Women’s Version of the Covert Contract.
Readership: All
Length: 2,600 words
Reading Time: Possibly the most important 9 minutes of your marriage!
Introduction to the Covert Contract
Most readers are familiar with the covert contract, an idea that Robert A. Glover made famous in his book, No More Mr. Nice Guy. A covert contract is an unspoken agreement you have within your head between you and somebody else. It’s what you expect someone to do — based on what you’re doing for them or based on what you expect from a relationship — without actually telling them about it. You hope they’ll just know.
In other words, the covert contract is a subconscious and therefore unspoken expectation that is heavy laden with legalism and devoid of agency.
Covert contracts usually take the form of something like “Boyfriends/husbands should behave like A, so that is how I should behave”, and “My girlfriend/wife should behave like X, because that is how girlfriends/wives should behave”. Although thinking this way is important in terms of knowing how things are supposed to be and for imposing frame, it becomes a problem when one implicitly assumes that if one behaves in the specified manner, then everything will automatically work out smoothly and exactly the way one expects.
In practice, the covert contract usually takes the form of “If I do X for them, then they’ll do Y for me”. Some common examples include:
- “If I buy her flowers/hold the door/etc. then she’ll appreciate me/open her heart to me/etc.”
- “If I’m nice to her, she’ll go out with me.”
- “If I agree with them, they’ll like me.”
- “If I work long and hard, my manager will promote me.”
This is colloquially referred to as “nice guy” behavior. But there’s nothing nice about it. It is a vanity of the mind that reflects a magical sense of entitlement from an egocentric perspective. Again, this happens on the subconscious level, and most people are not aware of any covert contracts that they hold. Becoming aware of a covert contract tends to loosen its hold over a person, and once aware, speaking of it becomes a confession.
If you aren’t familiar with Glover’s covert contract, I recommend you to listen to Angel Donovan’s interview with Robert Glover at Dating Skills Review (2014-07-13).
The Female Version of the Covert Contract
The covert contract was originally presented by R.A. Glover from the male perspective. But believe it or not, women have their own version of the covert contract!
Like the male version, the female version of the covert contract is a vanity of the mind that reflects a magical sense of entitlement from a subconscious egocentric perspective. Same as the male version, it also expects implicit rewards for certain behaviors, and this is assumed and goes unspoken.
However, the female version of the covert contract is different from the men’s version in that good behavior is regarded as something above and beyond the norm, and so it demands special recognition and an immediate reward that is specific to her particular expectations. If the expected reward is not immediately granted, then the woman becomes indignant and feels justified in assuming the role of a judge and dishing out some sort of revenge. “I’ll teach him a lesson!” If a woman chooses not to inflict a punishment for any reason, then she’ll view her own inaction as a reason to bolster her own sense of egotistical pride and moral superiority. “I am too good to him.” or “I deserve someone better.”
It gets worse. The female version of the covert contract also assumes automatic immunity for bad behavior. It doesn’t maintain a good will in seeking after positive outcomes, as the man’s version would entail, but instead, it rides on the herd mentality in a race to the bottom. In this case, the female version goes something like this.
“If so and so does X, then I can do X too.” (where X is a destructive behavior)
Often times, this is made personal, as in…
“If so and so does X to me, then I can do X to them.” (where X is a destructive behavior)
So a statement like,
“If so and so hurts me, then I can hurt them back.”
is totally justified from the perspective of the female covert contract.
In summary, the female covert contract appears in two expressions: Indignation (if she does nothing at all) and Retaliation (if she does). For some women, depending on their personality, this may not be obvious, and may be expressed in a passive-aggressive form (which is usually worse because it cannot be dealt with directly).
Interestingly, there is no positive reciprocal action, only negative. That is, women will seldom think,
“If he is nice to me, then I’ll be nice to him.”
“If he sees me exclusively, then I’ll only see him exclusively.”
This is the point at which the transactional nature of the male version of the covert contract breaks down, unless he is an ubermensch Alpha, in which case the interaction is seen by the female as one of affirmation, and not one of transaction. The female may respond positively to such a man, but this is because of Tingles, and is not related to the female covert contract (until she gets dumped).
Case Study 1 – Femmy’s Description of the Female Covert Contract
Reading this list of 50 Female Evasion and Control Tactics (2021-10-22) made Femmy see how men and women think differently. From a woman’s (Femmy’s) perspective, these are not tactics of conscious control over the man. That list “just happens automatically” depending on the nature of the “attacks” and on her ability to handle the suffering that originates from external sources.
In the comments, Femmy and Deti described the female perspective of the covert contract.
Femmy wrote [paraphrased],
I always saw myself as a receiver.
Of life.
And fighting off what gave me pain…
Fighting things that “happened to me.”
Regardless of whatever decision I made, I never saw it as ‘my fault’ because I could not control the source of pain and suffering.
I wasn’t taught to make decisions growing up. I was taught to submit and accept everything. But I couldn’t. I always blamed the cause.
This is why women always paint themselves as “innocent bystanders”. She is never the actor, always the “acted upon”. Never the decider; always the hapless duped drone, allegedly swindled and tricked (into having sex, for example).
Women never see anything as “their fault”. Women are scarcely aware of the cause and effect – that what “just happens” to them causes them to respond and make decisions. They are not aware that the decisions they make are self-protective measures based on avoiding or controlling pain and suffering. They can’t seem to comprehend that they are held responsible for those decisions and responses, regardless of what “just happens” to them.
It’s difficult for women to figure this out. Femmy even said women are blind to it.
From a woman’s blinded point of view, it’s taken for granted that they see themselves as receivers – of protection, of material provision, and of life. Women are raised to think this way all of their lives since childhood, and it is reinforced by cultural norms and narratives, and supported by the natural male propensity to protect women.
And whenever the reality of living in a fallen world shows through, our fairest princesses transform into bloody battle axes and go stridently on the warpath, thereby making our fallen world a little more fallen.
Faith and Self-Awareness Subverts the Female Covert Contract
The Manosphere has long observed that women lack moral agency. According to what we’ve learned from Femmy, it would be more specific to say that women lack the self-awareness necessary to exercise agency, more specifically, the awareness of how they can be an active agent in the cause-effect dynamic.
Femmy continues,
It wasn’t until recently, when you guys, others, and guys like Kevin Samuels, that I looked back to what ‘happened to me’ has caused me to create decisions. And that I had to take responsibility for creating those decisions, regardless of what ‘happened to me’.
When that point came to my understanding, it was a new idea.
So I see now that I made decisions based on avoiding pain and suffering, and the cause of the pain was the ‘reason’ why I made those decisions.
But it’s blind and automatic, until someone points it out.
“Blind and automatic” — This lack of self-awareness and agency is what is often touted by women as a lack of self-esteem. In fact, anytime we hear of women justifying their bad decisions because of “not enough self-esteem”, we can safely assume that they mean they are languishing in a crisis of disbelief,* and lack the self-awareness needed to respond appropriately. A critical attitude and a lack of good will amplifies this behavior.
From Femmy’s testimony, it is obvious that men, fathers, and husbands need to make the women in their charge aware of this instinctive reaction common to women so that they will have a greater self-awareness and therefore will possess the ability to exercise agency.
* A crisis of disbelief is when a person denies, or refuses to recognize basic reality, usually because it is foreign to their fundamental belief paradigm, or because acceptance and belief would bring pain, suffering, and/or require one to assume unwanted responsibilities and to take action. Chateau Heartiste’s catchphrase, “Where pretty lies perish”, captures the redemption from this phenomenon.
Men’s Covert Contract Reinforces Women’s Covert Contract
Deti gave us a succinct summary of how men’s protective instinct, which is often expressed through the male version of the covert contract, actually supports and reinforces women’s covert contract.
- [Women’s covert contract] is a result of men’s instinctive and knee jerk protection of women. Men reflexively think and act to protect women and shield them from adverse consequences — even those adverse consequences women bring on themselves. As I was reading [Femmy’s] response, I had to consciously combat my instinct to do the remote/internet version of patting you on the head and going “There there Femmy, it’s going to be OK, no one blames you, it’s not your fault”. I had to fight my instinct to excuse, explain, and otherwise not hold you accountable for your decisions.
- The “it just happened” thing women do is an attempt to invoke male protection, even from total strangers. Women instinctively know to damsel it up specifically to exploit this universal male trait. I really think this is hardwired in women specifically to keep more women alive. The alternative is that men would allow natural consequences to befall women — either impose the same punishment on women that would be imposed on men (death, kicked out of the tribe) or natural consequences (illness, isolation, incapacitation, death).
- Women do this to men they’re dating or men they’re sexually involved with, specifically to get their “payment” in the form of protection and provision. Women believe they’re entitled to “get something” from men in return for the sex they have with those men. In part, women expect “payment” in the form of protection, including relief from the natural consequences of their actions and excusal from responsibility. “I have sex with you, so you’re supposed to protect me from everything, including my own negligence and recklessness.”
- Men who hold women accountable for women’s own decisions are derided as mean spirited, cruel, and heartless — even when that holding accountable is nothing more than allowing natural consequences to occur. This is widespread and pervasive — even other men will deride and denigrate imposition of adverse consequences on women.
Notice that point 3 contains specific expectations of the female covert contract (provision and protection in return for sex, which is a transactional arrangement).
Here, we see that both men and women need to be aware of these subliminal expectations, and draw appropriate boundaries of responsibility, even when this might draw criticism and contempt from others.
Case Study 2 – Mrs. Apostle’s Redemption from the Female Covert Contract
Red Pill Apostle said he had to deal with this same behavior in his wife.
There was a conversation months ago with Mrs. Apostle that I remember well and was a moment of foundational understanding for her as my wife. We were discussing agency regarding a divorced woman we know and she was on a jag about how the husband had behaved poorly so the wife did too. When I brought up whether the wife had agency or not, the implications that the wife either had control of herself and her choices or was unable to choose for herself and was under the husband’s directive did not sit well with Mrs. Apostle. I flipped the idea then to every time she justifies her actions with “yes, but you …” statements, she’s admitting she doesn’t have control over herself, much like a child, and the lightbulb came on.
This is pure gold!
Fast forward a few months and I have not heard that justification since. She has told me that when I behave or communicate in a certain manner it makes it harder for her, which is a legitimate statement. I can then work on my approach and delivery to make her compliance easier, which I see as part of living in knowledge of my wife as the weaker sex (1 Peter 3:7).
From RPA’s testimony, we know that when men, fathers, and husbands take the effort to make the women in their charge aware of their lack/denial of agency, then they can be redeemed from the curse of poor self-awareness which results in a crisis of disbelief (which is commonly passed off as “poor self-esteem”), and can then exercise agency. This will also help women develop a greater sense of security.
Epilogue
Not every nasty thing women say or do is out of malice or spite. Some things are. But it would help both men and women to realize that such behaviors are a woman’s reflexive response to painful circumstances in her environment — the sudden realization that humans are far from perfect.
In general, women suffer from poor self-awareness from living in a sheltered condition all their lives. This is reinforced by Chivalry, the male protective instinct, social norms, and various female defense mechanisms such as feigning innocence/ignorance. So whenever a situation arises that causes them pain and requires them to exercise agency, they are not able able to cope with the offense in a constructive way, so the knee-jerk response is to lash out in anger and revenge.
A compounding reason why they are not able to cope is because they are caught in a debilitating crisis of disbelief. “How dare you!” or “How could this happen to me?” Taken together, this lack of self-awareness, the crisis of disbelief, the lack of agency, and the poor decisions made in response are commonly cited as “poor self-esteem” by many modern women whenever they have to face the music. But it would be more accurate to say that this is a result, not of poor self-esteem, but of an overinflated self-esteem which presumably exonerates them from the consequences of their choices and manifests as a lack of agency. Ultimately, it can all be summed up as emotional immaturity.
When women become aware that they do not need to respond according to the defensive covert contract of negative reciprocation, and that they would be better off if they didn’t, then they become aware that they can make other sorts of decisions, harder though it may be. As a result, women can have the potential to take greater responsibility for their lives and be liberated from the female version of the covert contract, thereby bettering their own lives, and the lives of everyone around them.
The Gestalt Frame
In closing, I want to point out that when women take responsibility for their lives and exercise agency, then this can have a positive impact on men’s behaviors by the power of God that can be accessed through our obedience. This is why Ephesians 5:22-24 states that women should be obedient to their husbands in all things. When women are obedient to the Word, it allows men to escape the defensive dynamics of the tit-for-tat interaction. Once this oppressive psychological distraction is lifted, men are then able to face the limits of their power and authority in the relationship, and come to terms with their own shortcomings and weaknesses. Men are thus able to gain that self-awareness which allows them to exercise their own agency. This is the mechanics behind 1 Peter 3:1-6, which stipulates that husbands may be won over by the behavior of their wives. In Christian terminology, this means a reciprocal repentance and renewal.
All this is summarized in Σ Frame Axiom 21:
When men take the effort to make their wives aware of how her Covert Contract obviates her exercise of agency and reduces her to the moral equivalent of a child, then a multitude of blessings will become manifest. So men should point this out to her in every marital conflict.
It also works the other way too.
When women take the effort to protect their husbands from the negative effects of her Covert Contract, then a multitude of blessings will become manifest. So women should prioritize maintaining a good will in every marital conflict.
We could even say this is one powerful way that husbands can love their wives, and wives can respect their husbands. (Ephesians 5:33)
Related
- Σ Frame: Developing Attitudes That Help You Cope (2015-11-05)
- Σ Frame: What is a woman’s desire for her husband according to Genesis 3:16? (2020-10-23)
- Σ Frame: Commonalities of Successful Marriages (2021-04-14)
ArchAngel
caterpillar345
Soup Sandwich
Lexet Blog
Novaseeker
Oscar
Red Pill Apostle
Jack
thedeti
Σ Frame 
SF’s axiom is one of the more important ways a husband applies Ephesians 5:25. It is an essential part of the sanctification process for women.
Been there. Done that. Have the participation trophy. The underlying mindset that a man should be grateful that his wife is decent to him instead of common decency being the baseline behavior is the key here. In my marriage there were times when Mrs. A expected that a single good act would cover a multitude of really bad behavior. When I let her know this was not the case it made her mad because she had to face falling short, which in her mind was my fault because she was merely reacting to me. What I should have done differently many years ago was to lay out specific expectations of behavior from her. It may not have fixed things, but she would have had a standard against which to judge her own actions and that may have been enough to let her know where she stood with me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A couple years into my marriage, I laid out very specific expectations for my wife. Here are a few that I can remember.
— I expect you to show respect to me at all times, no matter what I’ve done or how you’re feeling.
— Whenever I am talking, I expect you to listen carefully and without interruption.
— I expect you to seek out my opinion, and value it once it is given, even if you disagree with it.
— I expect you to consider my interests above anyone else’s, including your own.
— Whenever you need to wake me up, I expect you to do so with a tender touch instead of words.
— I expect that you will not make loud noises or have busy activities before 10:00 am.
— I expect that when I come home from work you will greet me at the door with a passionate kiss and you will allow me half an hour of quiet time to rest before you present your concerns of the day to me.
— I expect you to dress appropriately and attractively whenever we go out in public.
— I expect you to wear something sexy or nothing at all while we are at home.
— I expect you to be able to give an account for any money that you might spend.
— I expect you to ask my permission for any expenditure over $100.
— I expect you to be ready to have sex with me any time I get an erection, and that you will have sex with me at least once every day.
— I expect you to stay under 55 kg.
— I expect that you will never cut your hair shorter than shoulder length.
For a long time, she complained about these expectations, saying that I was too controlling and demanding. But within a year, she complied.
Interestingly, she will seldom do all that I expect, but she usually comes pretty close. For example, she usually stays around 58 kg., but she’ll never go above 60.
LikeLiked by 2 people
It sounds like you’re one lucky guy!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Femmy – I’m going to pick on you a little here. When you wrote “lucky guy”, whether in jest or seriousness, it’s from an underlying view that the behavior of Jack’s wife is unexpected. Most women, including Mrs. Apostle in the past, would look at Jack’s list and would scoff at it. The reality is that when Jack laid out the requirements of a woman to be his wife, he’s given her a list of how to submit to him. If she does not, she’s sinning by breaking God’s instruction to wives in 1 Peter 3, Ephesians 5, and Colossians 3. So if by “lucky guy”, you mean he found a woman who has faith enough to actually apply scripture to her own life, than sure, he’s a lucky guy. I’ll also point out that too few men have the gumption to guide and direct his family the way Jack did/does which makes his wife one of the lucky few.
Some of the listed items are personal preferences Jack has, such as avoiding loud activities prior to 10 am (enough time for the caffeine to kick in, which I completely get). Many of them are core behaviors of happy marriages. He’s basically listed the ways Mrs. Jack is to be his help mate in life and that encompasses everything from managing family finances to utilizing her body for his sexual fulfillment. My personal list would touch on many of the same subjects, but with different parameters.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an important part of the feedback that women need, which I’ve described in the last few posts. It’s also important to state expectations and give feedback to daughters too.
Yes, and women can feel that it is sin. You see, once these expectations/boundaries are in place and are shown to be sufficiently rigid, women can feel those boundaries, and it affects their conscience if they cross them. I think this is why my wife eventually conformed to my expectations after a year. For example, if she really wanted to please me, then she would stay under 55 kg. as I stated. But she’ll stay at 58 kg. not because she wants to please me, but because she feels guilty or ashamed to go over 60 kg. Another example, once she cut her hair shorter than shoulder length. I expressed strong disapproval, and this made her angry, and then we had a cold war for a couple weeks. But she never did that again, and I think it’s because she felt guilty, not because it made her less beautiful. This is why she stays close to my expectations, but never quite matches them.
Yes, my wife will argue, complain, and fight about my expectations/boundaries, but after a while, she becomes much happier and more content. The “predator” in this case is demonic — moral criticism, unthankfulness, shame, pangs of guilt, etc.
LikeLike
Believe it, or not, some Christians actually teach that it’s wrong to have expectations in marriage. That kind of teaching leads to the covert contracts mentioned above. The truth is that everyone has expectations, whether they admit to it, or not, and lying about expectations is a major source of conflict in relationships.
Consider this common example. The woman wants to have kids. The man doesn’t. One of three things usually happens.
1) The man tells the woman he doesn’t want to have kids. She lies, and says she’s okay with that, but secretly thinks, “I’ll change his mind”. They get married anyway.
2) The woman tells the man she wants to have kids. He lies, and says he’s okay with that, but secretly thinks, “I’ll change her mind”. They get married anyway.
3) Neither of them talks about whether, or not they’ll have kids. They get married anyway.
All three scenarios typically end catastrophically.
We need to teach our kids to become comfortable stating their expectations clearly, specifically, and confidently. It’s better to break up before marriage because the couple’s expectations diverge intolerably, than to get divorced for the same reason, or to be stuck in a miserable marriage for that reason.
Be aware, however, that you can state your expectations clearly, and the other person can still lie about agreeing to your expectations. It happens disturbingly often.
LikeLiked by 3 people
An Asian woman thing I suspect. Shameful for a woman to be fat.
Women with high-value husbands (who they perceive to be targets for mate-poaching by other women) tend to keep themselves thin and fit.
LikeLike
This may be true, but I’m not sure whether wives see themselves as being partly responsible for their husband’s sexual satisfaction, and when that is absent, then he is more likely to have an affair. I think most women who stay thin and fit do so to increase their SMV and to keep the attention flowing from more and better men. For married women, it’s for the attention and to have sexual authority over their husbands.
LikeLiked by 1 person
To each man, their own. Before I married, my wife and I came to an agreement on a number of terms. My list is very different than yours.
— We would first and foremost have a devout Christian home, with regular and active church attendance.
— We would be united as one flesh. Decisions would be made together in unity of purpose. We would always communicate. There would be no prioritization of “his” or “her”, for one cannot separate what has been cleaved together as one.
— We would never lie to one another or keep secrets. Complete trust was required. We would keep things in common (finances, email, etc.) because there could be no secrets.
— Our friendship would always be of critical importance.
— Divorce was condemned (and thus, no prenups allowed).
— We would have a minimum of one child, with the expectation (but not requirement) of two. When one person felt it was time to have children, then the other partner could not refuse. To do so would be cheating the spouse and grounds for annulment of the marriage (which was never going to actually happen).
— We would never contradict one another in front of the children. If we had a disagreement, we would discuss it without the children present.
— We would both finish school, get jobs, and do international travel.
— She could wear makeup, but only rarely for special occasions. Jewelry must be modest. Hair should be at least shoulder-length.
— We would never have extra-marital sex.
— We had few other expectations regarding physical intimacy other than that when two people meet intimately for the first time, they must grow together physically however they see fit, adapting together to each person’s needs. We agreed that the details would never be shared with anyone else, and it never has been.
— Do not go to bed angry.
We’ve been married two decades. This list has served us well. I would not change the relationship’s focus on unity, trust, and friendship for anything in the world.
— We had to change “don’t go to bed angry.” It turns out that going to bed angry and sleeping off all that excess emotion is a much better strategy than the alternative. We learned a lot about how each other handles conflict and had to adapt our strategies.
— We have never lied to one another.
— Rather than 1 or 2 children, we had 5: two biological and three adopted.
— When raising babies, we agreed that she would take the night shift so that I wouldn’t be too tired at work. By implicit agreement, she would change 80% of the diapers.
— Our expectations about each other’s weight are shared, not demands.
— Were such a rule necessary, when I get home from work she must be ready to tell me about her day without delay. I miss talking to her and I don’t want to wait.
— She requires no spending cap, nor need ask permission for purchases. We are one, and we know the expectations exactly without needing to even discuss them most of the time. Our trust in each other is implicit and she has never spent anything for which I regretted. I have no need to worry about what she buys.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you, Jack.
That picture with “Self-esteem” scenes is very familiar all my life.
Not just with me, but female relatives too.
I am so glad that you said it is NOT low self-esteem.
On another note, but related to this and what men question, I read lots of romance novels all my life and have my favorite authors. I wonder now how/if that is related to blinding us? Hmm.
By the way, I watched Emma (last year’s Jane Austen) and I was reminded of you because in the book/movie, Mr. Knightley tells Emma off every time she needs it. Hee! Loved that.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I also noticed I’m really good at seeing what’s spiritually wrong in others, but blind to my own.
For example, all the wives in my family sure can pick out everything wrong in their men, but never once did they say they were wrong about anything they did, except for one: that they shouldn’t have married.
Is this true for all women?
And why do they morally pick on their husbands?
Why do they constantly bash them in front of their children?
Why are they always mad?
LikeLike
We’ve been over this before many times. Genesis 3:16 means that all women to one extent or another will chafe against their husband’s authority. Wives picking out the moral flaws of their husbands to leverage against them is one way this chaffing manifests itself. Bashing them in front of their children is another way of usurping a husband’s authority. On a personal note, if Mrs. Apostle ever does this particular one again we go see divorce lawyers the next day, which brings us to your last question’s answer.
Wives are always mad because they are stuck with a husband who they don’t think is strong enough to set firm boundaries and enact consequences for breaking them. The insane aspect of this is the typical unhappy wife, does not understand what it is that will actually make her happy and so she grasps at shadows she thinks might do the trick all the while telling her husband “happy wife, happy life”. He does his best to keep up until he doesn’t see the point of trying anymore, because what he does rarely keeps her happy.
The realty is that the husband’s need to ditch all of culture’s equality ideas and treat his wife like the most responsible teenager in the family. This is done by setting firm boundaries and expectations and then enforcing them without letting his emotions get the best of him. She’ll be unhappy for a while, but ultimately she’ll find comfort in the security and safety of the parameters he has set. Think of it like a sheep in a pen with the shepherd at the gate. They may not like being penned in, but the shepherd’s protection let’s them live their lives more freely because they are safe from predators. With wives a husband’s parameters should protect against emotionally driven poor decision making that lead to painful and costly consequences.
This is in fact the model the bible gives us with Christ and the church. He gives us parameters to protect us from ourselves, knowing that we’d all act sinfully against our own long term best interests. Some of these are easier to understand cause and effect, such as the adulteress leading to emotional, relational and financial turmoil, while others, like the Leviticus 18 instruction to not procreate with close relatives, make take a little longer to realize. In the case of Lev 18, it took a couple generations of statehood for Kentucky (Southern joke) along with modern genetic research to confirm the wisdom contained there.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Excuse me, please. Speaking of Leviticus 18, not only in Kentucky, you can see in European history specifically in certain royal families. King Charles II which was the last Habsburg of the Spanish branch to sit on the Spanish throne had a variety of health problems. You can see a few portraits of him. It can be pointed out that the Habsburgs practiced close relations marriages to keep the holdings in Europe in the family. Other royal families had maladies due to similar marriages. Even today, European royal families are more or less related to one another. One can say that some royals across Europe including the United Kingdom have taken spouses that were essentially commoners in recent decades. I think one can use Leviticus 18 and then study the genealogies of said European royal families.
LikeLike
Kaiser Wilhelm II looked normal, but he was a moron. In totally unrelated news, cousin marriage depresses IQ over time.
Discover Magazine (Razib Khan): Cousin marriage can reduce I.Q. a lot (2012 July 20)
It’s almost as though God knew what He was doing when He dictated Leviticus 18 to Moses.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Alright; I’ll ask the obvious question no one is asking. What does a Christian husband do when he states his expectations clearly, and his wife refuses to meet them? And, I don’t mean she “only” gets to 95% (58 kg, vs. 55 kg). I mean that she doesn’t bother to get even close. What does he do then?
LikeLiked by 4 people
I’d like to know this too. It sounds really great but something like this is completely out of the realm of comprehension for me because I’ve never seen anything close to this in my life and I live in the freaking Bible Belt!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar, Erich, et al.,
I can’t imagine this continuing indefinitely because of how women are made. She either responds by submitting, albeit reluctantly and resisting for months, or else she blows up the relationship.
To humor your question, the psychological reason why women are pressed into this choice is because if she won’t respond, then there’s no Feedback loop established. Attention and feedback are like oxygen to women, and if they don’t get it, then they feel insecure and their self-image disintegrates. Our modern feminist culture has tried to convince everyone that this is not the case, but it doesn’t reflect reality. So a husband can do things that ramp up the tension and press her into a decision, which basically amounts to him withdrawing emotionally, e.g. ignoring her, not taking her seriously, spending less time with her, giving her the dreaded smirk, etc. Most women will get the message if the husband exerts Frame and employs a little Game. (See this post for more on this.) If she is particularly fractious and unruly, then a man could take Deti’s approach. But the bottom line is that she has to respond either by submitting, or else she’ll have an affair, or start planning for a divorce. This doesn’t work out favorably for many men because they aren’t skilled in managing a woman.
I think the reason why noncompliance continues indefinitely is because husbands buckle and revert to pedestalization and the “Happy wife” approach, which is a kind of feedback that places her in a position of authority, and this gives her enough control to value the relationship for what she can get out of it, and not for the Headship covering. Of course, this is an inversion of God’s created order. Unfortunately, this is what a lot of people expect moving into a relationship, especially Christians, so it is spoiled from the onset. It is really difficult to change this expectation.
Ultimately, it depends on how much she values the relationship, or more specifically, how much the feedback assuages her ego and self-image, and how secure she feels under his Headship covering. Her decision on this is out of his hands, really. But she’ll make a decision sooner or later because women cannot bear the stress, tension, guilt, and shame of living in rebellion forever. If she can, then a man is probably better off to let her go.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Jack,
This paragraph has some lessons that were hard for me to implement, but I found cracks in Mrs. Apostle’s resolve that makes it easier. Sometimes, it is not just how much she values the relationship, but how much she values the appearance of the relationship. Mrs. Apostle is very concerned about how people that know both of us, and that she might interact with, view her and by association, our marriage. This has come out multiple times to the point where she asked me what she was potentially facing when she saw my brother over Thanksgiving because he knows the details of her behavior. In addition to this specific instance, she’s brought the topic up at least a half dozen times since summer and it usually involves her asking if I also tell him about the progress she’s made, which has been substantial. This is the way the ego feedback manifests itself with Mrs. Apostle.
I’d advise figuring this out sooner rather than later and absolutely before children are involved. One of the hardest realizations for me was understanding that I had to be willing to lose the marriage in order to keep it. If I let the status quo remain, I’d have bailed because the stress was great enough that I was having health issues, which left me with the easy logic of do nothing and divorce, or try to fix things knowing that if I failed I’d have the same result as doing nothing but if it worked I’d have better marriage. The specific way this looks for me is to state what I want and expect without regard for how she will react to my assertions. In other words, I no longer let her feelings dictate my actions. What changed my belief was that 1. I finally trusted myself enough to know I’d be ok no matter what happened, 2. I knew I had a lot to offer which means there would be a number of women who’d take her place if the opportunity arose and, this is most important, 3. she was not worth being with unless she changed. At one point I remember thinking that my life would be better as a single man.
I will echo Jack’s experience with his wife. Once I began setting expectations Mrs. Apostle grumbled, fought it, argued bitterly and then ultimately complied. It took a spine of steel, a conviction that what I was doing was right and faith that God was working on both of us. I’d say it took the better part of a year to reverse the patterns of behavior, but I’d say she tries to comply with the vast majority of what I ask.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jack said:
RPA said:
Jesus condemned divorce. There is no marital exit. Willingness to lose a marriage is completely unacceptable. For a Christian, marriage is for life and you must act accordingly.
If a man marries a whore, then he married her. It’s not her responsibility that he married a whore, it is his as the head of the family. To say otherwise spits on a man’s inherent authority. To quote Boxer:
Is the man the head or not? It is a not unrealistic possibility—given an inflexible “do or die” approach—that they divorce from disagreement over his set of ultimatums. Should we exonerate the captain of the sinking ship because his crew didn’t follow orders?
Is headship is a choice, an optional quality? No, the man is the head regardless of situation. Bad or good, he still is. Headship means nothing if gutted by blaming the woman: she’s not the head, even if she thinks she is. He is obligated to make the marriage work, not chase her away. Yet, even acting perfectly, he is still not blameless if she leaves. Paul stated that such men are ineligible for church leadership.
If Jack’s or RPA’s approach won’t end in divorce, then give it a try. But, as the head, the responsibility—success or failure—is solely yours. It’s not about fairness, it’s about authority. If your marriage ends in divorce, I’ll blame you because I respect your authority as a man.
LikeLike
ramman3000,
You’re preaching to the choir. RPA and I are not the kind of men who are itching to ditch our wives. Our wives are (or were) looking for excuses to ditch us. We’re looking for ways to improve the quality of our marriages — marriages to women who resist Headship. We are faced with the choice of being dragged over the coals of a feminist marriage in which the woman calls all the shots, or else doing something about it. We’re unwilling to accept a feminist marriage. We believe Headship is the answer to our problems. Headship is about male authority in a marriage that glorifies God. Headship is not about blaming the woman or dishing out “do or die” ultimatums. It’s not about making her haaappy either.
LikeLike
I like this because it represents the spiritual truth. However by the same token there’s no such thing as divorce. Divorce is just paperwork! The attempt to make divorce really real (to ‘reify’ it?) is a dreadful sin.
This was confirmed again for me recently when listening to some of Sissel Kyrkjebø’s songs on YouTube. She must be about the most beautiful singer I’ve ever beheld. Her singing is technically perfect but her goodness and joy adds immeasurably to it.
This was a Norwegian woman who turned down Hollywood and put family first.
At least to begin with. I knew as soon as saw her face in a post-2010ish videos that she had divorced. The purity had disappeared from her face. Sure enough, Wikipedia confirmed it, although perhaps tellingly the word divorce is omitted in the entry. She had simply and magically ‘re-married’.
[Jack: She’s another before-and-after example of the beauty of purity.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ve literally observed this going on for over a decade, and counting.
Yep. Seen that happen too. And now they basically live separate lives in the same house. And yet, the zombie marriage shambles on.
LikeLike
Oscar,
I think another reason why noncompliance continues indefinitely is because neither the husband nor the wife takes any meaningful action at all. The husband can’t bring the issue of discontentment to a head and thereby find a resolution, and the wife can’t submit, and she can’t move on either. A couple like this is trapped in the hell of indecision and inefficacy. They may justify themselves, saying that they “stay together for the children”, but it doesn’t benefit the children to grow up in a cold broken family. My parents were like this for at least a decade until my mother finally filed for a divorce.
LikeLike
@ ramman3000
Okay. How? Given the specific example I provided.
LikeLike
I don’t know. How could I possibly answer that? It is not my responsibility, for I have no authority in the matter. At best, I could give my opinion. Nothing I do or do not say can alter a man’s authority or responsibility over his own house.
When God asked Adam what he had done, and he said “But the woman!!!”, did God accept that as a legitimate excuse? No, he did not. Indeed, the standard assumption is that Adam, not Eve, takes the greater blame for the fall. Yes, the woman bore some responsibility for her own actions, but that notably did not include being responsible for Adam’s actions, despite being the direct antecedent. Consider Jack’s comment:
Jack has found a way that works for him most—but not all—of the time. One must always act in a way that affirms the marriage. If a man knows his wife would sooner divorce him than accepts Jack’s list (for example), he cannot in good conscience use that approach. He will have to try something else. That I don’t know what that is does not impact any husband’s obligation to do so.
LikeLike
Oscar asked Derek (ramman3000) how to make a marriage work without chasing her away. He answered,
If Derek has a solid marriage characterized by Headship, we might expect that he would have a lot to say about how to make it happen. But I suspect it’s mostly because he has a wife who is obedient to him simply because she loves him and/or God. Most men who are in this kind of marriage actually don’t know why their wives love them. They just do. This is more evidence supporting Scott’s axiom.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Yeah. That’s what I was asking for. So, let’s hear it.
LikeLike
I hate not being able to reply directly to people.
@Derek:
That depends on your interpretation of scripture (assuming you’re not Catholic or Orthodox). Red Pill Apostle has argued that a wife denying her husband sex is a form of marital infidelity and that this is grounds for legitimate divorce. He seems to be arguing for absolute divorce (“divortium perfectum”) not just separation (“divortium imperfectum”) – the ending of the common life and bed and board. Presumably with the option of contracting another marriage.
I have noticed that Mennonites (I can’t remember if Derek is Mennonite, Brethren, …) hold marriage in very high regard and some teach strict “no divorce.” Historically among Protestants, Mennonites and Anglicans (believe it or not – yeah, even given Henry VIII), tended to be the strictest about divorce.
LikeLike
@Anonymous,
“Divorce” is from the Latin “divortere”, “to separate” and is neutral with respect to the dissolution (in God’s eyes) of the marital bond. It can mean this or just what we call “separation” in our culture.
So “divorce” is a very real thing. But I agree with your point – marriage is a very real bond and if a valid bond (in God’s eyes) is present, then that bond is for life.
LikeLiked by 1 person
ramman3000 – Jesus also condemned marital infidelity and did so to the extent that he said it was the only thing that justifies divorce. Cameron mentioned my logic on this in his comments and, while this is an anathema in our current female centric culture, it makes perfect sense. If you cut through the emotional knots people have over cheating with another and look at what is happening from a rights standpoint, the concept is pretty easy to see.
Both spouses are biblically given sexual rights to their spouse. We are commanded to do this both in the old and new testaments. So when a spouse decides to give those rights to another outside of marriage it’s easy to see the infidelity. What we have a harder time seeing is that sexual rejection, that is, the denial of those rights by withholding access, is also marital infidelity. You can give rights away to someone who is not entitled to them or you can keep them from someone who is entitled to them. These are opposite sides of the same coin that is marital infidelity.
Now, here is where my idea that you have to be willing to act on principle regardless of how she’ll react comes into play, because that is exactly what being willing to lose the marriage in order to keep it means. If a man marries a women who snookered him into thinking she was worthy (yes, women know what they are doing, just ask Deti), then applies his headship in accordance with the bible and she bolts because she chafes under the pressure to repent of her sin, so be it. A man can do his best, but like we’ve discussed, at some point a woman has to accept agency over her own choices.
If a man is unwilling to take the unpopular steps of guiding his wife towards biblical marriage because he fears her reaction to his guidance, then a few things happen. She’ll begin to lose interest and attraction. The probability of affairs or sexlessness increases. The probability that they will break God’s commands on how spouses are to treat each other in marriage is 99.99999999999%. So a man’s options are to let her rule the roost with all the disastrous effects of that choice, or take charge like he’s supposed to do and hold her to the vows she willingly made without worrying about if she’ll leave or not.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Oscar,
That was me. I wanted nothing to do with my wife and found ways to avoid her to minimize stress. What I couldn’t avoid was the sexlessness and her nasty demeanor 100% of the time, so the stress kept building until I couldn’t take it anymore. Then I started acting and that is when the wheels of change started to move.
In cases like the one you described, the zombie marriage perpetuates because the husband lets it perpetuate. For me, I was scared of my wife’s reactions. I was scared she’d divorce me and leave me in financial ruin. It took me finally getting to the point where divorce and financial ruin were less worse than being stuck with her that I finally grew the spine I needed to act. The specific way I acted was to tell her exactly how she’d been sinning against me and God (she didn’t like this AT ALL), and then wear her down to start behaving more in line with the biblical model. The same mental fortitude necessary for endurance athletics served me well in this endeavor. The specific actions I took will differ from what the zombie hubby you reference would need to do because our wives are different, but the constant here is knowing what the biblical model is and steadily moving the marriage in that direction.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ RPA
How did you “wear her down”?
LikeLiked by 1 person
Good question Oscar. To understand what I was up against I’ll share an offhanded comment that sums up the truth of her attitude and demeanor before I started changing things. In the middle of an instance where Mrs. Apostle was not getting her way she made the following statement, “I should have married someone who would just do what I tell them to.” There are other instances of similar sentiments and behaviors where she as trying to force her will, but her statement is a very good summary of her mindset at the time and is fully supported by Genesis 3:16.
My first step was to go learn what the bible tells us the marriage relationship is to look like in principle, and then work out what that looks like specifically for me and what I am trying to accomplish. For example, I don’t care if the house is dusted every week while I do care quite a bit about her tone when she talks with me.
Once I had my vision figured out, I did my best to be consistent in my insistence on her behavior. This might mean telling her she is doing better as an encouragement, or letting her know how I want things done. A big part of this for me was personal development in that I needed to get to the point where I could state expectations and then measure her against those expectations without being emotional about it. This, in part, is what being outcome independent looks like for a husband. It’s know how things should be, acting to hold the standard and doing so without regard to how she’ll react.
It took me a while, but over the course of about a year, even with me learning by trial and error, she began to see that I was not going to change. If I were to summarize “wearing her down”, it is a combination of deciding on my vision for the marriage, letting Mrs. Apostle know what I need and want to accomplish that vision, and then being consistent in holding the standards necessary. She fought it, started to change as the Holy Spirit worked on her, and finally gave in.
What this looks like at this point is a woman who is driven and headstrong, whose emotions do get the best of her at times, but who fights her first impulses of being obstinate and self corrects. I have to fight against falling back into egalitarian tendencies, keeping on track for my vision and fearlessly enforcing those standards even when I feel the knot start to tie up in my stomach.
I hope this helps give clarity to what I meant by wearing her down. Some men may get a moment of change with their wife, not unlike Paul on the road to Damascus, but I think this is much less common. I believe my experience is more the norm, where God works through both small and large events in every day life in the process of sanctification.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ RPA
Thanks. That sounds like a pretty good summary.
Hey, ramman3000; you got anything helpful to add yet?
LikeLike
ramman3000 says that a man…
…and that….
But, when asked “how”, ramman’s response is…
So, ramman3000 has no helpful advice on how to “make the marriage work”, but if “your marriage ends in divorce”, no matter what your wife did to cause it, ramman3000 will blame you.
Remember that, men. Have a long memory about who’s willing to help you, and who will only blame you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
His setting down rules and her leaving does not mean he chased her away. It means she left.
SHE is the one who walked away. SHE did. Not him.
Now, if she has a change of heart, returns, and says, “I’m willing to submit”, the Christian husband is obligated to take her back.
If she does not, then both husband and wife are not free to remarry.
Cane Caldo put it roughly this way, paraphrasing:
LikeLike
But, Deti; should we exonerate the ship’s Captain if his First Mate mutinies?
PS: Yes, that is literally what happens. The Captain gets exonerated, and the First Mate hangs.
LikeLike
@thedeti (Sorry, I’m not sure how to reply to you directly.)
You said:
My question: What if during the separation, the wife had sex outside of marriage? Is the husband still unconditionally obliged to take her back, if she does repent?
Granted, she is still forgiven, but will there be no consequences for infidelity at all?
The question of re-marriage is moot in my case. I live in one of the two countries worldwide where divorce is illegal. LOL
LikeLike
ramman3000 said,
Very crafty leveraged language!
God said,
God was not responsible for Israel’s idolatry, any more than Hosea was responsible for Gomer’s adultery, or Christ is responsible for the actions of the great whore who even now claims His name. God says he hates divorce, but no doubt the Father also hated His only Son being made sin for us and being put to death. Just because God hates something doesn’t mean there is never a time for it. Sorry, Mennonites, there is even a time to kill. (Ecclesiastes 3:3)
You’ll also never correctly understand marriage in the Bible without allowing for polygyny. Like how God divorces Israel and takes up with us Gentiles to make his previous wife jealous. If you read Romans 7:2-3 you’ll see how the wife cannot remarry so long as her husband lives, but notice that God never includes the reciprocal for husbands. Husbands just can’t marry other living men’s (divorced) wives. The woman is still bound to that man by law for as long as he lives. The woman was made for the man, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God. But the man was not made for the woman. Many rules are different for men and women because they are different creatures.(not equal) And you can’t change the rules which apply to you by denying your sex and identifying as something other.
Christ is not only the bridegroom and Lord of the Christians, but He is also still King over the Jews, though they have departed from Him.
A man who takes a single woman as a second wife, is not ending his previous marriage, he has just become one flesh with the both of them through the reproductive process (sex). And while he is thereby disqualified from certain church leadership positions (perhaps because human women are defilers, and more wives may equal more defilement), he is not sexually immoral if he has followed God’s laws regarding marriage. Moses the very lawgiver had multiple wives. David, the man after God’s own heart, had many wives. Abraham, Isaac, and Israel had more than one wife. Our faith was partly built by a holy patriarchy of Godfearing polygynists, not just on churchian marriage that is failing because it gives women a threat-point while denying men the opportunity which God Himself chose after His divorce. The woman must stay single or be reconciled to her husband. (1 Corinthians 7:10-16) But again, the husband of the departed unbeliever is never commanded to stay single. If after he remarries, she becomes a believer and repents and wants to be reconciled, if she has been chaste, she can still reconcile (though likely as least favored wife).
Sentence punctuation was invented several centuries after the time of Christ. Can you see the following rephrased sentence without the churchian-great-whore approved punctuation and versing?
That’s the Apostle Paul’s advice, and he wouldn’t recommend something directly contrary to God. If you read the biblical marriage commands with the possibility of biblical polygyny in your mind it all makes much better logical sense. However, the Apostle Paul doesn’t even recommend marrying the first wife, if you think you can avoid sexual immorality as a single man.
LikeLiked by 2 people
@Haelux:
Some say yes. Most say no. Most people (especially Christian Manosphere men) say having sex with someone else breaks all bargains, mostly because sex is the sine qua non of marriage. Sex is the only thing I can do with Mrs. Deti that I am not permitted to do with anyone else. So if she has sex with someone else, it demonstrates that the one thing I get from her that I cannot get from anyone else has been taken away from me and I’ve been deprived of it. If in my marriage, I cannot get even sex, even the one thing I cannot get anywhere else, then I can rightfully consider myself no longer married. I can rightfully consider that her having sex with another, and not with me, means she has left and abandoned the marriage, and has left and abandoned me.
Most of the time, all this arises when someone wants to remarry. The hardline Christian churches say, “OK, legal divorce, but in the eyes of the Church, you’re still married. You’re not free to remarry. You’re not free to have sex with others. If you remarry legally, you’re not married in the eyes of the church. If you have sex with anyone else, you’re fornicating or committing adultery and you cannot do that.”
I also want to talk about exactly what “adultery” is and what “marriage” is. “Adultery” is putting something into a substance, which “something” isn’t supposed to be in there. That act impurifies and contaminates the substances. It’s where we get our word “adulterated”. If you put oil into milk, you’ve adulterated that milk. That oil isn’t supposed to be in there. You’ve made the milk impure. You’ve contaminated it.
When you “marry” two things, you put them together such that two become one, they are indistinguishable from the other, they are inseparable, and you can no longer separate them. Or, at least you cannot separate them without ruining or destroying them both. When you marry a half gallon of milk with another half gallon of milk by pouring them both into a gallon container, you now cannot separate them. They’ve become one entity, one substance, one thing. The milk from the first half gallon is indistinguishable from the milk from the second. Two became one.
With humans: An unmarried person cannot commit adultery. They fornicate. But they don’t commit adultery. Only married women can be adulterated. Men cannot be adulterated. Only women have things put into them during the act of intercourse (naturally, anyway). A man can commit adultery but only by having sex with a woman married to another man. A man fornicates with a never married woman. An unmarried woman having sex with a married man is fornicating. An unmarried woman having sex with an unmarried man is fornicating. A married woman having sex with a man she is not married to commits adultery.
To me, and to most of us, the act of sex does not by itself mean you’re married. There has to be a “meeting of the minds” between man and woman, they’ve agreed to get married. There has to be a “heart assent” in that they are both agreeing to everything that marriage entails physically, mentally, emotionally, spiritually. There must be some kind of public acknowledgment each makes: “This is my wife.” “This is my husband.” And there must be physical consummation in the form of sexual congress. Now, you can have all kinds of sex with someone; but you ARE NOT married until all four of those things have happened with one other person.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I read on a Catholic website (Unfortunately, I can’t find it now) that any marriage based on a “condition” is not a valid marriage. It gave as an example the situation where the man tells the woman that he’ll marry her but she’ll have to agree to complete her education, training, etc. Otherwise, he won’t marry her. She agrees. They get married and regardless of whether she completes or doesn’t complete what she promised, the marriage is not a valid marriage because it was based on a “condition”. The marriage can be annulled.
I don’t know whether the website is correct, but assuming that it is the Catholic church has taken a rather extreme position. So I believe that some Christians teach that it’s wrong to have expectations in marriage. I hope it’s a small minority.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Joe – Almost all churches teach that marriage has expectations. They just only teach that to the husband. At the last church my family attended the pastor would, about once a year, tell women that if they wanted a better husband to have sex with him more often. That’s about as close to putting expectations on women as I’ve experienced from the pews and even then it was positioned as a transactional message with the carrot of getting a better husband out of it.
If there are Christians teaching that it is wrong to have expectations in marriage they need to be called out on their sophomoric thinking. What is the point of vows if not to promise to your beloved a promise to fulfill specific expectations? In the past I would doubt people could be so stupid, but with a few years under my belt I’m not surprised. If you ever run into one of these theological savants, ask them if the vow to “forsake all others” is an expectation or just an old fashioned pious platitude to be forgotten as soon the ideal physical form of the opposite sex crosses your path.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I suppose it depends on what they mean by “condition” but that sounds correct to me. Catholic-sacramental marriage is based on mutual consent to God’s definition of marriage (as the Catholic Church understands it). This implies certain conditions for validity e.g. one must be open to procreation/children – this is a condition you’re consenting to. One is not free to make up his or her own conditions for a valid marriage. If I think marriage depends on my wife weighing less than 56 kg. or having sex with me a minimum of 3 times a week, then I probably didn’t consent to God’s definition of marriage.
As far as I know, saying “I expect you to stay slim and have sex with me” to your finance during the courtship isn’t a condition for getting a declaration of nullity. But I’m not an expert.
LikeLike
Cameron, Joe2, et al.,
Let’s cut to the chase. Marriage is supposed to serve a small number of very important purposes.
— To glorify God. (Headship is necessary to do this, among other things.)
— To serve as a vehicle of sanctification for the man and wife. (Headship and regular sex plays a central part of this, among other things.)
— To hedge against sexual immorality.
— To create the dominion of a family. (Again, Headship.)
— To produce Godly offspring. (Not possible if all of the above are not in place, including Headship.)
— To provide a safe harbor from the world.
An ideal marriage should fulfill all of these purposes. As far as I can see, the Catholic and Orthodox conditions for marriage serve to uphold these purposes.
Of course not. The list of expectations I gave in my previous comment is just that — a list of expectations. The list of expectations contributes towards the first four qualities on the list above, Headship (which both glorifies God and establishes a dominion of family), and sexual security and contentment (which are manifestations of sanctification). If a wife conforms to her husband’s expectations for a wife, then she is an obedient, above average wife and is more likely to be loved and valued by her husband. The husband is also more likely to be successful in other areas of his life. I did not present that list as an ultimatum, “Do these or else divorce!”, nor are they conditions for justifying nullification or divorce. However, if a wife refuses to stay chaste before marriage, submit to her husband, provide regular sex, produce children, and so on, then she is working against God’s purposes for marriage.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jack maybe what threw me off was Joe’s use of “condition” vs. “expectation.” It seems to me these are very different and “condition” probably has more formal meaning in the Catholic and Orthodox understanding of sacramental marriage.
LikeLike
Yes. He must claim his authority even if he’s reluctant to do so; even if he’s frightened and inexperienced and unintelligent, without legal powers. Perhaps even if already separated! The alternatives are dire.
It’s revealing what happens in retirement when men and women get too old to hamster. I’ve seen one man collapse rapidly into dementia which on the surface is a physical ailment — I suspect the cause in his case was spiritual; a failure to claim authority over his family. I’ve seen a woman trying to sabotage her relationship with her grown-up children — I suspect it was an attempt to deal with guilt of her divorce thirty years on. These sorts of complex and unpredicted ramifications are what suggest to me that, whatever the legal status is, she isn’t truly divorced.
[Apologies for posting anonymously above. Thanks for the helpful edit, Jack.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
My 10 yo girl has more accountability and reasoning skills than any woman in my family or her moms. All these women have been beating college into her since kindergarten. She told me, “I don’t want to go to school 5 years more after high school!” I laid out the cons nobody would tell her. Now she tells them, “No, I’m not going to college!” I’ve told her she can stay with me, work a basic job, find a husband, and be a stay at home wife.
All the women were using her as a feminist battering ram. “You can get into engineering! I know you can!” …endless garbage like that. “She’s so smart, she will be a lawyer or doctor.” She said, “I’m not smart, I’m average.” I told her, “Yeah, you’re an average kid with good passing grades.” She knew they were lying to her. I’ve got a lot of hope in her.
LikeLiked by 3 people
I come from a huge Polish-Catholic family on my dad’s side….. All of them divorced except my dad and his brother. My cousin married an Orthodox. He divorced her…..
People are people, and it doesn’t matter if they are Orthodox or Catholic, if the culture allows it or deems it “okay”, then people are going to do this. Let’s not put a church that bows and prays to pieces of painted wood as “Gods plan” that makes marriage expectations clear. It doesn’t. Nor should we use the Catholic faith as a model of “moral superiority”. Plenty of Catholics have only had 2.5 children by some act of God……
Not excusing my cultural Protestantism either. Reagan, who is almost deemed a saint by a large number of evangelical protestants, was the guy who normalized “no fault divorce” in the USA.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Religious belief isn’t the only factor that affects marriage and divorce, but it definitely has a big effect on marriage and divorce.
LikeLiked by 2 people
Adding the 2nd categories of that chart seems to give an estimation of how progressive a group is. There’s also the factor of social class/socioeconomic status. Episcopalians and UCC might not be morally/theologically traditional but tend to be upper middle class. Same for Hindus and Muslims in the U.S. I expect.
LikeLike
Mormons do well in those metrics, partly because of being UMC. Somewhere in the ‘sphere (Social Pathologist??) there was a chart showing virgin bride by major religious group (Catholic, Mainline Protestant, Evangelical Protestant, Mormon, etc.). The Mormon women were something like 80%+ virgin brides (that’s from my sometimes unreliable memory).
LikeLike
@cameron232:
I’d like to see what it looks like when you break down age too. Muslim, for example, is 45% of adults have never married, but maybe it’s because a lot of the Muslims are younger and haven’t gotten to the marriage stage of life? Same for Atheists. For added fun break the “never married” category down by sex too
LikeLiked by 1 person
Atheists are less likely to ever marry than theists in general. Muslims are probably younger. There may also be an element of male Muslim immigrants waiting until they’re financially able to support a family, then having their older relatives arrange a marriage from back home.
LikeLike
I wouldn’t uphold the average baptized Catholic as a paragon of virtue. Most use birth control against church teaching, many divorce, etc. Zippy used to say that most Catholic marriages are probably invalid since most American Catholics probably don’t even know what marriage is, from a Catholic point of view.
I suppose Catholics are also at a statistical disadvantage in these sorts of studies since they aren’t “believers” churches – you’re Catholic if you’re baptized into the faith even if you e.g. only attend mass once every other Christmas and you’re functionally an atheist.
You’re probably only going to attend e.g. an Independent, Fundamentalist Baptist church if you agree with all their teachings (or at least act like you do) and so that shows in their statistics I suspect.
LikeLike
Hey Cameron. I just popped in because I thought you might find this podcast kind of interesting since we’ve chatted a bit about separate worlds (online, family, work, etc.). Gibbs is certainly an acquired taste, but he’s an excellent thinker, and he’s on pretty regularly about how having a “private life” is a relatively modern phenomena:
Proverbial (Joshua Gibbs): The Secret Life of — Ep. 82 (2021-11-27)
As for what you wrote above, you basically described the spiritual equivalent of a trans person: “I am a Christian because I say I am, or I am a Catholic because my parents said I am, etc. Never mind that I approve of abortion, birth control, divorce, take your pick. None of those things are indicative of anything real. What’s real is what I believe. All that stuff Jesus said about trees and fruit are subordinate to what I believe about myself in my own mind. So there.”
I have a lot of respect for the values the Catholic Church has held the line of for 2,000 years. I do, but it’s this kind of thing (the doesn’t matter what kind of life you’ve lived so long as you’ve been baptized in the Church), that makes Protestants chafe at the genuineness of Catholicism as a Christian religion. I know that’s not the only thing, but it’s the only thing relevant to your comment.
Merry Christmas to all of you!
LikeLiked by 2 people
We believe one becomes Christian through baptism, confirmation, etc. – the religion of God incarnate – God works in real physical ways in his creation. You’re not Catholic because you or your parents or godparents say so – the Church administers the sacraments of sanctifying grace – but grace can be cooperated with or resisted. Sacramental Christianity seems superstitious to the modern mind, but so do the stories of the gospels, etc.
The Catholic church DEFINITELY teaches that what type of life you live matters – Catholics are always being accused of works salvation – remember – we’re the ones who talk about mortal sin. A Christian can be a Catholic and burn in hell – a layman, a bishop, a pope.
LikeLike
I tried to say this to Jason once. He complained about the Latina hookers and their Johns who showed up to mass Sunday morning in Fresno. Well I don’t want to go to church with hookers and Johns either but I suppose the Church keeps them in the faith. Hopefully before they die they’ll repent and receive the sanctifying grace.
There’s a true believer tendency (they never use that phrase) in a lot of protestant churches. When your kid isn’t as high-on-Jesus as the neighbor’s kid they doubt this Christian thing is for them.
“Son, you are IN Christ’s Church. Yes, you can still be lost. You need to work out your salvation in fear and trembling. But you’re in the club, son. You left? Didn’t’ believe? Sinned gravely? You can come back.” Jason never felt he was in the club. I hoped maybe me saying these things he might notice.
LikeLike
I never felt like I was in the church club either. When I was younger, this made me angry because I thought they weren’t making any effort to welcome me. But as I went through my 20s, I realized that I was a rather odd and complex personality. I didn’t know myself very well, and so people didn’t know how to interact with me. I knew I could not change myself and it was unreasonable to expect other people to change for me. So I just accepted this about myself, and decided that my walk in life may very well be a lonely one. During my early 30s, I learned that it’s up to me to make others understand me, and I pushed myself to be more proactive in interacting with others. In my 40s, I learned that it’s up to me to find ways I can make myself relevant and influence the lives of others. I’m nearing my 50s now, and I’m getting the impression that despite my best efforts to connect and contribute, people can be unpredictable and unreliable, and there’s only so much I can do. The important thing is to find my niche, my sphere of influence, and do my best to work within that. I’ve learned to focus on the people who come to me, or whom I have a natural connection with.
Life long lessons.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Elspeth, I’ve been listening to that podcast since you recommended it earlier this year. But I have to say, that episode is the most uncomfortable parable involving baseball cards that I have ever heard.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Cameron… Then why have the faith, church, the sacraments, the traditions, the hymns….? Why have baptism (and I was never baptized… so according to a good 50% of the Christian world, I am going to hell… even if I believed, repented, et al.). Why have all of this when you can “just pray to Jesus on your deathbed” and be in heaven with everybody evidently.
I just found Protestantism in practice like a club. Some are pretty much allowed to do whatever they want, most just have to live and accept “their suffering” and most just get tired of hearing about all these rewards IF and only IF you are a doormat, and accept your sorrow and suffering.
Just got tired of watching bad behavior from the the know-it-alls and “cool kids” who get heaped with praise, blessings, and rewards, who have status in the church and the world; while I “just have to pray more / try harder / suffer more / be joyful in said suffering”, and of course, the clincher, “there is no marriage in heaven”, and then, “let’s lecture and talk about it non-stop on how its the most important thing”.
And then, when you are just working out your salvation, then you are labeled, “Hey…. he’s making the rest of us look bad, destroy him.”
I don’t know. I probably was never saved to begin with. Frankly, I can’t fault the words of Jesus himself… but what exactly has been done in His name by people in the church? Why would I or anyone like me want to be a part of this?
LikeLiked by 1 person
You’re free to try that approach. No one will stop you.
Surely the omnipotent creator and lord of the universe is relieved to know that you don’t fault His words.
Oh, nothing at all. Just things like abolishing slavery, the vast majority of the charity in the world, the vast majority of adoptions, and much, much more. But no. You’re right. Christians never do anything of value.
Why would I or anyone like me want to be a part of this?
Good question!
LikeLike
@jvangeld:
What do you think of Joshua Gibbs? In our family, it’s a split decision. Four of us really enjoy him, my husband is neutral (some he really enjoys, others he’s meh about), and two of our kids think he’s combination droll and pretentious. I find that his perspectives really help me as a teacher. His blog is The Cedar Room at circeinstitute.org
@Cameron:
I like that: “A hospital for sinners as well as a home for saints”. I would argue that Protestant churches are likewise. The distinction would mostly be in that the hospital patients should be actively working with the Holy Spirit to experience healing rather than presuming that weekly doctor visits are sufficient to achieve eternal life.
Of course, you are correct that views of the Catholic Church run the gamut, and they do include criticisms of legalism as well as lack of faith in Christ’s atoning sacrifice as the sole means of eternal salvation. It’s all a bit of a complicated mess, isn’t it? It makes me think of King David’s plea:
“Let us fall into the hands of the LORD, for his mercy is great; but do not let me fall into human hands.”
Amen.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@Elspeth, Eh, I listen to about one of his podcasts a month. His delivery feels a bit like NPR to me, which grates a bit. I do agree that his insights into teaching kids are good.
LikeLike
Thanks for the link Elspeth.
The Catholic Church is a hospital for sinners as well as a home for saints. It’s possible that Joe Biden might repent and return to his Catholic-Christian roots or he might perish. As much as I disapprove of him, he’s a Catholic Christian and he has access to the teachings and sacraments of the Church. In a better time, he would be forced to clarify his faith or face excommunication. Particularly given his status as a very influential public person.
I think Jesus’ words about trees and fruit cover Joe Biden’s situation. I wouldn’t want to be him.
Merry Christmas to you Elspeth if I don’t talk to you soon again.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks, Cameron. I hope your family has a great holiday season. SAM is still waiting for his exemption to go through so feel free to say a prayer.
Oh, and here’s a gift for you and yours. The gift of laughter:
LikeLiked by 2 people
Will say a prayer for SAM Elspeth. I’m confident it will work out fine for y’all.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is a reply to your other comment Elspeth. I wish Catholics would go to weekly confession (“the lines for communion are long but the lines for confession are short”) but Catholics should not be using confession as a process, a “get out of ħәll free” card. That is the sin of presumption of God’s mercy, the idea you can believe and do what you want and get off on a technicality.
LikeLike
May God grant SAM favor.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll speak for myself: “Jason was never in the club.”
I was used to do dirty work for everyone else in the faith, in the church, and in my walk. I didn’t speak Greek, didn’t have an advanced theology degree, Was told to “read and study gods word” and I did. Deeply…. and was told all my insight was “wrong” and “This is what jesus meant…”
I slowly discovered that men like myself were needed in the faith so others could puff themselves up. A lot. A ton. A sh!t-ton. Yes, I know I just didn’t find the “right” church. I chose poorly. Kind of matches my whole life.
Bad choices are forgiven IF and only IF you are Deti, Scott, Dalrock, Oscar (who never made a bad choice in his life) and of that ilk. The ugly, the messed up, the not so cool, the awkward are required to be lectured to, never making the cut but expected to sit quietly and then berated for “not standing up for themselves.”
Just like life, emulating the culture but cloaking themselves in some “holier than thou” stance. It’s a faith that deserves what it has created: classism, lookism, stifling intellectualism (thus shutting out most of the population who doesn’t speak Greek, or have five gazillion STEM degrees, nor were blessed by god “without blemish” and made handsome / attractive.
I was lied to, badly, but I still have to be some sort of “good sport” about it, while again being told that life is suffering… And as usual, the people telling me this never suffer.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Says who?
LikeLiked by 1 person
I’ll speak for myself as well. I’ve been forgiven for bad choices as well as anyone else has. But like everyone else, I’ve had to bear the temporal consequences of my bad choices. I still bear the consequences of some of my bad choices. “Forgiveness” does not mean “does not have to deal with bad stuff”.
I’m not handsome or attractive either. I’ve paid for that too.
I’ve suffered mightily in my life. I’ve detailed much of that suffering in this corner of the ‘net. So I deeply regret that others didn’t acknowledge that to you. Others were fake and inauthentic to you. But your resentment about all this hurts only you. Just as mine hurts only me.
Someone told me once, “A situation might not be your fault. But since you’re in it, it’s on you to deal with it and address it. How you address it will make all the difference.” OK. So you’ve left the faith. You’re not the first and you won’t be the last. What will you do with your newfound knowledge and “freedom”? How will you lead an honest, upright, productive, fulfilling life that brings enjoyment to you?
That’s up to you.
LikeLike
Jesus didn’t create the universe. As I recall he was born in a manger. The universe was already created when he was born.
Brutally murdered people in-the-name-of-Jesus throughout the centuries, the Catholic church actively supported Hitler. Created and made “kings” with “divine right” in feudal Europe who were some of the most brutal butchers ever….. and much, much, much more….
I might. The thief on the cross next to Jesus was promised to be with Jesus after living a horrible life, and there was no “stop the crucifixion………. This man here needs to be baptized, have my supper, say the sinners prayer, pray to all the other saints, and let me into his heart!!!”
Always looking to kick me, and nit pick for ten years Oscar, even when I was a believer. Says a sh!t ton about you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Wanna bet?
You mean the church is full of sinful people!?
Funny how you know about the bad things that professing Christians have done, but completely ignore the good things professing Christians do every single day. Once again…
Like I said, you’re free to try that approach. No one will stop you.
You seriously think that was kicking and nit picking? That certainly says a lot about you.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I mean the church is filled with people who don’t believe one word they are saying, or purporting.
Also where in Genesis does it say God, three in one, Father, Son and Holy Ghost created the universe?
It doesn’t. Jesus was born in a manger and that was way before John was written…. and translated, and translated, and translated…..
None of this matters anyway….. Just make sure you are getting sex as a man, or somehow your wife is sinning, or you as a man didn’t study God’s word enough, or you chose poorly….,Your wife rebelled, and AWALT, and somehow, somewhere, feminism is to blame… Or you didn’t exude proper masculine traits on the second date, or read her IOI’s, or were not prayed up enough to be able to read them by the third week after the second meeting, thus her losing interest….. and make sure you can bench press because somewhere in the Bible God said it was important to female attraction……..
LikeLike
Lastmod,
I’m truly sorry. You must feel all of this is below your dignity, but I’m glad you’re getting the message. It’s never too late to accept the challenge. But cynics cannot be choosers. Will you ever jump in and play the game, or will you forever sit in the stands and throw tomatoes?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Jesus said no one was good.
LikeLike
@ Jack
If the best predictor of future behavior is past relevant behavior, then the safe bet is that Jason will forever sit in the stands and throw tomatoes, as he’s always done. Oh, and lie about others. That’s not going to stop, either. Ever.
LikeLike
@ Jason
See how you prove yourself a liar, Jason? I never said anyone was good. I said Christians do good things, which Jesus also said.
LikeLiked by 1 person
And, once again, Jason. How do you know what Jesus said, since you don’t trust His disciples who wrote down His words?
LikeLike
Or that the escape of God’s Earthly Father Joseph with Mary to Egypt and back out again is foreshadowed by the escape of Israel to Egypt before coming back to Israel.
This is supported by God when he said to Pharoah…
Hosea 11:1 states,
LikeLike
Oscar –
You could also add the follow to John 1. Hebrews 1:1-2 says that Jesus was part of the creation of the universe. Here’s the text from the NKJV.
1 God, who at various times and in various ways spoke in time past to the fathers by the prophets, 2 has in these last days spoken to us by His Son, whom He has appointed heir of all things, through whom also He made the worlds;
LikeLike
@ Jason
Uh, yeah. Those people are called sinners. Lying is a sin. By the way, you lie constantly. For example….
That was a lie. So, if you’re right, you should fit right in.
Right here.
The “Us” is the Trinity. That’s why it’s plural. That’s why “Elohim” (translated “God”) is a plural noun. Besides, the entire Bible is God’s word, not just Genesis, and not just the New Testament.
Besides, who do you think understands Jesus better; you, or the Apostle John, whom Jesus knew, and trusted so thoroughly that He entrusted Mary’s care to him?
Furthermore, you claimed…
That’s another lie. If you actually believed what you wrote, you’d believe in Jesus as He said He is. You don’t.
On top of that; how do you even know what Jesus said? You can only know what Jesus said because His disciples wrote it down. Chief among them, Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John, whom I quoted, and whose words you rejected.
Wrong again. The earliest manuscript copies existing today of John’s Gospel date back to the 1st Century. Plus, we have the words of people who knew John, and the other Apostles, personally (like Polycarp and Ignatius), who verify when he wrote his gospel, as well as the other three gospels. And, once again, if you don’t trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John, then how do you even know what Jesus said?
Finally, why should anyone believe what you have to say about anyone? You lie constantly about commenters on this blog. You just lied about me on this very thread.
You’ve lied about commenters on this blog countless times when you’ve falsely claimed that “you guys all said that looks don’t matter to women.” I never said that. Jack never said that. Scott never said that. Nova never said that. Cameron never said that. Deti never said that. You still haven’t provided a single quote from any commenter on this blog stating that “looks don’t matter to women”.
You lie about people constantly, Jason. The logical conclusion from your lying about commenters on this, and other blogs, is that you also lie about the people you know personally.
LikeLike
So John was written a few days after Jesus was born……??????????????
YouTube (NonStampCollector): Quiz Show (Bible Contradictions)
LikeLike
The Quiz Show video is what happens when you try to squeeze the Bible into a series of Aristotelian syllogisms. I remember I went through that phase between the ages of 10 to 12, which is an appropriate age for that. By the time I was 14, I started to visualize a roadmap of faith which left the confusing factoids in the dust.
It wasn’t until I was much older (mid 40s) that I realized that Truth cannot be fully contained in Platonic reason and Aristotelian arguments. These things are merely tools for sorting things out. The thing is, you can’t use a tool that’s not right for the job. My extra long, metric half-size, ratcheting, self-clamping, flex-head, left-handed, 45° double offset, 15° 15 mm recessed, chrome vanadium drop forged combination wrench, no matter how well maintained, is useless for drawing up my monthly budget. Likewise, the human mind’s logical faculties are incapable of comprehending the metaphysical complexities of Truth. This is exactly why Jesus (the living Word of God) had to come in the flesh to communicate that Truth to us.
Suppose you asked two people for directions on how to get to the bank, and they both gave you different directions via different routes. Because the two accounts differ, you might question the validity of either account. If you follow one and arrive at the bank, you might think the other guy was fooling you. If you follow one and get lost, you might think you should have listened to the other person. My point is that the truth gets lost in communication through words and in practical application too. There’s also an issue about trusting that people giving you advice are doing so in good faith.
I think Lastmod is in a similar situation. He gets different info from different people, and he gets confused because it doesn’t match up. Then he jumps to the conclusion that they gave him bad info in bad faith, and then he never gets to the bank. He just stands in the street and argues with people about how the info doesn’t line up logically.
Oscar might call this sort of logical approach a lie, but I would call it a woefully inadequate appraisal of the Truth. I call it inadequate, because it simply cannot be made any more accurate. Calling something a lie suggests that it is diametrically or diabolically misleading. I don’t think people have intentionally tried to mislead Lastmod, but there are probably a few who have, just to prank his doubts.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I never said that either. See how you prove yourself a liar?
John cared for Mary from the cross to her death. Do you have a better source than Mary for Christ’s birth?
And, you still haven’t answered the question. How do you know what Jesus said, since you don’t trust Matthew, Mark, Luke, or John?
LikeLike
Oscar says: “Wrong again. The earliest manuscript copies existing today of John’s Gospel date back to the 1st Century.”
And then Oscar proceeds to quote an apocryphal bit of added text that wasn’t in those early manuscripts.
Wikipedia: Johannine Comma
The concept of the Holy Trinity is not really clearly stated in scripture. 1 John 5:7-8, which he quoted, originally said this.
The part he was using to highlight the existence of a Godhead of three distinct entities in one whole, was in fact embellished later to bolster the relatively new church doctrine of a clearly defined trinity.
That apocryphal addition, the Johnnine Comma, is the work of the Church of Rome, and not original inspired scripture.
LikeLiked by 1 person
@ Sharkly
Not according to Irenaeus, disciple of Polycarp, disciple of John.
I’ll take Irenaeus’ word over Wikipedia’s every day of the week, month, year, century, millennium, etc.
LikeLike
Y’all, if you choose to watch the video LM linked watch until the very end so you can experience the full anger and bitterness at God of those men who made it. The bitterness clouds the logic of these men to the point where they lose objectivity, effectively doing the very thing they accuse Christians of doing, being devoid reason or logic.
While I don’t have time to go through all of them, here’s an example of what I mean. As an example that God’s word has errors, they cite the death of Judas as told in Matthew and Acts as a contradiction. In Matthew 27 it says he hangs himself, and in Acts 1 it says he fell headlong into a field and his guts gushed out. The issue is that the two accounts are not mutually exclusive, as if Matthew had said he died by hanging and Acts had said he died by the sword. It’s highly plausible that Judas hung himself. As the body decomposed it bloated and when his bloated body was cut down it would have hit feet first and then fell headlong into the field. If the human balloon that used to be Judas hit hard enough or hit an object capable of popping him, well that would be the reason for the account in Acts. It is well within the realm of possibility that Acts and Matthew simply look at two parts of the same story.
Don’t be sophomoric. If you apply the standard of “written a few days after” to historical accounts of George Washington for example, much of what we know to be true about him would have to be tossed. Even much of a family’s history from as recent as the mid 20th century would have to be discounted, regardless of how many family elders may testify to certain events.
LikeLike
@ RPA
Wait… so Jason is into videos filled with anger, bitterness, and projection that are devoid of reason or logic?
Dude, it’s called lying. We’re men. Call it what it is.
LikeLike
Oscar,
Calling it lying was not my purpose. Dissecting the lies and disingenuousness was my purpose. What I wrote about the video and about his snarky historical evidence test was written for others who might come across the comments.
Plus, if I’d simply stated that he was lying I’d have to cite you to avoid plagiarism. 🙂
LikeLike
Oscar,
I’m not sure what you are responding to. I didn’t say that the three parts of the Trinity don’t exist, or that there isn’t a Trinity. What I said was, “The concept of the holy Trinity is not really clearly stated in scripture.”
The Church of Rome realized that and wanted to make the “trinity” clearer, and that is why they added the apocryphal note that later was added into the text.
I personally harp on the fact that the Godhead is a holy patriarchy, with the Father delegating all of His authority to His only begotten Son, and that they are united by their masculine and holy Spirit of unity. That same masculine Spirit that impregnated Mary with the Son.
I think you’re just changing the subject to deny part of Jason’s point that the trinity is never very clearly listed and described as such in the Bible. The one verse that you went to, to prove your point, was in fact altered because the church wanted there to be a more clear proof that the Godhead is like a triangle and not a Father and Son lineage accompanied by their masculine and united Spirit. There are places where Jesus says that, “I and the Father are one.” I’m not saying that their Spirit isn’t real or any such thing. However the Scriptures have many places where the Godhead is more clearly described as a patrilineal Father and only-begotten-Son couple. This post isn’t about the “Trinity”, nor does that doctrine usually save people or affect their daily lives. The relationship between the different facets of the Godhead being organized specifically as a trinity just isn’t something God tried to impress upon us much in His Word, but it is the sort of thing that religious folks like to argue over. Mainly God tries to impress upon us that He is One, united.
The seven Spirits of God get four mentions in Revelation. Some believe those are the seven archangels listed in the book of Enoch. But even they get more clear mentions than the “Trinity”. You’re responding like I denied Jesus Christ’s divinity, or His unity with His Father. I think you’re just continuing to argue now to avoid acknowledging that you yourself didn’t realize you were trying to use an apocryphal “Trinity” citation to make Jason seem stupid, and win your dispute. Which sort of helps illustrate his point about how church people have treated him.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Sharkly,
I pointed out the fact that Church fathers, some with a direct link to John, taught the doctrine of the Trinity long before Wikipedia claims it was introduced. They had to get the doctrine from somewhere. The logical conclusion, since they had a direct link to John, is that they got their doctrine from John. You know, the guy who wrote the Gospel of John, and 1st, 2nd, and 3rd John.
And I think you’re falling for Jason’s habit of changing the subject. Jason’s point is not that “the trinity is never very clearly listed and described as such in the Bible”. Jason’s point is that Jesus did not create the universe.
Do you agree with Jason that Jesus did not create the universe?
LikeLike
@ RPA
If you’re going to dissect the lies, then you may as well start by calling them lies. But, I’m glad to see that you at least recognize Jason’s lies for what they are.
LikeLike
Um…. no. I call it a lie when (for example) Jason falsely claims that “you guys all said that looks don’t matter to women”, when he knows that I never said that, you never said that, Scott never said that, Deti never said that, Nova never said that, Cameron never said that, Deep Strength never said that (and he even wrote about how looks do matter to women), and on, and on, and on.
That’s not “a woefully inadequate appraisal of the truth”. That’s lying.
[Jack: I was referring to the logical contradictions in the Bible which were the focus of the Quiz Show video. We cannot very well say that the Bible is lying. It is better to recognize the foolishness of trying to understand the Bible through an Aristotelian view. Jason is lying to himself by insisting on making a logical argument out of everything, and he doesn’t seem to realize it. I don’t think your admonitions will make him see it either.]
LikeLike
Oscar asks:
Of course I don’t agree with that. Nor did I say anything that would lead anybody else to question that. I think you’re changing the subject.
Oscar says:
Well clearly you’re not arguing with me, but arguing with Wikipedia now, which I referred you to as a quick source of information on the Johannine Comma. Looking up the “Trinity” on Wikipedia, they seem to be in agreement that the concept was “first formulated among the early Christians and fathers of the Church.” So it seems like maybe even your argument with them is a misplaced one being used as a strawman to distract from the fact that you resorted to using an apocryphal addition to John’s epistle as your proof to put down Jason’s questioning about the Trinity.
I answered your question. Now answer this one:
Did you know when you cited 1st John 5:7 that the part you had selected to put in bold was not actually in the earliest manuscripts that you also mentioned? Were you deceitful or mistaken?
It seems like you are having trouble admitting that what you were citing actually started out as a 4th century margin note in a Latin Bible translation of the Church of Rome. And that it did not appear in the early Greek manuscripts. It would be gracious of you to admit when you accidentally cite Church of Rome dogmas inserted into Latin Bibles as being God’s inspired word. And I’m not saying that the dogmatic addition is necessarily factually wrong, just that it wasn’t originally in there and so it isn’t a translation of what the inspired Apostle John actually wrote, but men have added their own words to God’s word according to their own understanding. And it ought to be taken back out, as it has been in many Bible versions.
It ain’t even in the Catholic Bible anymore! And it takes centuries to get the Catholics to admit and fix their mistakes.
LikeLike
Lastmod,
I watched the video that you posted. While I certainly wont take the time to address all those seeming contradictions here and now, if you pick out one that you find especially troubling, I’ll try to address it, as an example.
LikeLike
The video reminds me of an argument technique that my b!tchy sister-in-law has tried to use on me publicly. Whereas, she blurts out a huge long string of accusative questions in rapid fire succession without giving me a chance to get a word in, and then says, “What’s your answer to all that, huh?”, and then, without giving me a second to respond, declares, “See you don’t got any answers”, and then tries to walk off like she won the argument.
The video mentions numerous questions regarding things that seem to be contradictory in the Bible, one right after another, each one of which might take a lengthy explanation to properly address, and then, after bringing up so many unanswered questions in the mind of the viewer, tries to imply that there are too many of these seeming contradictions for any reasonable person to believe the Bible. However, most of those seeming contradictions probably already have a video on the web explaining the false dichotomy or misunderstanding that they are based upon. I also recognized some of them stemming from apocryphal passages like “the longer ending of Mark” and the “Pericope Adulteræ”.
And some, no-doubt, are due to translation issues, like how Greek has four different words that all translate as love, so seemingly contradictory distinctions may be read about “love” in English, where they are perfectly understandable statements in Greek. A man might say, “I do not want you to love my kids” (eros), and also, “I do want you to love my kids” (agápē). Without the Greek delineation of the kind of love, those seem like perfectly conflicted statements.
However they don’t want to make a video citing just one contradiction, or somebody might explain it in their comments section. So they spew out more seeming contradictions than anybody could possibly answer off the top of their head or in a single YouTube comment, and then declare that there are too many contradictions for the Bible to be true. It’s craftiness! But…
LikeLiked by 1 person
Lastmod,
When you decide which one of the “contradictions” you want me to try to explain, please start a new conversation at the bottom of this comments section, so I can answer you directly.
LikeLike
The Symbolic World is a good primer on how to understand the Bible. In addition to the parts meant to be understood literally:
The rest of the videos on Jonathan Pageau’s Channel is excellent.
Also this video is good too:
LikeLiked by 1 person
Its not that the miracles didn’t happen. They did. But God doesn’t do large public miracles without it having symbolic value too.
Just as the way God arranged events in the Old Testament in such a way which actually literally happened. That the Saints all foreshadowed Jesus Christ in their own ways.
So God does miracles for similar reasons. The opening of the Red Sea to cross symbolizing the Baptism of Israel foreshadowing the Baptism of Jesus Christ and of the Church by the Holy Spirit and so on.
40 years in the desert being tempted. Also foreshadowing the 40 days in the wilderness of our incarnated Lord and his temptation.
Or that God’s miracles in the person of Christ foreshadows certain things like Walking on Water which is similar to how God’s Spirit hovered over the Waters of Creation in Genesis.
Symbolizing and foreshadowing God’s work in a New Creation.
LikeLike
@ Jack
Thanks for the clarification. I don’t think the “contradictions” in the Bible are contradictions at all. I think they’re paradoxes. A paradox looks like a contradiction, because we’re missing a piece of the puzzle.
I’m certainly not admonishing Jason for his sake. I’ve yet to see any evidence that Jason wants help.
LikeLike
@ Sharkly
Then, why are you arguing with me?
No, dude. That was the subject. Once again:
Again, I’m not sure why you’re arguing with me.
I’m not convinced that it’s an apocryphal addition.
Those are two questions, not one.
Like I said, I’m not convinced that is “an apocryphal addition”. Manuscripts are not our only source to what the Apostles wrote. Another source is the Apostles’ disciples. The NIV, and other translations, used to add footnotes that said something like, “This verse does not appear in the earliest manuscripts.” Now, they’re just taking verses out. The problem with that is that the verses they’re taking out contain doctrines taught by the Apostolic fathers, like Polycarp, Ignatius, Irenaeus, et al.
So, where did the Apostolic fathers get those doctrines? Probably from the verses that are getting removed.
The translators are playing a dangerous game, and you’re playing it with them.
I’ll go ahead and answer your second question now, even though you requested that I answer one. I may be mistaken. That part of 1 John 5:7 may be, in fact, apocryphal, but once again, I trust Ignatius, Polycarp, Irenaeus, et al., over Wikipedia every day until eternity.
You’re free to trust Wikipedia over the Apostolic fathers. I ain’t mad at you.
LikeLike
Lastmod says:
Oscar says to me:
Which I already previously explained… you were trying to use an apocryphal “Trinity” citation to make Jason seem stupid, and win your dispute. Which sort of helps illustrate his point about how church people have treated him.
Also because I love God’s truth, and don’t want to see latter day additions passed off as God’s inspired words.
Oscar says:
Then explain how it got left out of all the Greek manuscripts for 1500 years, and why it first began as a marginal note in a fourth century Latin manuscript. And why it wasn’t even in copies of the Latin vulgate for 800 years. And why the early church fathers wrote debating this topic without ever mentioning such a clear verse if it was already in existence. If you don’t want to trust Wikipedia, which is smart, then check other sources. Biblical scholars have been convinced to remove the section because of the overwhelming evidence that the bit is clearly apocryphal. With the internet and recent discoveries, we have more older manuscripts available to everyone to examine online than the folks in the 1600’s had when they were translating the KJV and such, which was largely derived from later Latin manuscripts. And there are only two passages and a few verses or phrases, seven items in total, that are even disputed. But the Johannine Comma is one of the obvious later additions.
Oscar says:
I disagree. Allowing somebody’s obviously apocryphal marginal note to be kept incorporated into the text of God’s holy scriptures is the danger.
Oscar says:
Well, none of them, nor any of their contemporaries, mentioned the part you highlighted in bold in their writings when debating about or teaching about the concept of the Godhead. And you’d think they certainly would have if such a delineation was available in the scriptures that they had.
Oscar says:
From verses like this one:
LikeLike
@Oscar
The Dead Sea Scrolls, which are dated the earliest of all the manuscripts, have all the verses that the Church Fathers used that were removed in the NIV 2011. This version is “Gender Neutral”, that is, the mistranslation of everything to do with Fatherhood, Patriarchy, and the Male-only Clergy. See here for more.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Well, thank you very much for reading my mind, and telling me what my motivations are, but you’re not very good at it (reading minds, that is). And, it’s not apocryphal.
You don’t know that “it got left out of all the Greek manuscripts for 1500 years”. You only know that it go left out of the Greek manuscripts that survived. That’s why ignoring the testimony of the Apostolic fathers is foolish.
That’s cool. You’re free to disagree.
So, Matthew 28:19 agrees with 1 John 5:7-8. Sweet!
LikeLike
Jason, I still have the calendar marked for The Price is Right. I plan to watch it with the family. “Hey I know that guy!”
What’s going on in your neck of the woods this weekend? You haven’t posted a YouTube video in a while.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Jason, haven’t heard from you this weekend, everything going OK man?
LikeLike
Derek (ramman3000) said,
I abhor this perspective because it puts an unrealistic expectation on Christian husbands. It results from a tremendous misunderstanding of authority as exhibited and described in the Bible.
Biblically, authority used properly is seldom (maybe never) used to force compliance of the subordinates. God wants voluntary compliance with His will, based on responding to His love, not fear of Him.
In marriage, the husband is the head and the wife is to submit to him. This is modeled on the relationship between Jesus and the church, and, by extension, every Christian. Jesus has authority but He does not force each Christian to live a sinless life but instead appeals to them to follow Him because of love for Him. Any other basis for that relationship falls short of God’s ideal.
Christian marriage is designed to operate in the same manner. The husband has authority as the head, but the relationship requires the husband to love his wife like Christ loves the church, and the wife is to submit to her husband. Yes, she is commanded to do this, but her submission must be voluntary or the marriage will fall short of God’s ideal.
God’s design for authority is that it is to be tempered by love and seldom used. However, a husband’s authority is not as powerful as God’s. If a woman refuses to submit to her husband’s authority out of love for him, she is also failing to obey God’s commands and must not truly love Him either. God is not going to force her to submit. If God won’t do it, I don’t believe He wants the husband to do it.
In closing, a wife has agency and she can refuse to follow God’s plan for marriage regardless of the husband’s authority. In that situation, it is ludicrous to consider that the husband has failed his responsibility. Doing so is equivalent to saying God has failed to use His authority. If God won’t make her obey, how can the husband be responsible?
LikeLiked by 4 people
It doesn’t just “put an unrealistic expectation on Christian husbands”, it’s anti-Biblical garbage dressed up to sound pious. If you believe the person in authority is responsible for the subordinate’s disobedience, then you have to believe that all sin is God’s fault.
LikeLiked by 4 people
Oh, I don’t know Jack. I accepted the challenge when I became a Christian… I mean joined a church. My church evidently was never even Christian evidently……. I wasted a decade and half of being told to “wait on God” and “pray” and “you have to find you purpose / mission in life”, and again, my purpose obviously was “wrong” and I was not “listening to what Jesus really meant or was trying to tell me.”
So I asked, “Well, then tell me, you all seem to have god’s ear.”
The answers were not answers but more questions, and replies like Oscar’s. SO, I decided to get “provision” in line because “older women don’t care about anything except a man who has some provision”, and I did that, and then the goalpost moved again.
A game is something where there are RULES and competitors and participants have to follow them in order for the game to have each player to be challenged, to think, to apply, and perhaps to win. When rules are only for one person or one side, and that person or side cannot ever win or get an advantage, there comes a point where one has to indeed take to the stands and throw tomatoes. There is a point where the person or team or side has to “walk off”.
When the rules of play of any game seem to change daily, or one side or player seems to change them… and has the authority to do such a thing with no recourse………… many refuse to play.
Then, the most ironic thing happens: The side that didn’t follow the rules, the side that changed the rules mid-play or mid-game, and made exceptions for themselves are the ones who are now upset.
“How come you don’t want to play? / You just are not playing hard enough! / Why are you being a sore loser? / Why can’t you accept things the way they are? / We are better than you and you should just let us lord it over you.”
The stands are almost empty, calling on a referee to hold a player or side accountable to follow the rules or play the game properly are ignored…… the referee has taken a side. Hence why so many are refusing to play.
LikeLike
Jason the Lastmod!
The game is not social in nature, but that is the arena where it is often played out. The game is not against other people, but with yourself. You’re playing against your own weaknesses and setbacks. Everyone has a different set of weaknesses and setbacks, so the game is different for them. Some have more than others. That’s just how it is. Complaining about it will only set you back, so just work with whatever you’ve got and go from there.
You have been accepting the rules others have set for themselves and were laid on you by others, but they will not work for you because you are not them. Maybe some of their rules will work for you, but not all. The Bible does a fair job of delineating the few rules that apply to everyone, but the applied meaning has been hidden and twisted by Progressive Churchianity over the last few decades.
Did you ever think of setting rules for yourself based on your own weaknesses and what works for you? Note that I’m NOT saying, “make up your own rules.” I’m saying that you should identify the rules that circumscribe your personal domain. By saying this, I am not advocating a disregard for social rules or lawlessness. I’m saying that it’s time for you to step out in faith. True faith will appear to skirt the rules at times, but the point is not simply to skirt the rules. The point is to get your inner game together.
The Bible is a good place to start discovering your personal playbook, but there are other rules and privileges that apply to you personally. They are not the same for everyone. For example, one guy can tell a joke and everyone laughs. But if another guy told the exact same joke to the exact same people he would get crickets. You have to figure these rules out for yourself. No one can tell you what they are, but maybe a close friend or an older family member might point you in the right direction. Scott pointed you in the right direction when you met with him and he told you some things that changed your life. That’s what I’m talking about. In Biblical terms, he was giving you the “milk of the word” (1 Peter 2:2). A lot of guys here have tried to do the same thing for you as Scott did (especially Deti, Oscar, and myself), but it’s just not pure enough for you and you start regurgitating.
These goals and rules are the goals and rules of others, and not your own goals and rules. The goals and rules are not really being moved. Think of it like a Pareto chart. You identify the thing that is slowing you down the most and work on that. After that improves, then it is no longer the thing holding you back anymore. Now there is something else that is slowing you down the most, so then you work on that. Once that improves, there will be something else. And again, and again…
You can never stop playing this game until the hour of your death. You can never stop being you.
LikeLike
Scott just talked to me like a man. An equal in that matter. I don’t recall any “advice”, and to be honest, I didn’t ask for any. I believe he would attest to that.
[Jack: Whether it was advice or not, I don’t know what was said between the two of you. All I know is that you two met and that you’ve had a better attitude since then. Remember, Scott is a professional counselor, so of course he’s going to be a lot smoother than the rest of us.]
LikeLiked by 1 person
All due respect to Derek,
I don’t agree with any perspective that puts 100% of the responsibility for the success or failure of a marriage on the man as the head.
I do not agree with the notion that a woman is literally the oldest teenager in the house. That’s a humorous way of saying women get ruled by their fee fees. But, the fact that women let their fee fees rule them does NOT exonerate them from individual, personal accountability for what women say and do.
From the very beginning, Eve was held accountable for her sin. Individually accountable. In fact, God the Father held Eve accountable FIRST, before he said, “Yeah, Adam, have a seat, because yours is coming too.” And He did not say, “Well, Eve, this happened because Adam…” He didn’t say anything other than “this is your consequence.” He imposed it on Eve, alone.
He didn’t waste any time explaining to Eve why he was imposing this consequence on her because, like the woman she was, she blamed her sin on the serpent. “The serpent deceived me, and I ate.” She wouldn’t even take responsibility. “Yeah, um, I did that, but it was that serpent’s fault! Yeah, um, You caught me…. but it’s not my fault!” No point in arguing with Eve what she did and that it was on her. God the Father just said, “OK, here’s your consequence.” BOOM. And it was done. “You’ll have pain in childbirth. You have to submit to Adam and do what he says. And you’ll hate it and chafe under it and try to rule him.”
The point is that women have full personal agency. As such they can be held fully personally accountable. It doesn’t matter that they themselves will not acknowledge their own agency. All that matters is that they have that agency. So, if a woman will not do what she’s required to do in her marriage, then she’s accountable for it and should bear all the consequences for it. If she willfully refuses her husband’s directions, then her husband is within his rights to impose consequences. Without explanation, as God The Father did. “Nope, don’t wanna hear your rationalizations and excuses. Yes, it’s your fault, and here’s your consequence.”
So if a woman leaves a marriage, or a husband ends his marriage to her because of her willful resistance to submission, then that’s on her. The end of the marriage is her responsibility. Not his. HERS. He merely imposed a consequence upon her. Or, more accurately, allowed the natural consequences of her actions to bear their full weight on her. So for those reasons, I do not agree that the success or failure of a marriage rides fully on the man’s back.
LikeLiked by 8 people
It’s really very simple: blaming the husband for every patch of trouble in or failure of a marriage is churchian cowardice, their way of avoiding confrontation with satanic feminism, a force they all fear far more than the wrath or power of God. Any pastor or counselor who blames a husband for marital problems for which he is clearly not the source or cause is doing so out of fear of feminism, and is thus not only not a solution to the problem, but an exacerbator of it.
LikeLiked by 3 people
Pingback: What constitutes Adultery? | Σ Frame
Pingback: What can a husband do in response to a rebellious wife? | Σ Frame
Pingback: Rights and Responsibilities within Marriage | Σ Frame
Pingback: Infiltrating the Minds of the Masses through Suspension of Disbelief and Social Catharsis/Cathexis | Σ Frame
Pingback: Laying out Boundaries | Σ Frame
Pingback: Laying out Expectations | Σ Frame
Pingback: Name it to Change it! | Σ Frame
Pingback: Jack on Female Agency | Σ Frame
Pingback: Deti on Female Accountability | Σ Frame
Pingback: Kyojiro Kagenuma on Women’s Agency | Σ Frame
Pingback: What we’ve learned about Female Agency | Σ Frame
Pingback: Σ Frame
Pingback: Triggers | Σ Frame
Pingback: 5. The Law of Motivation | Σ Frame
Pingback: 6. The Law of Evaluation | Σ Frame
Pingback: 9. The Law of Activity | Σ Frame
Pingback: The Lie of Female Hypoagency | Σ Frame