Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility

Are sanctification and sexual compatibility exclusive of each other?

Readership: Christians;

Fapper’s Fear of the Frigid Female

Christian men who are serious about sticking to the Good Book before the Great Clam Bake have a serious challenge on their hands.

Namely, they have the mind to wait to have sex until after they are married.  But naturally, they are afraid to marry a woman without first seeing whether she can perform in bed.  They are afraid of being shackled to a frigid log who recoils at his touch and can’t loosen up.

The risk of making a lifelong commitment in marriage to a woman who turns out to be a cold-tittied shrew is unimaginable, and totally unacceptable to most men, thus making the Test Drive™ option a real temptation.

We discussed this problem before in Sexual Compatibility is dependent on Sanctification (2020-3-2).

“Caterpillar asked a question about how a sexually inexperienced person is supposed to ascertain whether a particular potential partner will be sexually compatible or not.  This is something that is a grave concern of high priority to randy young Christian men who are holding out for marriage, but interestingly, this is not as important to God as it is to young horndogs.  What is important to God is a person’s sanctification, among other things.  But that doesn’t mean that sexual compatibility has to remain a worrisome contemplation.  It is my hope that this post will put the matter to rest.”

My talk about sanctification as an alternative to sexual compatibility was apparently unsatisfying to some of my readers.  (This particular word didn’t receive very much attention in the comments either.)  But at least one reader got the point and responded by writing a private message to me through email.  His message said…

“You are making the assumption that sanctification and sexual compatibility are exclusive.  But one of the messages I’ve picked up from reading your blog is that sanctification is more closely related to sexuality than what most preachers would feel comfortable discussing from the pulpit.”

He’s right in saying that they are innately connected.  They cannot be treated as separate artifacts of one’s spiritual life.  But I think it’s a mistake to focus on the compatibility aspect while overlooking how sanctification is the overall purpose of purity.

The Athenian drachma, a long tradition … from antique coin to euro ...

Are sanctification and sexual compatibility exclusive of each other?

A little later in the same message, the reader posed a vital question.

“What if sanctification and sexual compatibility are one and the same?”

I think in a perfect world, they are.  But especially in these times, many people (especially men) need extra help from God to achieve sanctification without experiencing sexual compatibility.  On the other extreme, many people experience sanctification through mere sexual satisfaction, which is not the same thing as compatibility.  I have no justification for this other than my first-hand observation, but personally, I believe that (some) women have “been there, done that, and have grown tired of it all”, which is another way of saying that they have experienced a form of sanctification from riding the carousel, by God’s grace, of course.

I’m sure that last statement will send some readers into a tailspin.  Maybe I’m not couching my words correctly, but that’s what it appears like to me.  And it’s not just me.  This is what the secular culture is referring to when they say a young man must “sow his wild oats”, or a young woman must “find herself” before he/she is ready to settle down.  The same goes for the Test Drive™ argument for Christians.  They are talking about finding sanctification outside of the marriage covenant.

But the thing is, experiencing sanctification outside of marriage excludes the possibility of subsequently experiencing sanctification within marriage.  Finding sanctification along the path of promiscuity might make one presumably more spiritually obedient to God, and therefore would be a more mature husband or wife, but it also destroys the intimacy and bonding.  Thus, “Sowing wild oats”, or “finding yourself” is not God’s ideal approach because those who pursue this path cannot achieve bonding and a robust satisfaction in marriage.  This harms the fruitfulness of the marriage.  For those few couples who somehow find intimacy in spite of their past sins, then that is an additional dispensation of God’s grace.

Again, God is most interested in our sanctification, and He is going to achieve this, by nook or by crook, no matter which decisions we make in this life, and whether we are married or not.

The Fear of Missing Out (FOMO) Ruins Sanctification

Going back to what I wrote in the aforementioned post,

“One of the negative consequences of sexual promiscuity (including the Test Drive™) is that it reduces one’s capability of achieving a consummate sanctification with any one person.”

Yet, this is the same reason that the Test Drive is considered, namely to have a greater degree of certainty regarding sanctification.

“But for those who enter into marriage in a sexually pure state, sexual compatibility is a non-issue because sanctification is yet to occur.

For those who are seeking a sexual partner after having many other partners, however, sexual compatibility involves finding someone who matches the imprinting received by the most charismatic and memorable previous partners.  The sad fact remains that no one can completely fill the shoes of another lover who made the first imprint in the context of an innocent, romantic, youthful fling.  This sanctification cum defilement is the origin of the Alpha Widow™ syndrome.

In conclusion, it should be clear to the reader by now that the best way to achieve sexual compatibility in marriage is to retain one’s sexual purity before and after marriage.  Purity is all about the completeness of one’s sanctification.”

Now continuing with the reader’s email…

“What if you just happen to be the type of person whose sanctification is dependent on the overall level of satisfaction you can get from the sexual compatibility you have in your marriage?”

Mmm…  In this case, if this is truly a man’s most pressing spiritual need, then sexual purity is all the more important, even to become paramount in achieving satisfaction in marriage, and spiritual peace with God.

Concluding Statements

This post has described how the Test Drive™ is a stupid knee-jerk reaction to the FOMO on sanctification.

I think a lot of men can feel this deep panging need for sanctification within marriage, deep in their bones, but they don’t know how to put it into words.  All they know is that they are tired of the dissatisfaction surrounding lust, they wish pornography wasn’t such an insurmountable temptation, and they mistakenly believe that having a woman to wife up is going to solve these problems.

For those men who have real choices to marry, this longing for sanctification is manifested in their fear of marrying a woman who is dead in bed, who cannot serve as a vehicle of God’s sanctification within marriage, thereby exposing them to a more extreme version of lust and temptation as described in the previous paragraph.

It might help men to know that this is not God’s will for marriage.  But these days, it’s a question of whether women can be convinced to believe the same.

It’s time for men to start discussing the carnal aspects of their spiritual needs.  When they realize how intricately linked the physical is with the spiritual, then they will find the motivation to take the required actions.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Holding Frame, Sanctification & Defilement, SMV/MMV, Stewardship, Vetting Women and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink.

44 Responses to Sanctification and Sexual Compatibility

  1. Ed Hurst says:

    You are using the word “sanctification” correctly, but too many Christians are unfamiliar with the biblical concept of sanctification to the someone or something other than the God of the Bible. Once you put your foot on the path of following Christ, you become accountable. In the end, you cannot receive the fullness of God’s promised blessings by handling sexual purity contrary to the Scripture — “no sex before marriage.” It only seems hard. I managed it, as did a lot of others. It is not the only requirement for a blessed union, but it is surely included. Humble repentance can go a long way to healing things if you fail along the path.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Lately, I have been discussing sanctification a lot. I think it is an important concept that we need to be more familiar with. Through all these posts, I hope to revive our consciousness of sanctification.

      Like

    • cobaltsheath says:

      Somehow (really by God’s grace) I was able to wait until marriage, as did my wife, and we made it to our mid 20s. It wasn’t even a huge temptation for me…I simply decided to not to it, consistently. I’m not a 7 foot tall Brad Pitt but I’m also not a hunchback soyboy either–I had opportunities, but I just never partook. Conviction can go a long way.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Ed Hurst says:

        Just noticed the typos in my comment. In the Book of Judges in particular, you’ll find examples of someone being sanctified as a priest to some pagan deity. It’s a change in their identity as “married” in a certain sense to that deity. While the deity can have many servants, a priest can serve only one deity. Trying to serve as priest in different religions would be simply incomprehensible in the Ancient Near East. Even if they leave the priesthood, it marks them for life in certain ways. Trying to spread it around to other deities was considered scandalous.

        Like

  2. Scott says:

    The biggest problem the Test Drive has created for me in marriage is actually not jealousy or worrying about being compared, etc. This is what most people consider the second edge to the double edged sword.

    Rather, it has made it much more difficult for me to see the relationship with my wife (which must have, by definition a sexual component to it) as a lifelong arc that is, on an individual basis unpredictable.

    One couple may have a problem they run into early. Maybe she has a baby and afterwards it becomes painful for her –long past the noral timeframe for recovery. She feels guilty because she can’t connect with and please her husband the way she wants to/should. They have a long road ahead of them if they hope to get back to a normal sex life. Medical appointments, therapy, etc.

    Another couple may be having scorching hot sex for 10-20 years, and then he becomes paralyzed but she still has a strong desire for him. This couple has invested two decades of bonding through the marital act that is now stripped from them.

    Another couple still, may have a more temporary, less severe barrier, or have several of them over the course of their marriage.

    When stuff like that happens, the man or woman who comes from a tradition/habit of serial monogamy will have a more difficult time getting through it.

    Liked by 2 people

  3. bee123456 says:

    The path to sanctification for the married man is different than for the married woman. I am only speaking to the married woman. Major parts of your sanctification only happen when you choose to submit to your husband, choose to be his helper, choose to honor and reverence him. It takes faith, trust, humility, obedience to God’s Word, and surrender to do these things. When married women do these things sanctification is the goal but better sexual compatibility results and dead bedrooms do not occur. This does not mean that the wife will now perform every kink that the husband has been exposed to. (Part of the husband’s sanctification is being content with what his wife can and should give him.)

    https://www.henrymakow.com/theres_a_place_for_possession.html

    Like

  4. JPF says:

    satisfaction you can get from the sexual compatibility you have in your marriage

    Perhaps I am too simplistic in my desires to understand. I admit each man is different, so maybe another man has desires I would not think of. But from my perspective, “sexual compatibility” is the wrong focus.
    The problem is that many women are selfish and lazy. Consider a man who wants sex 15 times a week with a wife who desires it two times a week. Well, if she wants to please her husband, barring a legitimate medical issue, she can do so. Certainly, if her libido was higher, it would be easier for her to choose to fulfill his need for sex. But she can yet choose to do so, whether she desires or not.
    For the supposed Christian woman, the situation is even more strongly against her choosing laziness and selfishness. Scripture commands her to not deprive her husband. If she loves God, she will obey God’s commands (John 14:21-24). If she says she loves God, yet refuses to give her husband sex the 15 times a week he desires it, then she is a liar. And if she consistently disobeys the commands of God, then God is demonstrated to not be her Lord, and she is very likely not a Christian (Romans 10:9-13) and is on her way to hell (Matthew 7:13-14).

    This does not mean that the wife will now perform every kink that the husband has been exposed to.

    This statement is unfortunately an example of a perhaps well-intended statement that contributes to the entitlement that many women, “Christian” or not, have for refusing their husband.
    I’ll admit up front I do not know what the commenter has in his mind when he writes “kink”. If, for example, he means having sex with other men’s wives, then obviously he is correct, as Scripture forbids adultery (Exodus 20:14). If this is the case however, we should not say “kinks”, but instead say “men are not permitted to violate God’s commands”; this clear statement would not enable / encourage selfish and lazy wives. By using a non-explicit or non-defined term like “kinks” when saying women can refuse the “kinks” of their husbands, we give sinners an excuse to label any desire she herself does not feel as a “kink” she can refuse; and she’ll even claim holiness while rejecting her husband and disobeying God.
    For anything not directly and clearly forbidden by Scripture, why would I encourage anyone, in any area, to disobey God’s commands? Husbands and wives are not to deprive each other… so do not do so; fulfill the other’s desire.
    Does your husband/wife want you to dress up in leather for sex? Then do it. The fact I do not personally comprehend how wearing certain clothing during sex could be sexually desirable/fulfilling is irrelevant to whether other people have those desires.
    Unless Scripture forbids it, yes, a husband/wife must fulfill whatever “kink”, meaning sexual desire, their spouse has. To refuse to fulfill them sexually, to refuse their authority over your body, is sin (1 Cor 7, James 4:17). Our “churches” and the families within them would be far stronger if this was preached at least once a year. Maybe more often, in the feminist portions of the world.

    Liked by 2 people

  5. bee123456 says:

    JPF,

    “This does not mean that the wife will now perform every kink that the husband has been exposed to.

    This statement is unfortunately an example of a perhaps well-intended statement that contributes to the entitlement that many women, “Christian” or not, have for refusing their husband.”

    Yes, I agree that my statement is incomplete and what I wrote could be used by women to refuse their husband. I should have given more detail to preclude refusal. What I intend here is that if the wife is giving frequent, regular enthusiastic plain vanilla sex the husband can be satisfied with this even if the wife is reluctant to participate in more erotic techniques that are not clear sins.

    Lets say the husband want to try anal. The wife is from a sheltered home, she married young, and never rode the cock carousel. She has a large mental block against anal, even though she wants to please her husband. Instead of anal, she continues to give him regular, frequent, enthusiastic plain vanilla sex. How hard should the husband prod her to try anal? It might take 30 years before she is ready to try something like that. In the meantime the husband should be content and see that the glass is half full, not half empty.

    Like

    • JPF says:

      I understand Bee. I think you are striving to be reasonable or understanding of a wife’s feelings or thoughts. (assuming my perceptions are correct) I certainly will not criticize your attempts to be understanding of another person’s weaknesses; it is commendable.

      Some may disagree, but since the Bible forbids homosexual activity, and anal sex is what homosexual men do together, I think a claim could be made that the Bible forbids anal sex. I’ll admit it is not a clear-cut, direct command, but it seems a reasonable line of thought. Of course, my thoughts are foolishness next to God’s thoughts, so keep that in mind.

      There are only three situations that I can think of, where sexual activity between a man and his wife is forbidden.
      1) Swinging (sex with other people’s spouses), which is adultery
      2) Possibly anal sex, per comments above
      3) Sex during her period (somewhere in Leviticus, words like “her time of uncleanness” or “her flow”)

      I’ll agree a man (or woman) should be try to have an attitude of gratitude, in all areas of life. Colossians 3:15-17 is an interesting passage that interleaves the command to be thankful/grateful with other commands.

      As I wrote above, an attempt to be understanding of another person’s weaknesses is commendable. But if I was an elder/husband/father, it would not be good for me to encourage people to only partly obey God’s commands. True, we will not be perfect in this life, and I should not act surprised that I or another person fail to perfectly fulfill God’s commands. With that admission in mind, I should still strive to encourage myself and others to fully obey the word of God. No exceptions or half-measures.
      Exceptions and half-measures are why we live in an immoral nation now.

      I think your comment about taking “30 years to be ready” is important. The specific number you gave seems perhaps too long, but regardless, the important point I see is that it may take awhile before the person fully aligns with God’s command in a certain area. And this is important for every leader to remember. My followers / children / wife / employees will not become perfect employees/followers tomorrow. Or even over the next one year. Maturity in Christ takes a lifetime, and is never completed.
      I agree that I should not demand/expect perfection today, and yes, it maybe will take 30 years.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lexet Blog says:

        I don’t understand the examples on this thread about Anal. If any man is interested in that, he is a f@&&0t

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Lexet and Cathy,
        About the interest in anal sex, I think it has to do with the husband’s exercise of authority over the wife’s body, and her willingness to submit. This is very important for sanctification to occur.
        Also, see the last paragraph of the OP.

        Like

      • Lexet Blog says:

        It’s a sin-1. 2- it’s a sin that when exercised routinely in society, god wiped the city from the earth.

        Any husband who forces his wife into sin is apostate.

        3- any man interested in it is a homosexual.

        Period. No negotiations

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        My personal opinion is that oral sex within marriage is permissible and sanctified. I personally feel that anal sex would be dishonoring to both parties. Furthermore even those who practice buggery, when honest, will admit it is usually only “safe” for those with below average penis girth. I think the Scripture about not having vaginal sex during a woman’s period, is Jewish cleanliness law, and not absolute moral law. IMHO

        Like

  6. larryzb says:

    This may be focusing too much on the details, but I would like to comment on this part of the comment above.

    “Lets say the husband want to try anal. The wife is from a sheltered home, she married young, and never rode the cock carousel. She has a large mental block against anal, even though she wants to please her husband. Instead of anal, she continues to give him regular, frequent, enthusiastic plain vanilla sex. How hard should the husband prod her to try anal? It might take 30 years before she is ready to try something like that. In the meantime the husband should be content and see that the glass is half full, not half empty.”

    For various reasons, I am not a big fan of anal sex. What if the husband is not only getting frequent, enthusiastic plain vanilla sex, but is also getting frequent and enthusiastic oral sex from his wife, why would/should that not be enough for him? I think that it is understandable why a wife would not want to engage in anal sex. But, if she is readily available for both intercourse and oral sex, her husband ought to appreciate that.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Slightly offtopic question: Instead of a test drive, why not an actual contractual agreement spelling out sexual incompatibility as a reason for divorce (and her signing away her rights to communal property, etc for lack of fulfillment of the agreement?
    Just throwing this around…food for thought.

    Like

    • Lexet Blog says:

      In many states lack of sex is actually a reason to divorce

      Liked by 2 people

    • JPF says:

      I like your suggestion, but unfortunately I strongly doubt that a pre-nup would be respected by the “family” courts.
      And even if it was, she would still get stealth alimony, by using the children as hostages to get chilimony / child support.

      But I do agree that we SHOULD be able to enter into binding agreements. Some jurisdictions treat women as children that need to be protected from their own decisions, and unfavourable contracts will therefore be voided.

      Liked by 1 person

  8. Cathy says:

    A wife is required to have vaginal sex. That’s all the Bible requires. Don’t bother to frantically type how Song of Solomon says she must perform oral sex. Oral sex is an option. And as far as anal sex; Only if she wants it and most don’t. Do men want something shoved up their butt??
    No? Neither does she. It’s gross.

    Liked by 1 person

    • larryzb says:

      @Cathy:
      Oral sex is a great way to connect with your husband. Many wives, who flat out refuse to even try it, are unaware of the special emotional intimacy of the act. It is about connection, and not merely exciting physical sensations for the husband. My advice to wives is to work at cultivating a positive mental attitude towards performing the act, and then to give it a fair try several times. Many wives, once they gain some experience and confidence with the act, find they enjoy the connection with their husband.

      The shared vulnerability, and mutual trust and acceptance make for a deep connection for the spouses during the act.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Sharkly says:

      @Cathy:
      Next!
      However I agree that buggery would dishonor both bodies.

      Like

  9. Scott says:

    It’s a huge turn on when your wife puts hard left and right limits on what she is required to do. Makes for some crazy nights in the bedroom.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Scott says:

    I had a girlfriend tell me something 30 years ago that I immediately and permanently internalized. It’s never left me.

    “I Prefer it when you just take. I hate it when you ask.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • bee123456 says:

      It sounds like this is one of your serial girlfriends that you were sinning with. If I am wrong about my assumption, tell me.

      Different situation, different woman. Your girlfriend was already defiled, already riding the cock carousel.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        So:

        Non-virgins: I like to be taken to the bedroom

        Virgins and women who have only ever had one partner: I like to be gently asked into the bedroom by my good Knight.

        This is why countless Christian husbands are out the m’ladying their wives into a sex coma.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I get what Scott is saying, that most women want a man who is aggressive in taking them in the bedroom, not some man who is constantly trying to get her permission, like she is the sex-master. I have read that many women’s fantasy is to have a man who is so attracted to them, that he can’t stop himself from immediately taking them how he wants. While that might not be too far from a rape fantasy, I think the key is they want to be an object of insatiable desire, and sometimes to be taken like you’re an escaped convict who can already hear the sirens coming in the distance. Also sometimes women want to be taken in ways and “forced” to do things that a “lady” might not agree to. That way they can enjoy it while maintaining plausible deniability in their own mind that they aren’t the kind of lady who would agree to do that.
        Women then say: It all happened so fast! I couldn’t stop him! He took me like a madman, I was afraid to try to stop him. He used me like his personal whore … he degraded me … I hope he calls me back, because I still respect him, and I’m wanting to see him, just to let him know that, as a Christian, I forgive him for how he took me … I don’t blame him for being a man and giving in to his passion … Please excuse me, I suddenly feel like I need to pee again.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        @ Scott and Sharkly,
        I have heard many women tell me that the thing that turns them on is when the man is turned on (for them). But of course, not just any man’s arousal can turn their key. This goes back to the importance of a man being able to read IOI’s.

        Like

    • JPF says:

      Whether a wife or a harlot, a woman is a woman, and has a woman’s nature.
      Yes, acting submissive toward a wife is not what I see in God’s directions, and therefore it is not surprising when such behaviour leads to poor results. Damn, I wish I would consistently remember this.

      Like

  11. Scott says:

    OT

    Is anyone else enjoying watching the country destroy itself on social media and elsewhere?

    My favorite one today was watching a statue of Junipero Sera being toppled in San Francisco and being beaten as it lie there with skateboards.

    Like

    • Ed Hurst says:

      It can be entertaining to watch empires die. There’s not much we can do at this point, so it’s best to withdraw emotionally and see what happens.

      Like

      • larryzb says:

        So, Ed, it is not worth fighting to save anything? Is that the Christian response in your view?

        Liked by 1 person

      • JPF says:

        Being wise enough to recognize a lost cause is not evil or lazy. It shows wisdom.
        Of course, the difficulty lies in being sure it really is a lost cause. And of course we could assess whether it is a lost cause, based on my sole efforts, versus a lost cause, even if all members of a certain group work together.

        Liked by 3 people

    • okrahead says:

      Yeah, I think my favorite was seeing that BLM pulled down the statue of U.S. Grant… Who was from an ardently abolitionist family, fought a bloody war to end slavery, as President of the U.S. fought the KKK and established the Department of Justice to do so, was, I believe, fought for the 15th amendment to give Blacks the vote, fought for and signed the Civil Rights Acts of 1870 and 1875 to protect civil liberties for Blacks, sent federal troops to the South to protect the rights of Black citizens, etc… Which is proof you can never be “anti-racist” enough for BLM.

      Like

  12. Scott says:

    Any anonymous posters to an obscure Christian manosphere site who have the power to “save” this civilization should be doing that right now instead of this.

    Liked by 4 people

  13. Ed Hurst says:

    Larry, some things are worth fighting for. My comment arises from a prophetic viewpoint that God’s wrath is on the US, and that He will destroy it. Meanwhile, I have all the confidence in the world that the gospel message entrusted to me will outlive the US, and that’s where my efforts are going.

    Like

    • JPF says:

      I’m not sure how much God would need to do to destroy the US. Or Canada, UK, etc.
      Western countries have borrowed massively more than we can pay off.
      At least for the US, they have printed so much fake currency, the only thing preventing an immediate meltdown of the currency is the fact other countries are holding/hoarding so much of that currency.
      For the two points above, there was even a Hollywood movie with this as a plot point; one of the Jack Ryan movies.

      Western countries have also deliberately built up welfare classes that are dependent on the government for all daily necessities, and these groups will fight if sugar-daddy government stops the printing presses:
      – welfare harlots / single mothers
      – blacks in the US
      – legal immigrants
      – various aboriginal groups

      Also ticking time-bombs for members of the currently productive class of citizens, when those citizens start to collect on their pensions which look good on paper but are partially or whole unfunded. I see big problems coming when the government admits they cannot pay what millions of retirees thought they were owed.

      If China and all foreign investors just stop buying Western debt, that may be enough to start the destruction.

      Liked by 1 person

      • elspeth says:

        As a black American who has never been dependent on welfare (my father worked very hard and didn’t die broke and my husband is equally excellent and diligent), I always feel like a fish out of water when this is bandied about. But that’s neither here not there. This bit caught my eye:

        I’m not sure how much God would need to do to destroy the US. Or Canada, UK, etc….

        Along with the rest, this fails to recognize that God’s judgement need not come in the form of Sodom and Gomorrah style destruction, or even through war. The Roman Empire, if my history is correct, basically crumbled from within as they reached peak decadence. In other words, in that case God’s judgment (since the rise and fall of all empires is according to His schedule) looked like more like Romans 1 than Genesis 19:

        For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because what may be known of God is manifest in them, for God has shown it to them. For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse, because, although they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things.

        Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen.

        So when one says that God is bringing destruction to America, it need not mean overt destruction. Because I believe this is the end result of turning away from the truth and worshipping ourselves more than learning to govern ourselves, it’s hard to find it entertaining. My husband and I have children who are going to spend the majority of their lives living under whatever type of totalitarian hell emerges from all of this. My eternal hope is not extinguished, but it is hard not to mourn the life I enjoyed but that they may never know.

        Liked by 5 people

      • JPF says:

        @elspeth

        Sorry. With respect to the following groups, I should have specified the large numbers from the groups that live off the government, rather than the entire group. Not all do; your father and husband are good examples for others to follow.
        – blacks in the US
        – legal immigrants

        Even for aboriginals, although the tribes do take massive amounts of money each year, there are individuals who choose to work and be a productive part of the nation. Not all are living on the reserve, waiting for more hand outs.

        Like

  14. Scott says:

    children who are going to spend the majority of their lives living under whatever type of totalitarian hell emerges from all of this.

    Word

    Liked by 2 people

  15. Pingback: The best enema of all | Σ Frame

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s