man must pay a dowry for his wife. Then we see the father has forbidden the marriage to him (he “absolutely refuses to give her to him”) and he still has to pay the price equal to a dowry for virgins. Because students of the Bible don’t understand the nature of this judgment of Moses so they are taught that sex doesn’t make one married. Obviously if sex doesn’t make one married, it makes sense for the translators to add “to be” in order to fool everyone into thinking the text supports that notion.
Understand, in order for marriage to be under the authority of the church, the church had to forbid a marriage that did not have their permission. In order for the church to get control of this, the marriage had to be a public ceremony of commitment and not sex, which is where the “sin” of premarital sex came from.
The “sex doesn’t make you married” was a doctrinal tool used for the purposes of power and control. In order to gain the power they wanted they had to steal it from the individuals who rightfully possessed that authority.

A Conspiracy Theory, Or Historical Fact?

Why would Bible translators insert words that completely change the meaning of what the text actually says? The answer is because 1500 years ago the man who translated the Bible for the church (Jerome) did it that way. The doctrine of the church was established that a public ceremony of commitment was required because (regardless of what the Bible said) sex did not make one married.
That isn’t conspiracy theory, it’s historical fact. As to why that was done, observe a brief history of how this happened.
The following quotes are from “Law, Sex and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James A Brundage. Emphasis added in the following quotes.
During Constantine’s reign and those of his sons and successors, Christians secured numerous social and political advantages. By the end of the fourth century the Roman government, with the enthusiastic cooperation of Church authorities, was beginning to persecute pagans and other non-Christians, as well as Christians whose beliefs differed from the norms of an orthodoxy that was continuously engaged in defining itself. Early in the fifth century, Christianity became in law what it had for several generations been in fact: the official religion of the Roman state (1). (page 77)
The church leaders got their first taste of real power when Constantine and his successors granted authority to Christian bishops to adjudicate disputes among Christians. Provincial civil authorities were required to enforce the decisions of the audientia episcopalis, as the bishops courts were styled. Following this the boundaries between the civil law and the church law became increasingly blurred once the decisions of the episcopal audientia became enforceable by civil authorities. At the same time the bishops were becoming increasingly involved with the administration of the government. What happened then, do you suppose? Persecution of the pagans.
When people are persecuted by a dominant group, there are generally three strategies. Fight them, join them or run from them. One of the results of the persecution of various pagan and “heretic” groups was an influx of individuals claiming orthodoxy. As these individuals infiltrated the church, just like an invasion of SJW’s, there was a push to codify things and make rules.
Up to the beginning of the fourth century Christians had not yet created a systematic theology; now they felt the need to devise coherent and sophisticated justifications for their religious teachings in terms of current scientific and philosophical thought.
The Church Fathers of the fourth and fifth centuries took up this task with zest and vigor. They were determined not only to justify the teachings of their religion to others, but also to demonstrate to their own satisfaction that Christian beliefs accounted for the world and mankind’s place in it more adequately than alternative explanatory systems. Out of the writings of such teachers as Sts. Gregory of Nyssa (ca. 335-ca. 395) and John Chrysostom (ca. 344-407) in the Greek-speaking East and Sts. Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine in the Latin-speaking West, there would emerge by the sixth century a Christian world view that was far more systematic and rigorous than anything that had gone before. The theologizing of Christianity began in earnest during this period. This process required Christian intellectuals, among other things, to account for the place of sex in the scheme of creation and to define the role that sexual relations ought to play in the Christian life. (page 79)
In order to understand why current doctrines are the way they are, one must understand the thoughts and attitudes of the early church fathers who created the systematic theology of Christianity beginning in the 4th Century. Fortunately they were rather prolific in their writing.
The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430). Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent (3).
Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs (4). Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful (5). Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond. (6). (page 80)
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection (13).
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources (14). 14 But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential. (page 82)
Patristic discussions of the place of sex in the Christian life are shot through with a fundamental ambivalence about the place of women in the scheme of salvation. (25) Augustine agreed clearly and emphatically with other patristic writers in requiring that men observe the same norms of sexual conduct as women. (26) At the same time, however, Augustine, like other patristic authors, considered women frankly inferior to men, both physically and morally. (page 85)
According to the Bible, men and women have different norms of sexual conduct. Indeed, there are two separate standards of sexual morality- one for men and the other for women. This agreement among the patristic fathers of the church that men and women were to be held to the same standard of sexual morality is the moral foundation of feminism. We have already seen their disdain for sex, but observe that they changed the Biblical definition of marriage:
Patristic writers assumed, as Roman law did, that consent made marriage. They rejected the notion that consummation was an essential part of marriage. It made no difference whether a couple ever went to bed together; so long as they consented to marry one another, that was what counted (63). If consummation was not essential, it might follow that sexual impotence constituted no reason for holding a marriage invalid, and Augustine at any rate seems to have subscribed to this view (64). (page 92)
The marital debt created a parity of rights and obligations between the spouses. Each had an equal right to demand that it be paid; each had an equal obligation to comply with the other’s demands. Equality of the sexes in marriage meant equality in the marriage bed, but not outside of it (69). Just as each spouse was entitled to sexual service from the other on demand, so each was entitled to require sexual fidelity from the other. Neither had a right to seek sexual fulfillment outside of marriage, even if the other party was, for example, absent or ill and thus sexually unavailable (70). Cessation of marital relations did not break the bond of marriage, just as the beginning of sexual relations was irrelevant to the contracting of marriage (71). The evident aim of patristic matrimonial theory was to separate marriage as far as possible from its sexual component, defining it as a contractual union, separate and distinct from the sexual union of the married persons. (page 93)
That, in a nutshell, is the history of the church’s doctrine on sexual morality you have never heard anywhere else. There was no conspiracy, the early church fathers openly and prolifically broadcast their hatred for all things sexual. They publicly threw out the Biblical standards for marriage and sexual morality, replacing them with a mixture of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.

The Church Usurped The Authority Of The Fathers

In its desire for power the church took control of marriage. This usurped the authority of the man (given the authority to marry in Genesis 2:24) and fathers’ authority over their daughters by making marriage a ceremony of consent rather than sexual intercourse. The church forbid “secret marriage” and required marriage to be performed under the authority of the church with witnesses in a ceremony in which both parties gave their consent and commitment to the marriage.
The reason the church could get away with this was because having taken control of marriage, the church decides who was married and who was not. This determined who could inherit and who could not, which was of critical importance to the Nobility. Again, Brundage:
Roman law prior to Constantine had not required any sort of ritual for contracting marriage, even though in practice ceremonies were in common use. During the fourth and fifth centuries, Church regulations began to require Christians to receive a nuptial blessing from a priest. (37) Christian wedding rituals first began to take shape during this period, and by the sixth century two varieties of ceremony had emerged. One type, commonest in Gaul, featured a nuptial blessing imparted by a priest while the newly wedded couple lay in the marriage bed. Nuptial ceremonies in Italy, by contrast, centered on a blessing bestowed upon the couple either in the church building or, more commonly, at the door of the church, at the time when they exchanged consent. Thus the symbolism of the Italian rites centered upon consent and the Church’s role in marriage, while French wedding symbolism stressed consummation and treated the nuptial ceremony as primarily a domestic affair. (38) (page 88)
Obviously, the Italian rite won out (in keeping with the previously described attitudes) and the church later adopted a uniform marital rite for the entire church that required a public ceremony with witness to exchange vows of consent.
The major opponents to the increase of power by the church were the nobility, who maintained and solidified their dynasties by carefully arranged marriages, often to cousins. By requiring the consent of the bride and declaring that sex would not create a marriage, the church effectively usurped the father’s authority to decide who his daughter would marry. Without the blessing of the church the marriage was invalid and the child could not inherit. By gradually changing the forbidden levels of consanguinity the church made it impossible for the families to continue cousin marriages.
At the same time, given the doctrine that sexual pleasure was evil and wicked, the practice of polygyny was forbidden because the only reason a man could have for wanting more than one wife was sexual variety and pleasure. At the same time forbidding divorce, this placed the nobility in a very difficult spot if the wife did not bear an heir. The church had a vested interest in this because when wealthy nobles died without heir, the church inherited the property. While these policies were aimed at the nobility, they were enforced (as much as is possible) for everyone.
With the protestant reformation and resulting schism in the western church, the civil state seized the power that had once been wielded by the church, especially over the institution of marriage. As this was firmly established in the culture and law, the state was set for feminism to finally grow and bear its poisonous fruit.
This is the history of how the authority of fathers was usurped. First by the church and later by the state, then finally by the feminist state. The goal is to separate the fathers from their daughters and remove daughters from the protection of living in their father’s house.
Fathers, teach your children and understand your authority. Especially the authority you have over your daughters. The kindest thing you could do is probably to have a discussion with your daughter and forbid the marriage she began without your knowledge. It does not matter whether she married a Christian or not, in complete ignorance she was bound to that man when she had sex with him.

Footnotes:

1. On Constantine’s life and religious policies see generally Andras Alfoldi, The Conversion of Constantine and Pagan Rome (Oxford: Clarendon Press, 1948); Jakob Burckhardt, The Age of Constantine the Great, trans. Moses Hadas (New York: Pantheon Books, 1949); Hermann Dorries, Vas Selbstzeugnis Kaiser Konstantins, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Gottingen, phil.-hist. Kl., ser. 3, vol. 34 (Gottingen: Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht, 1954), and Liebschuetz, Continuity and Change, esp. pp. 277-89. On the relationship of paganism to Christianity in the fourth and fifth centuries see also James J. O’Donnell, “The Demise of Paganism,” Tradition 35 (1979) 45-88, as well as Charles Norris Cochrane, Christianity and Classical Culture: A Study in Thought and Action from Augustus to Augustine (London: Oxford University Press, 1944)
3. Peter Brown, Augustine of Hippo: A Biography (Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1967), pp. 390-91; Edward A. Synan, “Augustine of Hippo, Saint,” in Dictionary of the Middle Ages, ed. Joseph R. Strayer et al., 13 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1982- ; cited hereafter as DMA) 1: 646- 59. See also Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 58-59; Kosnik et al., Human Sexuality, p. 36.
4. Augustine, Contra Julianum4.5.35, in PL 44: 756: “In quibus [cupiditatibus malis] libido prae caeteris est, cui nisi resistatur, horrenda immunda committit.”
5. Augustine, Contra Julianum4.14.71, in PL 44: 773-74.
6. Miller, Lehre, pp. 22-23; Lecky, Hist. of European Morals2:281-82.
13. Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum1.13, 1.26, 1.28, in PL 23: 229-30, 246, 249; Gregory of Nyssa, De virginitate 2, in PG 46: 323-24; Bailey, Sexual Relation, pp. 45-46; JoAnn McNamara, “Cornelia’s Daughters: Paula and Eustocium” Women’s Studies 11 (1984) 12- 13.
14. Jerome, Adv. Jov.1.49, in PL 23:280-81; Aries, “L’amour dans Ie mariage,” pp. 118-19; Philippe Delhaye, “Le dossier antimatrimonial de L’Adversus Jovinianum et son influence sur quelques ecrits latins du Xlle siecle,” Mediaeval Studies 13 (1951) 68. Jerome found some strands of Stoic ethics so congenial that he numbered Seneca among the saints; De viris illustribus12, in PL 23: 662. But his use of the Stoics was highly selective; Colish, Stoic Tradition2: 70-81.
25. This ambivalence appears to be based upon the distinction between body and soul that was central to Augustine’s concept of human nature. See esp. Kari Elisabeth Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence: The Nature and Role of Women in Augustine and Thomas Aquinas (Washington: University Press of America, 1981), p. 339; Rosambert, Veuve, pp. 94-95; and see generally Margaret R. Miles, Augustine on the Body, American Academy of Religion Dissertation Series, no. 31 (Missoula, MT: Scholars Press, 1979)•
26. Ambrose, De Abraham1.4.25, in PL 14: 431; Jerome, Epist.77.3, in PL 22: 691; Caesarius of Arles, Sermones32.4, 142.3, ed. Germain Morin, 2 vols., CCL 103-4 (Turnhout: Bn§pols, 1953) 103: 142, 186-87; John Chrysostom, De verbis propter fornicationes4, in PG 51: 214; Augustine, Serm. 9•4, 392.4-5, in PL 38: 78 and 39: 1711- 12; Brown, Augustine of Hippo, p. 248.
37, Statuta ecclesiae antiquae c. 101, ed. Charles Munier, Bibliotheque de l’Institut de droit canonique et de l’Universite de Strasbourg, vol. 5 (Paris: Presses Universitaires de France, 1960), p. 100; St. Basil, Homeliae IX in Hexameron7.5, in PC 29: 160; and see generally Karl Ritzer, Le mariage dans les eglises chretiennes du Ier au XIe siecle, Lex orandi, vol. 45 (Paris: Editions du Cerf, 1970).
38. Herlihy, Medieval Households, pp. 13-14.
63. Augustine, De consensu evangelistarum 2.1.2, in CSEL 43: 82; De nupt. et concup.1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224; Ambrose, De institutione virginis6.41, in PL 16: 316; D’ErcoIe, “Consenso,” p. 28; Jean Gaudemet, “Indissolubilite et consommation du marriage: rapport d’Hincmar de Reims,” RDC 30 (1980) 29; William Joseph Dooley, Marriage according to St. Ambrose, Studies in Christian Antiquity, no. 11 (Washington: Catholic University of America, 1948), pp. 1-2.
64. Augustine, De bono coniugali7.7, 15.17, in CSEL 41: 196-97, 209-10; Josef Lamer, Die Storingen des geschlechtlichen Vermogens in der Literatur der auctoritativen Theologie des Mittelalters: Ein Beitrag zur Geschichte der Impotenz und des medizinischen Sachverstiindigenbeweises im kanonischen Impotenzprozess, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Mainz, Literatur, geistes- und sozialwissenschaftlichen Klasse (1958), no. 6 (Mainz: Akademie der Wissenschaften und der Literatur, 1958), p. 300.
69. Augustine, Epist.262, in CSEL 57: 621-31; Borresen, Subordination and Equivalence, p. 104; Berrouard, “Saint Augustin et L’indissolubilite,” p. 141.
70. Caesarius of ArIes, Serm. 43.7, in CCL 103: 193-94.
71. Augustine, De nupt. et concup. 1.11.12, in CSEL 42: 224.

Theology For Men of the West: The Cargo Cult of MGTOW

Artisanal Toad8 Comments
.

Toad Has NO Respect For MGTOW

Before I begin, understand that I can cite the stories and statistics better than the MGTOW proponents. In fact, it’s reasonable to say that I know more about the legal system in terms of divorce, child support and domestic violence than most of the MGTOW. And I understand what women are really like.
However, I don’t agree with MGTOW on both the definition and the solution to the problem.
First and foremost, marriage is a requirement for men because God said so. And the MGTOW might say he doesn’t believe in God. It is written: “The fool has said in his heart, there is no God.” The idiot acknowledges that there is a God and then chooses to violate His commands. I’m not here to talk to fools or idiots so don’t bother.
God created female hypergamy and it was part of His judgement of Adam and Eve that was detailed in Genesis 3:16. Deal with it. Because of female hypergamy, the judgement “he shall rule over you” becomes a backhanded requirement for men: If you want a woman to desire you… become fit to rule over her.
God created marriage and according to God’s plan the marriage begins when the virgin is penetrated in the act of sexual intercourse. That is a ceremony known as the act of marriage. If a man is joined to a woman and he is the man who got her virginity, they are actually married.

The Cargo Cult of the MGTOW

The MGTOW beliefs about marriage and divorce are analogous to the beliefs of cargo cults. They look back to previous generations when planes came from the sky with good things for everyone and believe the reason the planes don’t return is because they don’t have the airport correctly prepared. So they clear the strip and build a control tower and make things out of sticks that look just like the radios… in the belief that their efforts will cause the airplanes to come back to them again.
The MGTOW look at generations past when men were able to get married and stay married without being ground up by family court and believe all it will take is a reform of the laws such that men might have decent marriages again because women wouldn’t be able to abuse an already unfair system. Yet, since it is impossible to change the laws they oppose the idea of men getting married because the system is “too unfair” and a “bad deal” for men.
Due to their ignorance the cargo cults are unable to comprehend the war that caused the planes to come and later for the planes to leave. The only data they have is the observations of the airport and the logical conclusions they draw from that. In the same way, due to having been lied to all their lives, the MGTOW have a completely false view on the subjects of gender equality, the nature of marriage and how a marriage begins. The only data they have is drawn from a paradigm that rejects God or does not accept the truth of His word and is therefore faulty.
God takes a hand in the life of a nation and He blesses those who obey Him and punishes those who do not. God also takes a hand in the life of a family as it grows and matures. If the family is founded on betrayal and adultery, problems are to be expected. If the woman is committing adultery with the man she is with, why would it be a surprise when she commits adultery with any other man? Or decides to end the “marriage” in order to pursue other men?

The Real Issues With Marriage

Even the MGTOW acknowledge that if a man wants the best odds for a successful marriage that does not end in divorce, he should marry a virgin. This raises an important question:
Is the success of the marriage because one marries a virgin, or is it because the man is not committing adultery by taking another man’s wife?
The real rate of divorce for individuals who are actually married is around 5%. If the man is joined to a woman and he didn’t get her virginity, it’s almost a certainty that he is joined to an adulteress and the rate of divorce for such unions starts at almost 30% and goes up from there depending on how much adultery she’s dabbled in.
Considering the 5% divorce rate compared to adulterous unions that begin with about a 30% rate of destruction… a rate that increases from there depending on how many adulterous partners the woman has had, it seems reasonable to say the basic penalty for adultery committed in ignorance is a 25% destruction rate. The more adultery the woman has committed the higher the likelihood of the ultimate adulterous union breaking up in what we call divorce. However, that’s just the negative side of the scale.
When a man marries a virgin, with that act God joins the two with a spiritual bonding known as the “one flesh” bond of marriage. The Bible does not tell us anything about this bonding other than it is a great mystery. What is the value of this spiritual bond in keeping the marriage together? We do not know, but God must have had a reason and since He created women it is logical the spiritual bond is important.
In Matthew 19, Jesus said “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together let no man separate.” That indicates (obviously) God has joined the two with a spiritual bond, but it also indicates that it is possible to separate them afterward. What is the result of separating them? The answer is broken women.

Is The Destruction Of An Adulterous Union A Good Thing?

The key to this question has to be the issue of willing culpability. The girl is married in ignorance due to the lies of the churchian tradition and their refusal to tell the truth. The churchians will stand up and say “They knew premarital sex was a sin!” and even in that statement they are lying. The lie is the fact that unless a man and woman are engaged there can be no premarital sex. What the virgin girl is doing is getting married. After that she’s committing adultery with every other man.
When the men and women decide to marry, they do so in the ignorant belief that it is a commitment ceremony in front of witnesses that makes them married. Because that’s what the lying churchians have taught and society believes. Yet, in ignorance they set out on this path, building their house on the sand of betrayal and adultery. When the storms come (and they always do) the houses are torn apart and the children are especially damaged by this.
So, should we stand up and cheer as each ignorantly adulterous union is destroyed in family court with great suffering all around? No. There are solutions to the problem of these adulterous unions that can set things aright. The problem is getting the people to recognize the problem and then take the steps to solve it.
Just as one cannot force the red pill down a man’s throat when he is thoroughly blue-pilled, the majority of so-called “married” people refuse to believe they aren’t actually married, much less that solutions exist to solve the problem they refuse to recognize. (I will deal with this issue in a future post) However, for those who are not married (Hi MGTOW!), there are solutions to the problems you people never knew existed. It starts with a simple point: don’t have a wedding with a woman who is already married, you must ensure the woman is eligible to marry before you can be married.
Can an eligible non-virgin be married to a man and still get that “one-flesh” bonding from God? Scripture does not say one way or another but from what little we know, the answer is probably no. Which means the man who marries a virgin has an advantage over the man who marries an eligible non-virgin. Neither have done anything wrong but the man who takes a virgin bride gains the spiritual bonding from God, while the man who marries the eligible non-virgin is getting a woman who had her bond to another man broken. Yet, in both cases they could expect God to bless their marriage if they continue in faith and obedience.
The man who takes another man’s wife and calls it marriage because they had a wedding ceremony and took vows is still committing adultery. He is not married to the woman he believes is his wife because she was already a married woman. This couple cannot expect God to bless their union because God is not mocked and whatever you sow you shall also reap. Even if the adultery was done in ignorance.

Modern Men Are Not Fit To Rule

Yes, it’s the 21st Century and the entire system is broken because this isn’t just the women. Marriage and family are under attack from all sides by everyone in the game. God removed His restraining hand and gave people over to impurity, degrading passions and depraved minds.
Let’s say a man finds a banged up slut he’s attracted to and she’s highly attracted to him. He does what he needs to do to ensure she’s eligible to marry and then marries her. There will still be problems because of her past experiences and his present condition but they are not in sin. The MGTOW look at the landscape without understanding and due to their inability to comprehend the real problems, they reject marriage out of fear and lack of faith. All they talk about is how horrible marriage is but what comes through is fear.
I hear this sort of thing and I think of Proverbs 22:13.

The sluggard says, “There is a lion outside;
I will be killed in the streets!”

Notice that it says “sluggard” and not “coward” in that verse. Yet, the thought of being slain by a lion should induce fear so we should expect to hear that from the coward. Why, then, is it the sluggard (the lazy man) who says that? Because he is trying to shift the attention away from his laziness over to the fear of the lion. The fear of what may happen if he took the action he does not desire to take.
The vast majority of MGTOW are not fit to rule over preschoolers, much less an adult woman. What kind of men are they? Men who had the masculinity stomped out of them, were taught lies about men and women being equal, the men who were taught to “just be yourself.” The truth is that men who refuse to recognize reality and change accordingly are operating at the level of stupidity characterized by bringing a knife to a gunfight.
No, it’s not your great-grampa’s world any longer and that means you adapt or die. Of course, if you’re happy fapping to porn while congratulating yourself on how wise you are for avoiding women, see my comments about fools and idiots.
I disagree completely with the MGTOW as to what the problems actually are, so we obviously disagree on the solutions. What follows are the real solutions, but they only work if the woman is actually eligible to marry. Meaning, if she’s already married the man must ensure she is no longer married. Scripture provides several ways to deal with this, but in some cases the woman is married and that can’t be changed. The man’s only rational response in that case is Next!

Adapt Or Die

You must change your body, your mind and your habits. Start with your body. Hit the gym, grow some muscles (which increases your testosterone) and lose the fat. We are talking about an environment in which, according to the Centers for Disease Control, 37.9 percent of adults over 20 are obese and another 32.8% are overweight. In other words, a whopping 70.7% of adults over 20 years of age are either obese or overweight. Just being in sufficiently good shape that you’re not overweight or obese puts you in the top 30% in terms of what your body looks like. Get your bodyfat down to around 10% and you will stand out.
Learn how to fight with both your mind and your body. For the body I recommend Brazilian Jiu Jitsu and Muay Thai. Yes, you’ll get punched in the face. You’ll be submitted and put in pain. It’s good for you. One does not learn how to fight in a short period of time regardless of what one sees on the movie screen, it takes years of training. In the same way you must learn to fight with your mind, by which I mean learning Game. Ultimately, Game is learned charisma.
Women want a superior man and you may as well write this on the back of your hand because it’s the truth:

Women do not desire to end a relationship with a man they are highly attracted to.

Be the man that women find highly attractive. For that you must learn Game, be fit and look good, have the self-confidence that comes from knowing you can take care of yourself and have a good career that makes a good income. Here are three posts that you don’t want to read but still need to:
By maximizing your potential and attracting a woman who is actually eligible to marry, it is possible to have a reasonably safe marriage. Still, that doesn’t get rid of the problem of what women could do to you. Given their history there may very well be problems because we live in an environment today that places temptations on women they should not have to face.
Maybe some of you are fit to rule and women find you highly attractive, but you look at the situation and decide it’s just too risky because marriage is a really bad deal nowadays. Ok, the game is rigged. MGTOW see this as a binary choice of play by women’s rules or choose to opt out, but there is another game where you get to use God’s rules.
The problem begins with defining marriage as monogamy. The problems in monogamous marriage come from the fact that rigid monogamy is a monopoly for women and even if you marry a virgin there will be problems given the environment she is subjected to. At the beginning of a relationship part of the woman’s attraction for the man is the competition with other women. In other words, the possibility she might be rejected. This is why the sex at the beginning of the relationship is always the best you’ll get in a monogamous relationship.
As soon as the man makes the commitment, part of her attraction dies. A cat chasing a string is fascinated by the movement of the string and the fact they can’t quite catch it. Let the cat catch the string and the cat immediately gets bored and looks for something else. In the same way, by making the commitment the man destroys part of the attraction he held for the woman.
Change the game by recognizing the fact that a man can have more than one wife.
A marriage limited to one woman is called monogamy, but is better referred to as a female monopoly. Monopoly, by definition, is characterized by a lack of accountability from competitive forces. In other words, monogamy eliminates the most powerful word from a man’s vocabulary: “Next!” With no accountability, the woman has no desire to please and provide good service. What is it that Rollo is fond of saying?

Desire Cannot Be Negotiated.

The question is what motivates her desire and female competition provides an enormous amount of motivation. With only the threat of multiple wives, the (first) wife is subject to competitive pressure. If her behavior is bad enough, he could move her into the spare bedroom and take another wife. And some of you still haven’t caught on that I go by what the Bible says, so the reason for not throwing wife #1 out in order to make way for wife #2 is that behavior isn’t allowed. The commitment of the Christian man in marriage is permanent.
Polygyny is not socially accepted as a right of men, thus, anything that deviates from monogamy is considered to be an immoral violation of the idea that men and women are equal. Yet, if women are attracted enough, they willingly and publicly share a man if that is what he wants.
An easy litmus test for a man is the threesome. If a man cannot manage to get two women to have a threesome with him, he will not be capable of getting multiple women to marry him. Yet, counter-intuitively, it’s frequently easier to get two women in your bed than just one. This is a matter of maintaining frame and managing the female competition to his advantage.
Read this post on the “Cardinal Rule”, which explains polygyny in detail from the standpoint of monogamy and lack of female competition. Seriously, just read it.

A Marriage With Multiple Wives Is Better Than Monogamy

The Modern Legal Environment

Understand that polygyny will never be officially recognized in the United States (or any of the English-speaking West) under the current legal system. The reason is all the laws and doctrines concerning divorce are oriented around monogamy. Even the recognition of homosexual unions is limited to only those within the framework of monogamous unions. As soon as the court is confronted with polygyny, the first problem is polygyny is contrary to public policy which means a marriage with multiple wives cannot be recognized as being a marriage. To get a divorce there has to be a marriage or some relationship that can be deemed to be a marriage. Without that there can be no divorce and polygyny cannot be deemed to be a marriage.
In some jurisdictions the State has responded with the argument that there is no polygynous marriage but rather multiple concurrent monogamous relationships. Under this rubric, the first woman to attempt a divorce-rape becomes the “wife” and a divorce proceeds from there. The other woman or women are left with the official status of girlfriends (mistresses) and get nothing. The strategy is called “divide and conquer” and with a marriage with multiple income streams and significant assets the first woman to betray all the others wins.
The key assertion is each woman is in a monogamous relationship with the man. The hallmark of monogamy is the women do not share their man. The strategy is to absolve the woman of any blame (she becomes the legitimate victim, all the other women are victims to a lesser extent) and throw everything on the man. This argument rests on a the idea that if all conjugal acts with each woman are strictly one-on-one, then they are separate monogamous relationships.
This argument results from situations in which a man is married and later wants another wife. He manages to achieve that, but leaves the two women in separate housing or within the same house, in separate bedrooms. At some point one of the women (usually the first wife) decides she’s had enough and takes it to the court.
The solution for this is simple and has benefits for the marriage:
Continue As You Begin. If a man decides to have a monogamous marriage, he should continue his monogamous marriage because that is what the wife signed up for. If he wants a poly marriage he should round up his collection of women first and they should all agree they are entering a polygynous marriage. If the man is already married and decides he wants another wife, he should legally divorce and separate for 6 months to a year. At the end of that period of time he should enter into a new marriage with all the women at once. If wife #1 isn’t willing to do that, she should not be part of it (this is quite complicated and deserves its own post), but the rule is to continue as you began.
Use a written contract of marriage. The contract functions as the private law that controls the marriage. The real benefit of the contract is full disclosure to all parties. The contract establishes by unanimous consent that the marriage with all wives began at the same time with their complete understanding, proving the marriage is a polygynous marriage with multiple wives rather than a group of concurrent monogamous relationships.
The entire family living under the same roof. This is important in dealing with the “separate concurrent monogamous relationships” argument because women in monogamous relationships don’t share. Having the entire family under one roof in the same residence eliminates this issue because they are held out to the public as maintaining a polygynous marriage. This arrangement also forces the wives to deal with each other and develop relationships between themselves.
Husband and wives all share the same bedroom and bed. Given that homosexual unions are now granted the same status as heterosexual unions, this brings the “conjugal relations” portion of the definition of marriage front and center. The question is not “who is married to whom” but rather “who is NOT married to whom?” Arguably everyone in the bed has a conjugal relationship with everyone else so not only is each wife married to the husband but by the same token they are married to each other. No person is any more or less married to everyone else by any definition one wishes.
All wives are “mom” to all children. This is far more important in terms of family harmony than anything else because it forestalls conflict between mothers. It’s also very beneficial for the children because it’s easier for a woman to be 100% consistent with another woman’s child than it is with her own child. However, in the event one of the wives wanted out, giving her custody of her children be to separate siblings, but leaving all the children together means they stay with their Dad and the remaining wife/wives they already know and accept as “mom”. That is clearly more in the best interests of the child than allowing the child to be raised by a single mother. Should the father receive custody of the child, the mother would be required to pay child support (another disincentive to the idea of leaving).

Why Does It Work?

The very first point about a polygynous marriage is the women are the ones who must consent to it and women will only consent to such an arrangement with a high-value man. This is not the form of marriage available to “average” men and certainly not to sub-standard men. Second, the structure of a polygynous marriage places the incentives on staying in the relationship while leaving the relationship is penalized.
In behavioral terms, good behavior is rewarded and bad behavior is penalized, which is also the opposite of monogamous marriage. The structure forces the husband to manage relationships and remain aloof, which makes him more dominant and thus more attractive. The wives compete for their husband’s attention by giving their husband what he wants. Bad behavior results in a lack of attention as the husband ignores them in favor of another wife.
Polygyny takes advantage of hypergamy, female competition and women’s herd instincts. The wives need for masculine dominance and leadership is satisfied by their husband. Some of their needs for comfort are satisfied by their husband, but many of their emotional needs can be satisfied by the other wives. It is an observable fact that women’s emotional needs are best met by other women and in a poly marriage the women have relationships with their fellow wives. In other words, they have their own “herd” within the marriage and are stronger for it.
Women compete. No matter how much they love each other and get along, they still compete for their man’s attention. The only way they can compete is by giving him what he wants. Sweetness, loyalty, attractiveness, submissiveness, femininity and sexual availability to name the big ones. One aspect of polygyny is the husband will not be subjected to sexual starvation and the sex he gets will be better than he would ever get in a monogamous relationship. Yes, variety is available, but women compete and that comes through in terms of quality, especially when they are all in bed together.
A man who has maximized his potential and is high value should be able to arrange such a marriage if he desires it. However, it is the women who decide whether they are willing to share and if the man is not sufficiently high-value they will refuse. This is why very few men have had more than one wife.
One will regularly hear the advice of “Spin Plates”. Meaning, maintain multiple concurrent sexual relationships. And, it’s possible for a Christian man to do this without being in sin, but only because women of this generation are so screwed up. There are things he has to do but it’s possible. A man who is high value and can spin plates can spin himself together a solid marriage to multiple women and have children in the safest possible structure given this legal environment.
Women crave the dominance of a high-value masculine and dominant man. They desire boundaries and want to be told what to do… as long as it’s the right man in charge. Read the Biblical Marriage post and consider the rules for marriage from the Bible. It’s all about maintaining frame and God provided the frame for marriage.

Verdict On MGTOW

The MGTOW (like most people) do not understand marriage or the problems that are caused by doing things contrary to God’s commands. In leaving God out of the equation they cannot comprehend the problem and thus cannot fathom the solutions. This is extremely difficult for people to accept because there is no data. The lack of data results from women’s self-reported data and the fact no-one understands that a woman is married to the man who takes her virginity.
A wise man should recognize the reality of modern life and adjust himself accordingly. However, the vast majority of men will not do the work necessary to become high value. They refuse to adjust to the new paradigm, which means it’s easier for those men who choose to do so.
Polygynous marriage is available to those who are truly high-value. Such an arrangement is more stable and offers more benefits than any monogamous marriage. To claim that marriage is no longer a viable option is a lie because solutions exist. The solutions begin with understanding what marriage is and how it begins.

Theology For Men of the West: Hypergamy

Artisanal Toad30 Comments

The Nature Of Women

In Genesis 3:16 we find the judgment of woman, by God:

To the woman He said,
“I will greatly multiply
Your pain in childbirth,
In pain you will bring forth children;
Yet your desire will be for your husband,
And he will rule over you.”

This passage has been the subject of much argument within the church, to the point that the translation is being changed. It’s pretty straightforward until you get to the word that’s translated as “desire.” Before we get to the real problem, let’s look at the word itself, which is only used three times in all of Scripture. The first is in the passage quoted above, the second is in Genesis 4:7

If you do well, will not your countenance be lifted up? And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.”

Obviously, in that passage the meaning of the word desire is a desire to control or to conquer. The only other use of the word is in the Song of Solomon 7:10, in which the word desire is clearly used to mean sexual desire.

“I am my beloved’s, a nd his desire is for me.

So, in Genesis 3:16, what does that word “desire” mean?

The Fundamental Assumption Is The Problem

You can guess what happened, right? Everybody staked out a position on the word desire as meaning either a desire to control or a sexual desire because the fundamental assumption is the word has ONLY ONE MEANING. This is incorrect in this case because this isn’t an either-or choice. The observed nature of women demonstrates that the definition is both, as we shall see.
“Your desire shall be for your husband and he shall rule over you.”
The object of woman’s desire is for her man and “man” is defined as one who will “rule, have dominion, reign over you”.
Your desire shall be for [the man who rules over you]. The word translated as “rule over” is the Hebrew word mashal (Strong’s 4910), which is a verb. An active verb. What about the woman who has a man who does not rule over her? Is her desire for him? What about the woman who does not have a man? Does she have no desire for men?
[A woman’s] desire shall be for [the man who is fit to rule over her].
This puts it into an easy-to-understand form and allows us to go back and look at the word desire again, which raises the critical question: How does the woman know the man is fit to rule over her?
Every woman has an attraction point and her personal preferences are irrelevant because at some point she will be attracted to a man. What happens next? First, the woman wants to confirm the man’s fitness so she tests him. These tests are commonly known as “shit tests” or “fitness tests.” If she can conquer/control him he fails the test. If he blows through her tests and demonstrates his fitness to rule her, then her desire to conquer him is satisfied (temporarily) and her desire becomes sexual in nature.
  • Interest –> Man is Tested –> Man’s Fitness Proved –> Attraction
  • Interest –> Man is Tested –> Man Fails Tests –> All Attraction Dies
Fitness testing is ongoing. No matter how long the relationship lasts, there will always be fitness testing because the woman needs to know the man still has what it takes. Think of it as checking boundaries. One of the foundational Red Pill truths is all women really are like that. Your mother, your sister, your girlfriend or your wife. AWALT. Why? Because God said so. Don’t believe it? Go argue with Him.
What happens when a woman meets a man who is more fit to rule than her husband? That depends on whether her husband is meeting her needs and we’ll talk about that in a bit.
It has only been since 1960 that unrestrained hypergamy has been possible and it has only been apparent in the past few decades. Prior to that it was assumed by the tradition of long-held belief that women were not like that because there were numerous social restrictions and cultural mores that restrained women’s hypergamy. This is possibly the first time in all of history in which unrestrained hypergamy has become apparent to all, due to women’s ability to provide provisioning for themselves and control their fertility.

The Dark Side Of Hypergamy

What happens when the man does not pass her fitness tests? In the beginning, what little attraction she might have had for him dries up and dies on the spot. In an existing relationship if he lets himself lose control and starts failing her tests she will become frustrated and test him all the harder, hoping he can pass her tests. She is looking for her ruler and he’s not showing up. If he continually fails her tests she will eventually seethe with contempt for him. At this point the relationship is doomed.
When she encounters a man who displays the dominance her husband lacks, her desire will shift to that man regardless of the past, regardless of her supposed commitment and without regard for anyone’s feelings. That is the nature of hypergamy. In fact, unless the woman is so completely focused on her man (meaning he is the right man) that she’s completely uninterested in any other man, then under the right conditions she will cheat. So many men have been lied to all their lives about women that encountering the true nature of women blows their mind. There is a fantasy that says a woman needs time, she needs a relationship, she needs to be “in love” or she needs to feel secure before having sex. No. The truth is that it comes down to a simple formula:
The right man at the right time in the right place with the right line.
That’s all it takes. The right man is a man she finds highly attractive, far more attractive than the man she is with. The right place and the right time subjectively refer to her accountability. The right line is the one that passes her tests and indicates he is attracted to her. This is a matrix and each point is subjective depending on the values of the other points. For the man who is insanely attractive to her, she will take chances and risk getting caught. For less attractive men she has to have the time and place where she can achieve what she wants with him. She still has desires, just not enough to overcome all caution.
Let’s say she’s on a business trip out of town to a convention, staying in the convention center hotel. She’s away from home and everyone who knows her and could recognize her. Staying in a hotel room, no-one will know (or care) who she gets in bed with. No-one is keeping tabs on her and indeed, no-one can. In such a situation the man does not need to be all that attractive, just more attractive than what she already has. Add a little alcohol and inhibitions drop. So do the panties.
Anyone who thinks women don’t understand this is an idiot. Some women bind themselves with rules and boundaries in order to guard themselves because they know what they are really like, but such women are rare. Feminism works hard to convince women they should put themselves in positions where their hypergamy can wreak havoc. Women who restrain themselves and set boundaries are extremely rare.
I am convinced some women defend their lack of attraction to their husband by making themselves gross because they do not want to be tempted by an attractive man and thereby betray their husband and family. However, for every woman like that there are likely dozens of women who are not attracted to their husband and refuse to do the work of maintaining their attractiveness because they doesn’t think he deserves it. The number of women who dramatically lose weight and become more attractive following a divorce tends to prove it was voluntary on her part to become gross in the first place.
Again, the right man at the right time in the right place with the right line. That’s all it takes to trigger the hypergamy. Nothing else will matter because hypergamy doesn’t care. Relationship, marriage, kids, good reputation, friendships, none of it matters because hypergamy doesn’t care. And yes, all women are like that. The wisest man who ever lived had this to say on the subject (Ecclesiastes 7:28):

while I was still searching but not finding– I found one upright man among a thousand, but not one upright woman among them all.

All women are like that because God said so. Rollo Tomassi’s post “Hypergamy Doesn’t Care” illustrates this wonderfully:
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about yesterday, only about today and tomorrow.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a Father you are to your kids.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about God or hell.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if you don’t understand what hypergamy is.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if you win the nobel peace prize, cure cancer, and put an end world hunger.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care how ‘supportive’ you’ve always been of her decisions or if you identify as a ‘male feminist’.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about the sincerity of your religious convictions or aspirations of high purpose.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about those words that were said at your wedding.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about how you funded her going back to college to find a more rewarding career.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care how great a guy you are for adopting the children she had with other men.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about you forgiving her “youthful indiscretions.”
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about consequences.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about your magnanimity in assuming responsibility for her student loans and credit card debt after you’re married.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if “he was your best friend.”
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about bringing her coffee in bed or how great a cook you are.
  • Hypergamy doesn´t care about your effort, it cares only about the results.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about how well you do your part of the household chores.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care about how much her family or friends like you.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if you think you’re a “Good” guy or about how convincing your argument is for your sense of honor.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care whether the children are biologically yours or not.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if “she was drunk, he was cute, and one thing led to another,..”
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care how sweet, funny or intellectual you are.
  • Hypergamy doesn’t care if you “never saw it coming.”
Hypergamy is the nature of women because God caused it to be this way. Anyone who opens their eyes and looks around can see that becoming a Christian doesn’t make God’s judgement on women go away any more than it makes a banged up slut suddenly becomes a virgin again. It is wise to understand the nature of women before making a commitment because the second biggest commitment you can possibly make is choosing a wife (the biggest is choosing to commit yourself to the Lord). Proverbs 18:22 says:

He who finds a wife finds a good thing and obtains favor from the Lord.

Scripture also contains many warnings about women, such as this from Proverbs 25:24.

It is better to live in a corner of the roof t han in a house shared with a contentious woman.

And a more ominous one from Proverbs 30:20…

This is the way of an adulterous woman:
She eats and wipes her mouth,
And says, “I have done no wrong.”

Because hypergamy doesn’t care. “I have done no wrong” sums it up nicely.
A woman’s desire is for a man who is fit to rule her, a man who rules over her. That is the essence of hypergamy and it behooves men to understand that. Men, be fit to rule.

Theology For Men of the West: Doctrine of Demons

Artisanal Toad17 Comments
In the last post we saw that God’s wrath on the West came in the form of removing His influence and restraint. God didn’t cause bad things to happen, He simply stopped restraining people from following their evil desires. The reason for this was modern idolatry- the theory of evolution. Because they knew God and turned their backs to Him, claiming He wasn’t the Creator because we’d evolved by mere chance… God decided to stop helping everyone and removed His restraining influence. He turned them over to their evil desires.

Forbidding Marriage

Another aspect of this is found in a prophesy that Paul made in 1st Timothy 4:1-5, wherein evil things happen because of the doctrine of demons taught by deceitful spirits and evil men. Specifically, we’re looking at the first part of verse 3 (underlined):

“But the Spirit explicitly says that in later times some will fall away from the faith, paying attention to deceitful spirits and doctrines of demons, by means of the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron,men who forbid marriage…”

The word translated as “forbid” is kóluó (Strong’s 2967). Definition: I prevent, debar, hinder; with infin: from doing so and so. The English definition of the word “debar” is exclude or prohibit (someone) officially from doing something.
The “something” being forbidden is marriage, which was designed by God. We have already covered the fact that “modern marriage” is not the marriage that God designed. Why would it be the doctrine of demons to prevent or hinder marriage?
The depraved passion of feminism has caused women to give up the natural function of being a wife and mother under the authority of her husband for the unnatural, which is the rejection of men and any form of marriage at all. I would certainly call feminism both a depraved passion as well as a doctrine of demons that excludes and hinders marriage. After all, the feminists told us “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”
The teaching that “sex doesn’t make you married” produced the widespread promiscuity of today’s culture, because the official position of the churchians is sex with a virgin does not create a marriage. The churchians teach that it’s only “premarital sex” and God will forgive them, so what’s the point of “saving yourself” for marriage? They don’t, which sets the women up as lifelong adulteresses.
This is the way of Baalam, placing a stumbling block before God’s people. The result of this is within the church at least 80% of the people who think they are married are not, they are living together in adultery. Why does the church have no power? Because they are in sin. Who teaches the doctrines of feminism and forbidding marriage? Feminist, churchian leaders cause the people to hear the lies,

“the hypocrisy of liars seared in their own conscience as with a branding iron”

According to Genesis 2:24, when the eligible virgin is penetrated by the man, she is married with that act. Yet, today the marriage that results is “forbidden” by modern churchian leadership, who claim that no such marriage exists because sex does not create a marriage. The Holy Spirit prophesied through Paul this would happen in 1st Timothy 4:3. The result of this doctrine of demons is widespread adultery both in and outside the church. The so-called “epidemic of divorce” does not exist because the vast, vast majority of such “divorces” do not end marriages, they end adulterous unions.
Of course, one could always view the “forbid marriage” in the traditional light of the RCC-Prot fight, that Catholic priests are not allowed to be married. For multiple reasons such as the advice of the Apostle Paul and the teaching of Jesus, this is a poor second choice in the matter. Why would it be a doctrine of demons when Paul said he wished others were as he was, celibate in order to focus his energy on the Kingdom of the Lord?
Some might say this represents a Christian MGTOW teaching, but Churchianity and MGTOW are completely incompatible. Paul’s prophecy was to the church, about some falling away from the faith because of these teachings. However, there is another aspect to this forbidding of marriage.

The Real Reason For Attacks On Marriage

In modern times, who are the enemies of the family? First and foremost must be the depraved passion of feminism. Second, we have churchians and their depraved marital doctrines of ‘servant leadership’ and ‘mutual submission’ that destroy marriages. Feminism is completely in control of the government, which it uses as a tool to destroy families with the blessing of the churchians.
Why is the family such a target for destruction? The simple answer is that in general, individuals become Christians prior to puberty based on the teaching and example of their parents. Church growth follows population growth because it is rare for an adult who is set in their ways to repent and become a Christian. Guess what? It is the father who determines whether the children become members of the church, not the mothers. A study proving this was done in 1994 and published in 2000, but hardly anyone has heard of it. It is not available online (surprise) but but can be purchased.
The most critical information that came out of that study involves the impact of the father’s religious behavior on the children. The following table lays out the religious attendance practice of adult children according to the attendance practice of their parents. Regular attendance, irregular attendance and no attendance, in percentages (%).
Parents Parents Children Children Children Children
Father Mother Regular Irregular None Total
Regular Regular 32.8 41.4 25.8 100.0
Regular Irregular 37.7 37.6 24.7 100.0
Regular None 44.2 22.4 33.4 100.0
Irregular Regular 3.4 58.6 38.0 100.0
Irregular Irregular 7.8 60.8 31.4 100.0
Irregular None 25.4 22.8 51.8 100.0
None Regular 1.5 37.4 61.1 100.0
None Irregular 2.3 37.8 59.9 100.0
None None 4.6 14.7 80.7 100.0
Let’s red-pill this and look at the numbers. We assume the children will attend church as adults because they have become Christians as children.
  • A devout father has the greatest impact on the children regardless of his wife’s behavior and in terms of regular attendance of the children as adults, this occurs most frequently when the wife is not in attendance at all.
  • A father who has only irregular attendance has only a negligible impact on the regular attendance of the children unless the wife is not in attendance at all. The adult children will generally tend to mirror his irregular attendance.
  • Remove the father and regardless of the mothers attendance, the children will at best only attend church irregularly as adults and the vast majority of the children will be lost to the church.

Forbidding Polygyny

The incredible pressure to destroy families and get fathers out of the children’s lives is explained with this information, because destroying the family is the key to destroying the church. Which brings us to a fascinating point: When it comes to the issue of “forbid marriage” it seems polygyny is the keystone. Let’s look at why Satan is opposed to it so much.
We know that Satan does not work against himself. The central burning question is why feminists and churchians both hate the idea of polygyny with such a passion. Why, at every turn, is polygyny opposed with such determination and ferocity? Why do the homosexuals oppose it? Why does virtually every player on the field oppose it?
Let’s look at this from the opposite side: why do churchians, feminists, homosexuals and virtually all enemies of the family espouse the doctrine of strict monogamy? If polygyny was so bad and evil as all the little churchians say, why is it that Satan’s hard-hitters are so opposed to it?
  • Socially imposed monogamy is a structure designed to fail because it gives women a monopoly by removing the threat of competition. Strict monogamy removes accountability from women.
  • Social acceptance of multiple wives redefines marriage as patriarchal instead of feminist (monogamous) marriage. With the acceptance that men may legitimately have more than one wife, there is no longer “monogamy” or “polygyny” but only marriage. Some have multiple wives, the vast majority have only one, but there is always the possibility a second wife could be added. Women no longer have a monopoly.
  • Only high-value men can achieve a polygynous marriage, but such a marriage ensures they are disproportionately represented in the number of their offspring compared to men with only one wife.
  • Multiple wives is the death-blow to feminism because it emphasizes the separate and distinct standards of sexual morality for men and women. Men and women are not equal.
  • High-value men with multiple wives are an example for men to strive for because the structure of a polygynous marriage make the husband more dominant and the wives more feminine if the man is capable of handling more than one wife.

Objections: Mormons and Islam

This should be obvious. The Satanic goal is the destruction of the church so the intermediate objective is the destruction of Christian families. Opposition to patriarchal marriage needs a boogy-man, which comes in the form of renegade Mormons (FLDS) and Islam. Both have three central characteristics to the marriages, the first of which is the idea that all men should have more than one wife. History shows us that in societies that permitted polygyny, very few men had more than one wife. The study of Game informs us that only a small percentage of men are high-value (attractive) enough to garner the serious attention of multiple women. The result of this “all men should be poly” attitude creates two characteristics in their marriages.
Child brides. There reason both groups have a tendency toward child brides, which is that most men are not of sufficiently high value for adult women to willingly choose to share them. The prepubescent or barely pubescent girls are married off to adult men before they have the maturity and strength of character to reject them.
Disposable sons. In the FLDS communities, these disposable sons become the “lost boys” who are not up to par and thus discarded. Ejected from the community to make a life somewhere else because there will not be enough women for them to have even one wife. In the Islamic world, the sons are sent off to jihad. The appeal of strapping on a suicide vest to get a quick entry into paradise and 72 virgins must hold some appeal to these men who have no hope of getting a wife in this life.
The combination of these characteristics produces dysfunctional marriages and social conflict. Churchians point to the problems with such marriages in the FLDS and Muslim communities as if the form of marriage is at fault. We know there is nothing wrong with the form of marriage because God designed it. Yet, the form of the marriage is tarred with the brush of abuse within the context of Mormonism and Islam.
The result is God’s design for marriage is rejected by Christians as being a characteristic of the Godless heathens, leaving the Christians with the churchian feminist marriage of enforced monopoly for women. Nobody every said demons were stupid…

Theology For Men of the West: God’s Wrath

Artisanal Toad7 Comments

A Moment of Reflection On God’s Blessings and Curses

Chapter 26 of Leviticus and Chapter 28 of Deuteronomy tell us that the Lord blesses and curses nations. While that was written specifically to Israel, we can also consider that the United States was set up as a Christian Nation. We also have the evidence that God judged other nations for their sins.
If the nation listens to the voice of the Lord to observe and do all His commandments and walk in His ways, going astray neither to the left hand or to the right; and if the nation does not go after other gods to serve them, then God will give these blessings (this is not the complete list).
  • You will be blessed in the cities and in the fields.
  • Blessed shall be the offspring of your body and the produce of your ground
  • the offspring of your beasts, the increase of your herd and the young of your flock.
  • Blessed shall be the your fruit basket and mixing bowl, your storehouses shall be full.
  • You will be blessed when you come in and when you go out.
  • You will be blessed in all you undertake
  • Your land will be abundantly fertile and productive
  • The heavens will give you rain in due season in all your land
  • You will be prosperous in goods in children in stock and in crops in all the land
  • All nations will be afraid of you
  • You will have complete victory over all your enemies
However, if the nation does NOT listen to the voice of the Lord to observe and do all His commandments and walk in His ways, and if the nation goes after other gods to serve them, there are fifteen curses for disobedience (condensed).
You will be cursed in the city and in the field. Your baskets and storehouses will be cursed. Your children and crops will be cursed. Your herds and flocks will not increase. You will be cursed when you come in and cursed when you go out. God will send these curses on you and send vexation and rebukes. You will fail in all that you do and you will be destroyed. You will quickly perish.
And if the people do not turn to the Lord, then there are thirty more curses in addition to the first fifteen. Worse curses, because at this point God will turn His back on the nation.
If the people still refuse to turn to the Lord, there are another forty-one curses that get even worse because instead of just turning His back on the nation, God will actively strive against that nation.
What are the most often cited reasons for nations being destroyed?
  • Idolatry (spiritual adultery, ungratefulness)
  • Adultery (physical idolatry, covetousness)
  • Sexual immorality (male homosexuality)
  • Child sacrifice (murder, idolatry, polluting the land with blood)
  • Disobedience of the Lord’s commandments (selfishness, wickedness)
To snatch a line from Don Draper, I’m not here to tell you about Jesus. You either have him in your heart or you don’t. I can and occasionally I do share the Gospel, but that isn’t the purpose of this blog. Individuals get saved through faith in Christ and get judged by Him when the time comes. Those who don’t have their name written in the Book of Life get judged at the White Throne. There is a third judgment that Christians won’t be subject to, which is the separation of the sheep and the goats, but that’s another story.
The point is nations are judged according to their obedience to God’s Laws and the general morality of the nation according to their generation. For individuals it is given that they live, die and then receive judgment. For nations it’s a different matter because God judges nations in an ongoing process as they choose to obey or disobey Him. After showing Abraham the land of Caanan, God told him that his descendants would be enslaved and oppressed for 400 years and after that they would return and take over the land, but they had to wait. (Genesis 15:15-16)

 

for the iniquity of the Amorite is not yet complete

 

There comes a point at which God will wipe out nations.

The west is currently experiencing the wrath of God.

Romans 1:18-32 is a prophesy aimed at the West in our times. There are multiple references that place this prophesy into modern times, but the point that puts this on a timeline is in verse 27, describing the male homosexuals who violated God’s Law and received the due penalty in their own bodies. The penalty for male homosexuality is death. That places this prophesy right at 1980 on the timeline with the advent of AIDS.
What was the offense that caused God to pour out His wrath on the West? “men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness”. Based on his observations in the Galapagos Islands, in 1859 Charles Darwin had a book published called “On the Origin of Species by Means of Natural Selection, or the Preservation of Favoured Races in the Struggle for Life”. This book became the foundation of a new religion called evolution, which sought to displace God.
This theory held that instead of God creating the Heavens and the Earth and everything upon it, all life had “evolved” out of a primordial soup and God had no hand in it. That is the general theory of evolution, which is complete and utter bullshit. There is another portion of evolutionary theory that is in line with Darwin’s observations, which is the adaptation of species through natural selection over time. While natural selection is both real and provable, it was the general theory of evolution that was used to attack Christianity and God.
It’s probably wise at this point to make the observation that women achieved suffrage in 1920 and became part of the body politic. Notice that this is the point at which everything began going downhill in the West as the elected officials dealt with the change to the character of the electorate.
By 1925 the State of Tennessee had passed the Butler Act, making it illegal to teach evolution. Obviously teachers in schools were teaching evolution. As a publicity stunt some attorneys (the drugstore conspiracy) arranged an arrest and trial which became widely known as the Scopes Monkey Trial. This garnered a great deal of attention to the subject of evolution and the gremlins continued to toil away. Significant events occurred, a stock market crash, followed by a worldwide depression, followed by World War II.
In the aftermath of World War II, the result of the GI Bill was a dramatic expansion of colleges and universities. Between 1945 and 1965 there was an 8-fold increase in the number of seats available in colleges. Unfortunately, good college professors are a rare breed and plenty of substandard individuals were allowed in. By the end of the 1950’s evolution was enthroned as fact and absolute morality was thrown out the window in favor of “situational ethics” or “situational morality”.

 

For even though they knew God, they did not honor Him as God or give thanks, but they became futile in their speculations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the incorruptible God for an image in the form of corruptible man and of birds and four-footed animals and crawling creatures.

 

41Zml1z9EfL._SY355_
Can there be any greater symbol of the rejection of God in favor of evolution than the “Darwin Fish” symbol? From God’s perspective, what else could it be?
What was God’s response? The Wrath of God was poured out and He removed His restraining spirit and “gave them over”. If you turn your back on God often enough, He will turn His back on you.

IMPURITY

 

Therefore God gave them over in the lusts of their hearts to impurity, so that their bodies would be dishonored among them. For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

 

First came the impurity, the uncleanness that caused them to dishonor their bodies. What did the Apostle Paul say? “Flee immorality. Every other sin that a man commits is outside the body, but the immoral man sins against his own body. ” We need to keep a few things in mind:
  • The virgin is married to the man she gives her virginity to.
  • After that, sex with any other man is a case of adultery.
  • Churchians pushed the doctrine that sex does NOT make you married.
  • Girls are taught God forgives “premarital sex”, that virginity is worthless.
  • An adultery epidemic resulted both inside and outside the church.
First there was the trauma of the depression, followed by World War II and the mobilization of women into the workforce. Women had been empowered by suffrage and now were gaining economic independence. Many did not want to return home when the war was over. There was a great deal of societal movement in the late 1940’s and the 1950’s had the Korean War, the cold war and fears about the bomb. With the manufacturing base of the rest of the world destroyed America was having a “golden age” but things were changing.
The oldest data I could find at the CDC indicated that for those first married between 1960 and 1964, 52.6% of white women were virgins at the time of their first marriage (48.3% of all women were virgins). The median age of marriage in 1960 was 20.3 years of age and this does not tell us what percentage of these girls officially married the man who got their virginity. Assuming that a good percentage of the women who were not virgins when they officially married had given their virginity to their fiance, it is not unreasonable to suppose that the percentage of white women who were legitimately married to their official husband was 60% in 1960.
Which means 40% of the “marriages” in 1960 were adulterous unions with a dress, a ceremony and a cake. Things only got worse after that. The 1960’s marked a sea-change of attitudes in the West about sexual morality specifically and morality in general as people rejected God. While “The Pill” was introduced in 1957 for women with severe menstrual disorders and then approved for contraceptive use in 1960 after so many women developed severe menstrual disorders. 1960 marks the year female hypergamy was finally set free. I don’t know who created this graph, but it speaks volumes.
What did widespread divorce produce? Broken families and children being raised in households in which their father was absent. What was one of the predictors of male homosexuality back when the APA classified it as a pathology? Being raised in a female-dominated household with no father around.

DEGRADING PASSIONS

The generation given over to impurity was from 1945 to 1972. In 1972 several significant events occurred, one being the closure of the Gold window by Nixon, which destroyed the Bretton Wood accords and made the US dollar a fiat currency. Another was the fact that while the Roe v Wade decision was not handed down until the following year, Roe v Wade was decided in 1972 and Molech worship was legally enshrined in the West. Finally, given the length of time it takes for an HIV infection to progress to AIDS symptoms and death (10-15 years), the year of 1972 is about when the transmission of HIV really took off.

 

For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.

 

Observe two things about that passage. It was God that gave them over to degrading passions, causing the women to exchange the “natural function” for the unnatural (that which is “against nature”). I believe the degrading passion of the women is feminism. The women rejected men as fathers and husbands in authority over them, which was the reason women were created. Woman was created from man, for man, to be used by man as a helper to accomplish his mission.
The men likewise rejected the natural function of women and rejected fatherhood and marriage in favor of male homosexuality, for which they got the due penalty in their own bodies. The penalty for male homosexuality is death and we know that 1981 was when AIDS was officially “discovered” but the HIV infections had obviously been germinating during the 1970’s. The Second generation ran from 1973 until 2001. In this generation we saw the evolution of feminism and the acceptance and promotion of homosexuality.
Did they turn back to God and repent of their evil ways? No. The stage has been set and once again God gave them over, this time to a depraved mind.

DEPRAVED MINDS

 

And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper, being filled with all unrighteousness, wickedness, greed, evil; full of envy, murder, strife, deceit, malice; they are gossips, slanderers, haters of God, insolent, arrogant, boastful, inventors of evil, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy, unloving, unmerciful; and although they know the ordinance of God, that those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them.

 

It was 9/11 that marked the turning point as those with depraved minds seized power. Some 16 years later, what do we have? Look around. From pedophiles everywhere to government officials inviting foreign invaders into the country. What has pizzagate taught us? Just how pervasive the evil really is by how many people in power support and defend pedophiles.

 

those who practice such things are worthy of death, they not only do the same, but also give hearty approval to those who practice them

 

Generations

If the generations are calculated correctly at roughly 28 years, then we are only twelve years from the end of this generation at roughly 2029.

Theology For Men of the West: Leaders Are Responsible

Artisanal Toad20 Comments

What Moses Should Have Done With The Leaders
The story that is told in Numbers 25 is one of the most politically explosive lessons in all of the Bible. The reason is simple: God held the leaders responsible for the sins of the people.
As we saw in a previous post, Balack took the advice of Baalam and sent the young women into the camp. They invited the people (men) to the sacrifices to their gods. The men went with them, ate and bowed down and thus were joined to Baal of Peor. God was angry with Israel so He turned to Moses.

The Lord said to Moses, “Take all the leaders of the people and execute them in broad daylight before the Lord, so that the fierce anger of the Lord may turn away from Israel.”

Seems pretty straight-forward, right? Obviously God is holding the leaders responsible for what was happening, so we’d expect to read that Moses killed them. Right? Well, no, he didn’t. He refused to obey God and sided with his fellow leaders.

So Moses said to the judges of Israel, “Each of you slay his men who have joined themselves to Baal of Peor.”

Those judges were the very men Moses was supposed to have executed, had he chosen to obey the Lord. So, the wrong people are now being executed, but we don’t get a casualty figure on that. Because they’re just little people and they don’t count. They’re not leaders. And God’s anger really burned against Israel so He sent a plague into the camp and the people started dropping like flies.
Then, Zimri, one of the chief princes of the tribe of Simeon (making him one of those who should have been executed) came strolling into the camp with a wench named Cozbi on his arm. Cozbi was the daughter of Zur, who God described as the leader of Midian. So, one of the high-ranking leaders of the tribe of Simeon walks into camp with a Midianite princess on his arm and they stroll right past the tent of meeting where Moses and the congregation were weeping at the doorway of the tent. Why were they weeping? Because of the plague that was killing them.
Keep in mind, Zimri had to have been involved with having the men of the tribe of Simeon killed for doing what he was about to do. And he knew (or should have known) that there was a reason a plague was sweeping through the camp killing people. With that in mind, picture Zimri and Cozbi strolling past the congregation and Moses in plain sight of everyone on their way to Zimri’s tent for, um… some tea. Yes. Tea for two.

Are The Leaders Above the Law?

Obviously Zimri thought he was above the Law as he and his hoochie-mamma walked to his tent, oblivious to everything surrounding them. Horniness has a way of doing that. But one man, Phineas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the High Priest, was zealous for the Lord and he saw what was happening and took action.

he arose from the midst of the congregation and took a spear in his hand, and he went after the man of Israel into the tent and pierced both of them through, the man of Israel and the woman, through the body.

Tradition has it that it only took one thrust of the spear to get both of them, but he did get them. And they died. Because he killed them. With a spear. And obviously Phineas somehow turned into a religious radical and killed a government official without a trial or anything like that, which was murder… well, obviously… and that’s probably what some were thinking back then too. And spear control! There ought to be spear control! But very quickly none of that mattered because God stepped in. First, He stopped the plague that was going through the camp. The death toll was 24,000 dead in one day.
Then God spoke to Moses.

“Phinehas the son of Eleazar, the son of Aaron the priest, has turned away My wrath from the sons of Israel in that he was jealous with My jealousy among them, so that I did not destroy the sons of Israel in My jealousy. Therefore say, ‘Behold, I give him My covenant of peace; and it shall be for him and his descendants after him, a covenant of a perpetual priesthood, because he was jealous for his God and made atonement for the sons of Israel.’”

That is the 4th Priesthood of the Bible. What do Phineas Priests do? They’re jealous for God’s Law and they execute justice on untouchable leaders who think they’re above the Law. So, go ahead and start calling yourself a Phineas Priest and see how fast the FBI is all over you. Or worse, setting you up as a pasty in their next false-flag op. Because you better believe that nobody in a position of leadership wants to hear that they’re really going to be held responsible. They’re like Moses and just want to kill your sorry ass.
But God wasn’t done. Now it was time to deal with the Midianites and we learn more.

Then the Lord spoke to Moses, saying, “Be hostile to the Midianites and strike them; for they have been hostile to you with their tricks, with which they have deceived you in the affair of Peor and in the affair of Cozbi, the daughter of the leader of Midian, their sister who was slain on the day of the plague because of Peor.”

Look at what God is saying! He KNEW the people were being manipulated and the leaders should have caught what was happening and put a stop to it. But they didn’t. And God held them responsible for that. And when one man decided he wasn’t going to allow God to be dishonored that way and killed one of the leaders and some visiting royalty… God gave him a covenant of peace for him and his descendants after him… a covenant of a perpetual priesthood. The Phineas Priesthood. And if God said it was perpetual, that means the Phineas Priests are still around. Today.
Lesson Learned: The leaders are responsible when the people are led astray. That’s about to be very important.

Theology For Men of the West: The Way of Baalam

Artisanal Toad16 Comments

The Current State Of Western Civilization- Built On Sand

Why Should Men of the West Care About This?

The simple answer is because God does. Regardless of political ideology, without God the structure will fall. There is this idea that Western Civilization is founded on Christianity. I would phrase that in terms of obedience to God, because as the Lord said in Matthew 7:21-29

“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heavenwill enter. Many will say to Me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in Your name, and in Your name cast out demons, and in Your name perform many miracles?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness.’
Th erefore
Everyone who hears these words of Mine and acts on them, may be compared to a wise man who built his house on the rock. And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and yet it did not fall, for it had been founded on the rock. Everyone who hears these words of Mine and does not act on them, will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. The rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and slammed against that house; and it fell—and great was its fall.” When Jesus had finished these words, the crowds were amazed at His teaching; for He was teaching them as one having authority, and not as their scribes. (Matthew 7:21-29, emphasis added)

It was hearing the Word of God and acting on it that caused the West to be great, because God blesses those nations who honor Him and curses those nations who do not. Where God has spoken man is to be silent and obey. The problem is there are those of Satan who do not want God’s people to obey and they have infested the church since the beginning.

Betrayed From Within

First we see the testimony of Peter, at 2nd Peter 2.

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will also be false teachers among you, who will secretly introduce destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing swift destruction upon themselves. (2nd Peter 2:1)
forsaking the right way, they have gone astray, having followed the way of Balaam, the son of Beor, who loved the wages of unrighteousness (2nd Peter 2:15)

Jesus had a word for these false teachers, He called them “Nicolaitans” and He hated their deeds.

But I have a few things against you, because you have there some who hold the teaching of Balaam, who kept teaching Balak to put a stumbling block before the sons of Israel, to eat things sacrificed to idols and to commit acts of immorality. So you also have some who in the same way hold the teaching of the Nicolaitans. (Revelation 2:14-15)

The Nicolaitans are the same as those who hold to the teaching of Baalam and their followers today are churchians. The question, then, is what did Baalam teach? That, as it turns out, is critical information for anyone trying to rebuild Western Civilization.
Before Israel went into the Land of Caanan, they were traveling through the land. God was with them and they kicked some serious ass on the Amorites. The Midianite king of Moab, Balak, decided to send for the prophet Baalam to come curse Israel for him. He said:

“… please come, curse this people for me since they are too mighty for me; perhaps I may be able to defeat them and drive them out of the land. For I know that he whom you bless is blessed, and he whom you curse is cursed.”

In Chapter 23 and 24 we see Baalam tried to curse Israel 3 times and each time he gave Israel a blessing instead, because God would not allow them to be cursed. In fact, the third time he made one of the greatest prophesies of the coming of Christ found in Scripture.

“I see him, but not now; I behold him, but not near; A star shall come forth from Jacob, A scepter shall rise from Israel”Numbers 24:17

What was not recorded at the time is after blessing Israel the third time, sometime later Baalam went to Balak and told him how to defeat the Israelites. He wanted to earn his fee. With God on their side Israel could not be defeated, so the trick was to alienate them from God by causing them to violate God’s commands. We see the result in Numbers 25.

While Israel remained at Shittim, the people began to play the harlot with the daughters of Moab. For they invited the people to the sacrifices of their gods, and the people ate and bowed down to their gods. So Israel joined themselves to Baal of Peor, and the Lord was angry against Israel. Numbers 25:1

There is so much exegetical goodness there… but instead of writing a book a concise explanation is more appropriate.
  • Baalam told Balak to send young women into the Israelite camp and lure the men into committing idolatry (Baal was a fertility god, remember?) by bowing down to the Baal of Peor.
  • Nowhere does the text say the men were banging these women, it says the women invited them, the people attended the sacrifices and then ate the meat sacrificed to the foreign gods. (There is an argument it was only the men, I won’t deal with that here)
  • The people ate the meat sacrificed to the foreign gods, thereby participating in the ceremony. In doing so they bowed down to the Baal of Peor.
  • And the anger of the Lord burned against Israel because they bowed down to the Baal of Peor. After all He’d done for them? And all it took was a bit of T&A?
NB. Churchians focus on the sexual immorality characterized by the word “zanah” that is translated as “play the harlot” in verse one. The word “zanah” is defined as idolatry as well as some sexual immorality and in this case refers to the combination of idolatry and (to some extent) sexual immorality.
So, now that the anger of the Lord burned against Israel, what happened? This is where the story got really interesting but I’ll have to address another post just to that subject. The simple answer is Moses refused to obey God, so God killed 24,000 of the people and finally one guy manned up and fixed things. As a result God created a new priesthood and this story has been one of the most historically explosive passages in all of Scripture.
Why were Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Churchians claim it was because of all the homosexuality, but Scripture says they “had arrogance, abundant food and careless ease, but she did not help the poor and needy. Thus they were haughty and committed abominations before Me.” The male homosexuality was called an abomination by God, but notice that it came last on the list after the arrogance, selfishness and haughtiness. Why did God command Israel to wipe out every man, woman and child of the Caananites? Because of they practiced idolatry, incest, adultery, child sacrifice, male homosexuality and bestiality.
Lesson Learned: God takes an active hand in the success or failure of nations based on what they choose to do. And the way of Baalam? God’s people can be defeated by alienating them from God. How?

Put a Stumbling Block In Front of God’s People

God demands obedience. The way to get God angry with His own people is to get God’s people to violate God’s commandments. To cause them to stumble. Which is exactly what Baalam taught Balak, to combine sex and idolatry and sell it to the people as “New!” and “Exciting!”. The question is how the churchians do this today. That was easy because Satan plays a long game and this was put in place over the course of centuries.
  • Sexual immorality: The churchians threw out God’s standards of sexual morality and replaced it with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman Law. The doctrine of “Sex does not make you married, you must have a ceremony!” gave us an epidemic of adultery within the church.
  • Idolatry: The most sophisticated form of idolatry today is teaching that evolution is fact, which denies that God is the Creator… and denies that He is even God at all. How many so-called “Christians” today will claim God created the Heavens and the Earth according to the record of Genesis? How many reject the general theory of evolution as a lie?
  • Teaching Lies: The heart of the clerical hierarchy system was only the clergy had the authority to explain what the Bible said and what it meant. They demanded obedience to their teachings and for centuries killed people that rejected their false teaching.

The Nicolaitan and Churchian Mess

The history of the church indicates the Nicolaitans won, instituted a clerical caste of priests and lorded it over their fellow Christians. The leaders of the church claimed they had the authority to make up their own rules and claimed Christ gave them this power. They claimed not all the rules were written down and their tradition must be obeyed. They cite John 21:25 as their support:

And there are also many other things which Jesus did, which if they *were written in detail, I suppose that even the world itself *would not contain the books that *would be written.

The second was a naked grasp of authority based on their self-serving interpretation of what Jesus said at Matthew 16:17-19

And Jesus said to him, “Blessed are you, Simon Barjona, because flesh and blood did not reveal this to you, but My Father who is in heaven. I also say to you that you are Peter, and upon this rock I will build My church; and the gates of Hades will not overpower it. I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven; and whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (emphasis added)

Binding and loosing. Where else have we seen that? Jesus was speaking to His disciples and said:

“If your brother sins, go and show him his fault in private; if he listens to you, you have won your brother. But if he does not listen to you, take one or two more with you, so that by the mouth of two or three witnesses every fact may be confirmed. If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector. Truly I say to you, whatever you bind on earth shall have been bound in heaven; and whatever you loose on earth shall have been loosed in heaven.” (emphasis added)

“If your brother sins…” We know from Romans 4:15 and 5:13 that by definition, sin is a violation of God’s Law. Which cannot be changed. The power to bind and loose did not give the Church the authority to re-define what sin was.
Now… a reasonable person will notice there was nothing about succession or a clerical hierarchy or infallibility or anything like that in the text. In fact, there is zero support for any of that in Scripture. But you also have to keep in mind that these are the same people who had control of the Scriptures and the laity didn’t have access to them. It’s no surprise that they got away with it for a long, long time, but the fundamental questions remain unanswered.
Do the churchians have the authority to change the Law of Moses and the Prophets?
Wrong question.
Did Jesus have the capacity to give the church the authority to do something that He could not do? In other words, did Jesus have the capacity to authorize His church to:
  • Lie, claiming Jesus created a clerical hierarchy?
  • To add to the Law?
  • To subtract from the Law?
  • To claim the Law had passed away?
  • To redefine marriage as one man and only one woman?
  • To claim “sex does not make you married”?
  • To usurp the authority of husbands and fathers?
  • To claim they were “infallible”?
They do not have the authority to claim their tradition is the equal or superior to Scripture. Jesus condemned that behavior:

“‘But in vain do they worship Me,
Teaching as doctrines the precepts of men.’“

The story of how all this happened is fascinating.
  1. First came the spread of the Gospel and the conversion of many. The faith in Jesus Christ took root and grew.
  2. The Nicolaitans gained power within the church and took control over the laity.
  3. Eventually the persecutions began and Christians were persecuted and martyred.
  4. Then Christianity got official status and the Christians became part of the Roman Government. As time went by they got real power in the government.
  5. The government began persecuting the pagans and “heretics” who didn’t agree with the Christians.
  6. The smart pagans and heretics looked around, saw which way the wind was blowing and joined the church.
  7. Two of the most influential of these were the sexual perverts Augustine and Jerome. They hated sex with a passion and their ideas about the wickedness of sex got enshrined into doctrine, causing the Biblical instruction about sex and marriage to be thrown out.
  8. The churchian clergy became very powerful following the fall of Rome. Filled with arrogance and pride, they decided they should rule the world.
  9. Churchians adopted the idea that men and women were equal and must both be held to the same standard of sexual morality. They created the doctrine of sexual equalism, which is the moral foundation of feminism.
  10. The churchians decided to control the nobility with the long-game control of marriage and sexuality. They usurped the authority of fathers and husbands, claiming the authority to regulate not only marriage but even the marital bed.
  11. A huge political fight caused a split between the east and west with the Catholics in Rome and the Orthodox in Constantinople each claiming they were the “real” church.
  12. The churchians made up lots more strange rules about sex and made it difficult to marry in their attempts to break up the noble dynasties, while owning and running the largest network of brothels in Europe.
  13. The churchians got so drunk with power that they caused the “Protestant Reformation” and lost control.
  14. The state stepped in and took control of marriage and sexual morality.
  15. The enlightenment happened and science was enthroned, the theory of evolution was advanced as the scientific answer to the churchian garbage.
  16. Democracy and women’s suffrage was adopted.
  17. Women got political power and went crazy, evolution was adopted as the new religion.
  18. Artificial hormonal birth control was developed, allowing unrestrained hypergamy.
  19. Divorce laws were changed making it easier, eventually no-fault divorce was allowed.
  20. In the midst of the collapse of Western Civilization, Churchians are still preaching that Jesus loves you, God forgives you, sex doesn’t make you married- there must be a ceremony, and don’t forget to tithe!
Someday I should create a stand-up comedy routine with that material. A comedy club is the only place such truth could possibly be publicly spoken today.

So, Where Does That Leave Us?

God judges nations for their behavior and it behooves those who desire to rebuild the west to understand that actions have consequences.
Idolatry. Churchians constantly focus on how anything can be an idol. Money, sex, drugs, fame, whatever. And in the midst of all that an astute observer will notice they always leave out the sine qua non of idolatry- the denial that the Lord God is our Creator and we as His creation have an obligation to obey Him. The astute observer will notice the churchians leave the subject of evolution strictly alone. The general theory of evolution says there is no God, which makes it the religion of secular humanism.
The west, today, is an idolatrous society. Why? Because the Men of the West have not addressed the lies of the idolaters. The truth is the general theory of evolution requires far more faith to believe in than Christianity.
Sexual Immorality. Between the epidemic of adultery that was caused by the church and the feminism that was created by the church, we also have the glorification of male homosexuality and an all-out effort to destroy the white race through miscegenation. What the Bible says about how a marriage begins is clear and the historical record is likewise clear that the early Patristic writers such as Augustine, Jerome and Gregory threw out the Biblical standard of marriage in favor of a blend of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law.
The west, today, is a sexually immoral society. Why? Because just like in the days of King Josiah, the truth has been hidden and replaced by lies. We have no king to command that God’s Law be obeyed, but there is nothing to stop Men of the West from attacking the lies with truth.
Yet, God does not sit back and do nothing. In the following post we will look at what God has said about this and what God is doing today. No, this isn’t end-times stuff (a student of the Bible will realize immediately that the West plays no part in the end times…). Does the West continue to thumb its nose at God? Or shall the West turn back to God?
At this point, the question is not whether blood will be spilled; the question is how much blood will be spilled and who will remain standing when the killing stops.

Theology For Men of the West: Churchian’s Aways Lie

Artisanal Toad15 Comments
Commenter Feeriker nailed it:

It speaks volumes that your challenges to the churchian loudmouths to refute your points, Sola Scriptura, have so far gone unanswered. Expect more of the usual doubling down on the extra-Scriptural nonsense in response.

Churchians don’t like what God’s Word says in general, but more than that, they do not like what God’s word does not say. The aptly named commenter Don Quixote is an excellent example and the recent exchange with that person is an excellent example of the fact that Churchians are religious SJW’s. They always lie, they always double down and they always project.
The family is the foundation of all society and there is an all-out war on family that started with churchians who created the adultery epidemic. The battle to destroy the family continues to this day with churchians striving to give feminism the moral strength and backing that it needs to destroy men, women, families and children.

Why does Don Quixote hate children?

The churchian doctrine of sexual equality based on the claim of only one standard of sexual morality for both men and women is the moral foundation of feminism. Commenter Don Quixote is standing in the gap, defending the foundation of feminism with his attempts to re-define the definition of adultery.
We’re supposed to get the impression that it must take a feminist village to produce an idiot like Don… and Lord only knows what they did to him. An outside observer might think Don is one of the walking wounded from the war on men… one of the brain-damaged variety.
Actually, his arguments are designed to confuse while sliding home a very sophisticated set of points. He plays the part of a “full Gospel” buffoon but in reality our Don Quixote is an intelligent churchian feminist who fully supports the destruction of families, marriages… and children.

Playing The Part of the Village Idiot

It is impossible to have a rational discourse with the Village Idiot because he has an agenda. The objective truth of what the Bible says is meaningless because his goal is to redefine the Bible into the feminist vision of what it should be, which allows them to destroy men, marriages and children at will.
After seeing his arguments destroyed a year ago, Don worked hard to put his arguments back together and he’s now out to re-define the definition of adultery. Moses said that if a man found some “indecency” in his wife, he could divorce her, but Moses did not define what indecency meant. By the time Jesus had His earthly ministry there was a school of thought that said burning a husband’s breakfast was sufficiently indecent to justify divorce.
Jesus provided the definition of what indecency was, when He defined it as sexual immorality and stated that was the only reason a woman could be legitimately divorced. Our village idiot is well aware of that, but he has an agenda that involves furthering the goals of feminism.
Observe what our village idiot is doing. First, he’s confronted with his completely incoherent and wrong argument that Jesus taught marriage to any divorced woman is adultery. I took the bait and gave him a lot of line.
The inconvenient truth is that adultery is defined in the Law and that definition is set in stone. Don leads with a lie, making the implicit claim that other definitions of adultery exist. Then he makes an outrageous claim that paints him as something of a conservative fundamentalist (he isn’t, he’s a feminist churchian through and through).
Don KNOWS his claim that marrying “any” divorced woman is adultery is ridiculous. So, why is he making this absurd argument? Because his argument is a lot more subtle than you’d think. Observe:
Forget the dialectic, Don goes straight for churchian rhetoric with a bit of linguistic sleigh of hand. Adultery is a PHYSICAL ACT that is a betrayal by virtue of the ACT. Without the physical act of adultery there is no adultery.
The entire goal of Don’s argument is to gain acceptance that “adultery includes betrayal” because from that point onward, adultery can be defined as betrayal. But what does that mean? It means anything feminists want it to mean because the term is completely undefined in the same way Moses did not define “indecency”. What did Jesus do? He taught that “indecency” was “sexual immorality” and explained that God would not accept a divorce for anything other than that.
  • Adultery is the act of a man having sex with another man’s wife.
  • The act of adultery is a betrayal of the marriage by the woman.
  • A betrayal of marital trust is not adultery without the act of adultery.
  • The crime of adultery requires a married woman.
What if we put this slightly differently? Who would argue that someone could be guilty of murder without killing anyone?
  • Murder is the act of willfully killing a person without just cause.
  • The act of murder is a very bad thing.
  • Doing bad things is not murder without someone’s unjust death.
  • The crime of murder requires someone to die.
The secondary benefit of this argument is to convince others that Don is not a feminist churchian. “Why, no feminist would ever claim that marrying any divorced woman is adultery! Don must be an ultra-conservative! But, he does have a point, adultery is a betrayal.”
Adultery is specifically defined in Scripture at Leviticus 18:20 and 20:10. Adultery is the crime of a married woman having sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband. This is beyond dispute. A betrayal of marital trust is not adultery and cannot be adultery until that betrayal of marital trust is marked by the physical act of adultery. Which requires a married woman to have sexual intercourse with a man who is not her husband.
Don, your village is looking for you. Go home.

Theology For Men of the West: Adultery

Artisanal Toad26 Comments

Churchians tell lies… it’s what they do.

What Is Adultery?

Adultery in its most simple form, is the crime that occurs when a married woman has sex with a man who is not her husband. It is written:

 

You shall not have intercourse with your neighbor’s wife, to be defiled with her. Leviticus 18:20

 

and

 

If there is a man who commits adultery with another man’s wife, one who commits adultery with his friend’s wife, the adulterer and the adulteress shall surely be put to death. Leviticus 20:10

 

Adultery Requires A Married Woman

Without a married woman there can be no adultery, which brings an entirely new meaning to the word “lust” that churchians love to toss around. Jesus said

 

You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall not commit adultery’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart. Matthew 5:27-28

 

Lust is adultery in the heart and adultery requires a married woman, so can a man look on an eligible woman with lust? No. It is not possible to commit adultery with an unmarried woman so likewise it is not possible to lust after an unmarried woman. So, according to Scripture, a boy that’s fapping to fantasies about the virgin girl next door is not lusting after her because she’s not married and he’s not in sin. If he starts fantasizing about the girl’s mother (assuming she’s married), that’s lust and according to Jesus he’s already committed adultery in his heart.

The Relationship Between Marriage and Adultery

In the act of taking the woman’s virginity the eligible man has taken her in marriage. Therefore, any woman who is not a virgin is (in approximately the order of occurrence):
  • A married woman (the vast, vast majority of all adult women)
  • A widow (more common than you might imagine).
  • A woman divorced by her non-Christian husband for her adultery.
  • A Christian woman whose non-Christian husband abandoned her.
  • A woman who is not a virgin but was never married because the man was ineligible.
This is where it gets tricky, so pay attention.
The last point on the list was the woman who is not a virgin (she has had sexual intercourse) but was not married with that act because the man was not eligible to marry her. A man who was a close relative that committed incest with her did not marry her because that is forbidden. A man who the woman’s father had forbidden to marry her is not eligible to marry her and the sex does not make her married. As I’ve written previously, this offers a way out for women who are married and don’t know it.
First, Numbers 30:5 says the father has the authority to forbid any agreement his daughter makes, in the day he hears of it. There is no time limit on this, but the authority of the father to forbid his daughters agreements only applies when she is in her youth and living in his house. If, while she was in her youth and living in her fathers house, the girl gave her agreement to have sex with a man (which could be as simple as lifting her ass so he could pull her pants off), her father has the authority to forbid that agreement in the day he hears of it. Which means that the sex did not create a marriage.
There is no time limit on when the father can do this, which has the effect of creating an interesting situation that I wrote about in Modern Women- Schrodinger’s Cats. If she qualifies, seven words from her father is all it takes. If not, the next step is to ask whether the man in question is still alive. If he’s dead, she’s a widow as of the moment he died. If he’s alive, the question is whether he is a Christian. Because Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives. If the man is not a Christian he can give her a certificate of divorce because of her adultery.

Applying Scripture To The Real World

Let’s say a Jane gave Fred her virginity (was married to him) when she was 16 and living at home. She later broke up with “boyfriend” Fred and had sex with many other men through the rest of her teenage years and during college. Eventually she got married to Robert (a Christian man who was a really nice guy) and later divorced him because she was unhappy. Jane has now discovered just how badly she’s screwed up her life and she has several choices in terms of how she should deal with this.
Currently she’s still married to Fred and all the other men have been cases of adultery.
  • In the day her father hears of it, if he forbids it, she was not married to Fred. Because she was not a virgin and not married, she did not commit adultery with any of the other men she had sex with. When she had her wedding with Robert she was actually married to him because she agreed to be married and regardless of what some state court judge says, she is still married to Robert because she had no authority to divorce him. He, as a Christian man, is not authorized to divorce her for any reason.
  • If non-Christian Fred gives her a certificate of divorce, today, she is no longer married but she has a long track record of adultery. She was never married to Robert because at the time they had their wedding ceremony she was married to Fred, so her so-called divorce from Robert was just a formal break-up of an adulterous liaison.
  • If Fred is a Christian he is forbidden to divorce her. But, is he really a Christian? In 1st John 2 we are taught that someone who claims to be a Christian but does not keep His commandments is a liar. Fred is required to live with his wife and love her as Christ loves the Church. And to provide for her. So, when she shows up and he won’t do what he’s commanded to do, she can considered herself “abandoned” by her non-Christian husband.
Some might consider that legalism, but is it? God said to do things a certain way and He provided a few specific provisions to deal with problems. It would be amusing were it not so sad, but the same churchians who would object to the idea the women were married when they gave some man their virginity would then object that God provided a few ways out of that mess. Which was caused by the lies the churchians have taught for generations.

Gaming The System

Where this gets really interesting is that if Jane gets her father to forbid her marriage to Fred, she’s still married to Robert and has only been married to Robert. If she gets Fred to give her a certificate of divorce (or abandon her), she was never married to Robert, she was committing adultery with him. And, since as a Christian she is forgiven of her adultery, her only real issue is to stop committing adultery. So, does she want to be married to Robert?
What if Jane is still married to Robert but is unhappy and doesn’t want to be married to him any longer? If Daddy solves the problem she’s married to Robert. However, if she leaves Robert because it’s an adulterous relationship and legally divorces him she isn’t doing anything wrong. Then, when Fred gives her a certificate of divorce she’s no longer bound to Fred and she’s free.
Think it won’t happen? Consider Dalrock’s epic post “Why so many wives wish their husband would cheat“ (Archive; PDF).

The Reasons Churchians HATE This

One might ask, why would a “single” woman want to end a marriage she doesn’t know about, that she doesn’t believe she has? Suffer the embarrassment of confessing to her father in order to get him to forbid her marriage she didn’t know about? Get a certificate of divorce from the guy who got her virginity, to end a marriage neither one of them knew about? People will think she joined a cult!
Because of the attractiveness of the man and the power of her rationalization hamster.
If said woman is highly attracted to the man, she will do this for him. Get Daddy to say seven words? Not a problem, especially if she knows he walks if she won’t do it. And later when they have sex it will not be a sin. Thus, you could say that the man has a sexual motive for ensuring she is eligible to marry, because as soon as she’s eligible to marry she’s legitimately fair game for sex. Without sin.
Oh- and there goes the whole “sex outside of marriage is always a sin” doctrine. Oops.
How many unhappy women are there in the church who are not really married to the man they think they are married to? What happens when they are taught the truth? Some of them will need to separate because they have a husband who would like for them to come home and they’re living in adultery. However, the issue of the unintentional marriage caused by all the lies can be fixed in the vast majority of cases. The problem is that many of the women would love to have a reason to get out of the marriage they’re in. Again, I refer the reader to Dalrock’s post about that (Archived Version; PDF Version). Does anyone think this situation has gotten better in the past five years?
Doing something about the epidemic of adultery means acknowledging that sex with a virgin makes her married. It also requires admitting there is a double-standard of sexual morality that says women can only have sex with their husband but their husband is not limited to sex with only his wife. He could legitimately be banging the babysitter. He can legitimately have multiple wives.
Worst of all, the churchian leaders would be forced to admit that for generations everyone in the congregation has been lied to and for generations everything they taught about sex and marriage was a lie. Well, two things were true, men and women are not to commit adultery and men are not to have sex with prostitutes. But even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Churchians will not change because it’s all about money, power and control.

Then How Will This Change Occur?

It is well known that your not-so-humble Toad is a complete asshole. I have been challenging churchians for years to refute me from the Bible. If I was wrong it should be rather simple to refute me by laying out what the Bible actually says. That hasn’t happened because what I’m writing here is the truth. Like it or not, this is the truth.
Churchian teachers will not stop lying or doubling down on their lies. The idea that so-called “leaders” in the church will start teaching what the Bible actually says is laughable.
The change will only occur when men learn the truth of what Scripture says and become high-value men who are fit to rule over women. They must become the man that women will call their father for. After that happens and the women are eligible to marry, the men can enjoy the fruit of their labor. As strange as it sounds, calling such a thing a ministry is far more appropriate than the “ministry” of standing in a pulpit and telling folks that Jesus loves them and God forgives them, so have a great time of fellowship and don’t forget to tithe!
I can just imagine the screams of outrage that will center on the false belief that sex outside of marriage is a sin. Those who think it’s a sin should avail themselves of Toad’s Churchian Challenge. In the meanwhile, what about not binding the mouths of the ox that treads the grain? Isn’t the worker worthy of his hire? And if he gets paid in kind rather than in cash, so what? There is no sin.
Then comes the question: what if she wants to marry the man? I will be covering that in a future post, but the answer is simple. A man consents and commits to marriage with the act of penetration so he should not be having sex with any woman he isn’t interested in marrying. Given that she’s not a virgin, she has to agree to marriage before it’s a marriage. The question is whether she agrees to be married and how she might go about doing that.
In my studied opinion, men who want a reasonably safe marriage today with some hope they’ll be able to raise their children to adulthood without having them stolen should get married to at least two women at the same time using a contract, live in the same house with them and share the same bed. I’ll be explaining that in detail in a future post, which might just surprise the MGTOW brigade.