Beware Christian marriage doublespeak and hair trigger for wife initiated divorce.

by Dalrock on November 16, 2011

One of the more dangerous assumptions I see men making is that if they marry a Christian woman they will be somehow shielded from the epidemic of divorce.† Iíve stated in the past that most churches talk like Christ but act like Oprah on the issue of divorce.† Iíve also shown how Christians like Glenn Stanton from Focus on the Family are actually proud that devout Christians only divorce 38% of the time.† More recently Iíve shown that the movie Christians cherish for representing their values on marriage is actually barely dressed up divorce porn for women.

Yet with all of this even I was stunned by comments left on my blog yesterday by a respected Christian author and speaker on the topic of marriage.† In my post Promiscuity is good, so long as it is done on the womanís†terms I pointed out that there is no backing for the popular belief that the female preferred form of promiscuity (serial monogamy/ serial polyandry) is more moral than the male preferred form of promiscuity.† I used the example of Christians arguing that the wife in Fireproof was justified in her attempt to swing from marriage to marriage:

This is similar to the argument by the Christian women that the wife in Fireproof wasnít being whorish because she planned on divorcing her husband and marrying the other man she was after before having sex with him.

Sheila Gregoire is one of the Christian women I had in mind when I made that statement, and she noticed the post and defended her position:

But I just want to clarify: I do believe that she had grounds for divorce because of his pornography addiction. I think thatís where the fundamental disagreement comes in. I donít think she SHOULD have divorced him, anymore than I think a woman should leave a guy because of a one-night stand. Jesus never said that we SHOULD divorce. He only said that in cases of affairs, divorce is permitted.

And so in the movie Fireproof, she was in a relationship where divorce was permitted, and she was planning on divorcing, and planning on remarrying. Thus, I wouldnít say thatís whorish. Heís the one who cheated.

Iím just uncomfortable with you saying that Christians are allowing people to ďwhoreĒ around because weíre permitting divorce, when I donít think thatís the case. I believe there are very narrow grounds for divorce: abuse, affairs, and in some cases, addictions. In many of those cases, Iíd argue that they should separate and not remarry, such as the case of addictions.

Note that she states that there should be only a few very defined reasons for divorce, and then proceeds to expand the definition to the point where nearly every wife initiated divorce is justified.† Adultery is expanded to the point where a man watching porn qualifies:† Heís the one who cheated.

While Sheila uses the term pornography addiction in her comment, this is outside her primary justification (porn as adultery) for the wifeís plan to line up husband number two while still married to the first one.† She states that addiction would be grounds for separation without remarriage, not to divorce and find another man.† Based on her own standard even if the husband had indeed been shown as a porn addict, the wifeís actions would not have been justified on those grounds.† Her justification is that watching pornography is adultery.† This may be why the creators of the movie Fireproof were so murky on exactly what the husbandís transgression regarding porn really was.† They didnít feel the need to make a solid case for porn addiction before they showed the wife shutting off entirely towards her husband and actively pursuing another man.† As I pointed out in my review the wife didnít even accuse the husband of being a porn addict, and while the term was used later in the movie there was nothing which showed the husband as being an addict.† Here is the exchange from the movie where we are told the husband is viewing porn:

Catherine:† If looking at that trash is how you get fulfilled, then that is fine.† But I will not compete with it.

Caleb:† Well, I sure donít get it from you!

Catherine:† And you wonít.† Because you care more about saving for your stupid boat and pleasing yourself than you ever did about me.

The fundamental problem is that Christian women are being given get out of marriage free cards while Christian men are being told man up and marry these Christian women.† This selective moral softness from Christians combines with our legal system which rewards women who commit divorce theft and creates millions of fatherless children.† Your husband looked at porn?† Dump him and find another man!† Keep in mind this isnít some corner case example Iíve made up.† This is from the movie Christians profess shows their views on marriage.† Moreover, Sheila isnít just another commenter on the internet, she is a respected author and speaker on the topic of marriage for Christian women.† All men need to understand this;† if your wife decides to divorce you for another man, there will be well respected Christians lining up to justify her decision and place all of the blame on you.† If that means conflating viewing pornography with actual adultery, so be it.† This is true even in cases where the wife was withholding sex in an effort to control the husband.† She even excuses the wife lining up the other man while still married.

It isnít just men viewing porn which gives women a get out of marriage free card though.† Sheila also listed abuse as the other fundamental justification for divorce.† In one of Sheilaís video blogs she reminded women that they shouldnít assume husbands are the only ones with obligations.† This brought her a chorus of emails from angry Christian women complaining that she was telling them not to be true to themselves.† That Christian women would feel comfortable spouting such nonsense to her should be proof enough of what is so terribly broken in Christian culture.† To Sheilaís credit, she did a follow on video blog post where she gently reminded these women that being true to yourself is not actually a biblical value.† One of the youtube commenters on the original video countered with the following:

Your advice is nice, in thought, but unrealistic in practice. I did that exact thing for 7 years, as a married Christian woman. It got rough after the first year. I doubted my marriage. But I stuck it out. I convinced myself it was ME who needed to change. So I did. I completely revamped my entire being. And I did it several times over the next 6 years.

I will say, I was extremely emotionally abused. What do you suggest in those circumstances? I got out. And my life is happier than ever.

What exactly is emotional abuse?† Iím not sure, but ladies you will be excited to learn it also counts as a get out of marriage free card!† Sheila responded with the following:

Of course, if there is abuse going on, that is a totally different story. But changing yourself doesnít mean that you change who you fundamentally are. It just means that you change your expectations and go to God to help you be the person He wants you to be. Thatís a good kind of change. Changing so that you tolerate abuse is something else entirely. But abuse was not the issue in this womanís letter; she just felt like she didnít love him.

So now we know emotional abuse fits in her definition of abuse.† Again, she states that only two very specific reasons justify divorce and then proceeds to expand the terms to the point where nearly every wife initiated divorce is justified.

Sheila also had the following criticism for my approach in this blog:

I find that you talk a lot on this blog about how people should never divorce (which I more or less agree with), and that women shouldnít expect so much from their husbands (which I also agree with), and that women are asking their husbands to be both betas and alphas at the same time (which I also agree with), and that women leave their husbands too much (again, in agreement). But what I donít find is you dealing honestly with genuine problems that couples have with communication, with distance, with betrayal of trust, with porn, etc. I agree with everything youíre saying, but I donít think marriages can be fixed with a simple ďsuck it up and put on your big girl pantiesĒ. That might make someone STAY in the marriage, but it wonít make the marriage thrive, and what Iíd like to see is couples who are genuinely attached and intimate.

Sheila misunderstands me.† I donít believe people should never divorce.† My concern is that the definition of justified divorce has been so expanded as to make a mockery of the concept of marriage.† She is also missing a fundamental point;† putting on your big girl panties really does lead to happy marriages, at least in the majority of cases.† Moreover, if Christians were serious about holding men and women to their vows they would then have the moral authority to try to assist these couples in good faith.† While religious leaders may disagree, secular scientists have studied the issue and found that brute force willpower to stay married actually solves surprisingly difficult marital problems.† Itís almost as if God designed marriage that way.† Iíve covered this in detail here, but here is one of the key quotes from one paper which studied this:

Many currently happily married spouses have had extended periods of marital unhappiness, often for quite serious reasons, including alcoholism, infidelity, verbal abuse, emotional neglect, depression, illness, and work reversals. Why did these marriages survive where other marriages did not? The marital endurance ethic appears to play a big role. Many spouses said that their marriages got happier, not because they and their partner resolved problems but because they stubbornly outlasted them.† With time, they told us, many sources of conflict and distress eased.

One factor which undoubtedly plays a role here is the widespread adoption of feminism by Christian and secular women alike.† The knee jerk blame the husband tendency which I have described above shows how immersed modern Christianity is in modern feminism.† Fellow blogger Laura Grace Robbins captured my own thoughts when she wrote:

Iím starting to think the feminism in Christianity cuts much, much deeper than I originally thought.

This is relevant both because a general sense of unhappiness is the philosophical foundation for modern feminism, and because we know that women who try to be the leaders in their marriage are very likely to be unhappy as a result.† As I mentioned earlier, Christian women hold some truly outrageous beliefs when it comes to marriage and being ďtrue to themselvesĒ.† It is no wonder that millions of these women are unhappy.† Like the wife in Fireproof, many have decided that their husbands should submit to their leadership.† Christians could of course address this if they werenít deeply mired in the very feminism at the source of the problem.

Iíll close with a brief defense of both Sheila Gregoire and Christian women in general.† Sheila is actually one of the stronger pro marriage voices in modern Christian culture.† This is what makes her fundamental weakness on the issue so deeply troubling.† She isnít on the pro divorce fringe, she is one of the speakers churches bring in to strengthen marriage.† She writes some of the books Christian wives read on the topic of marriage.† I have focused on her arguments because she is proof of how incredibly soft on marriage Christians in general have become.† If this werenít the case, she wouldnít be seen as pro marriage by mainstream Christians.† As for defending Christian women, there are many women who comment on my blog who do not believe that a woman is justified in divorcing one man and marrying another because the first husband viewed pornography.† Single men looking to marry shouldnít write off all Christian women.† Just like there are atheist women who truly believe in marriage there still are Christian women who feel the same, and the statistics bear this out.† What a man looking to marry needs to do is test for this trait in the woman herself, and not assume it comes with regular church attendance or even a seeming deep devotion to Christianity.† More difficult is the question of church attendance itself.† Studies have shown that divorce tends to spread like disease.† Attending a church which is soft on divorce puts a manís marriage (and therefore his children) at risk.† Unfortunately no one has yet been able to identify a congregation for me which isnít soft on marriage.† I have seen one so I do know they exist.† Christianity doesnít have to be soft on marriage, the vast majority of Christians have merely chosen to be.

Note:† I originally posted this on my own blog on November 8th.† I have encouraged other bloggers to repost the original in full or in part if they feel that the warning would be of benefit to their readers.

{ 57 comments… read them below or add one }

Taqman November 16, 2011 at 11:44

So much for “In sickness and In Health”

Pat Robertson: Divorce OK over Alzheimer’s

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 16 Thumb down 1
Zorro November 16, 2011 at 12:20

Honestly.

“Talk like Christ but act like Oprah.”

Mother of God, how I kneel before your grandeur!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 0
Rebel November 16, 2011 at 12:26

I would like to know how many gazillion words of warning have been published that warn men of their impending doom should they be stupid enough to marry.

Despite of an endless torrent of warning signs, most men will marry just the same.
And get shafted. And be crucified. And be trampled upon. And be ripped off.
Am I forgetting something?

I wonder if it would be better to spend all these words to warm lemmings of their doom…
Do you think lemmings could be saved?
Should we not rather be concerned for lemmings?
I wonder.

Are men the new lemmings? (think twice before you say no).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Zorro November 16, 2011 at 12:27

Totally off-topic:

I just got a DVD from Amazon. Utterly guy-stuff!!!!!! If you have a Y chromosome you MUST MUST MUST see this film.

13 Assassins. Japanese samurai film.

If “The 7 Samurai” is the Citizen Kane of Samurai films, then 13 Assassins is the Die Hard!

Monstrously cool!!!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Ken November 16, 2011 at 12:39

Christianity was always ALIEN to me anyway and so I agree….
stranger still are those who adhere to calling themselves Christian but do NOT follow its tenets, not even close, and yet say men like me are going to “hell” because I do not stand with them and their fantasy.
“Hell” is being shackled into a loveless marriage with kids that aren’t yours….yeah, sign me up! haha

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 3
keyster November 16, 2011 at 12:40

“Iím starting to think the feminism in Christianity cuts much, much deeper than I originally thought.”

No sh*t Sherlock!
When was the last time they read the “teachings” of the Bible with regard to wifely duties, obeying her husband and so forth? There are also far greater responsibilities heaped on the husband, most of which have conveniently lingered on.

Wives submit yourselves unto your own husband, as unto the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” (Ephesians 5:24).

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence. (Timothy 2:12)
(In other words STFU!)

…just to name three verses that explicity state woman is to serve at the behest of man, yet they ignore the Word. The Christian church has been adapting itself to suit the times for centuries. Infiltration of the feminist narrative of “equality” is transparently abundant in any sect or congregation…or they’d lose all the female tithers and and be out of business.

It’s the shifty minister’s job to keep re-interpreting Biblical passage so as not to offend or alarm his parishioners. For one to say, “A wife must submit to her husband!” was common and believed 100 years ago. You’d never hear of it today. They’ll spin and weave it to mean, “submission and obedience to a man” is God telling women to submit to the Lord Jesus as her savior, yada, yada…certianly not today’s mere mortal of a man.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 49 Thumb down 0
keyster November 16, 2011 at 12:47

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence. (Timothy 2:12)

Now ask yourselves this; is Laura Grace Robbins or any of the other Christian female bloggers defying the Word of God by voicing an opinion at all? Can you say “hypocrisy”?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 3
Wayne November 16, 2011 at 12:50

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 36
Leos Tomicek November 16, 2011 at 13:01

According to my reading, there was a time when the Church did not accept adultery as grounds for divorce. Maintaining the sacred union that is marriage was more important than dwelling on sins of the married.

Technically, watching porn is a much lesser sin than a woman divorcing her husband for another man because of it. The latter actually constitutes adultery, the former is just passive lust.

Christian women should be thinking how to make their husbands happier, so they do not lust after naked pictures, not justifying divorce. Divorce should be grounds for excommunication in my opinion.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 2
Rumour November 16, 2011 at 13:03

When my wife decided to divorce me, she had become a 30 year old party girl, was fucking someone else, and had quit going to church. This was pretty confusing to our kids and I had to step down as a Sunday School teacher.

There was a steady stream of “Christian” women who came to the house to talk to my wife. Eventually they convinced her to come back. When she walked in the door, the pastor’s wife threw her arms around her and gave her a big welcome.

I figured it out eventually … her actions in their eyes were my fault. It was “what did he do to you to make you act this way” theme. The men said nothing. I quit going. This was a conservative bible church, supposedly strongly, pro-marriage.

She was still fucking other guy and moved him in a week after I moved out. Then they started going to that church.

Western churches are no place for men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 85 Thumb down 0
Taqman November 16, 2011 at 13:08

The scripture spoken by Jesus at Matthew: 5:28 answers that question Ö
ďBut I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Ē

Please donít shoot the messenger :ducks-for-cover:

That is true, and thus any Christian wife has a blank check to divorce her husband at any time since it is nearly impossible to avoid looking at other women unless the man were to gouge out his eyes.

Thats all the proof you need to never get suckered into a Christian marriage since the divorce standards are so low.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 39 Thumb down 2
Casha R November 16, 2011 at 13:08

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 55
Rumour November 16, 2011 at 13:13

… and anyone who attempts to use the tactics from Fireproof to save a marriage is doomed to failure … and contempt.

The polar opposite and much more sound advice is Kay’s Married Man Sex Life.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 1
Carnivore November 16, 2011 at 13:28

@keyster:
“When was the last time they read the ďteachingsĒ of the Bible with regard to wifely duties, obeying her husband and so forth?”

There’s also fulfilling the marriage debt, or is that only an RC concept?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Eric November 16, 2011 at 13:40

Zorro: You’re absolutely right that 13 Assassins is a great film for anyone with a Y chromosome.
Comparing it to Die Hard, however, made me want to puke.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
W.F. Price November 16, 2011 at 13:42

That is true, and thus any Christian wife has a blank check to divorce her husband at any time since it is nearly impossible to avoid looking at other women unless the man were to gouge out his eyes.

-Taqman

Not exactly. Under Jewish law at the time (and even today, actually) only men could initiate divorce. The first Christians took it for granted that this would not change.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 17 Thumb down 3
Tony November 16, 2011 at 14:04

Porn for grounds for divorce? BULL SHIT.

Did he commit adultery in his heart? Yes. Did he commit the act of adultry? NO.

Here is my interpretation of the verse. This was to take into context the religious leaders when Jesus said this. Look at verse 20 in the same verse “For I tell you that unless your righteousness surpasses that of the Pharisees and the teachers of the law, you will certainly not enter the kingdom of heaven.”

After that it addresses murder and if you are angry in your heart with your brother, you will be judged (just shy of saying “if you are angry with your brother, you basically murdered him)…it is only THEN that the adultery section comes up so you have to take the whole chapter into context.

Where you ever angry at your spouse? you just killed them and that is grounds for you to rot in prison. Does that sound right to you? (rhetorical) then take that into account when you interoperate the adultery verse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 29 Thumb down 2
keyster November 16, 2011 at 14:04

“…my ex who was addicted to porn and refused to even try to get help (which I wholeheartedly encouraged him to do).”

I can’t imagine a man in an otherwise healthy relationship, ever having the need for porn. “Healthy” as in his sexual desires are being adaquately satiated by his dutiful and obliging wife.

“…behind my back and then lying to my face that didnít do it.”

Now THAT’S grounds for divorce!

The 7th Commandment .”Do not commit adultery.” Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. A least this is what God says.

There is no commandment against lying however.

If you can interpret porn to be…

Matthew: 5:28 ďBut I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Ē

Than you should be able to find…

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence. (Timothy 2:12)

…perfectly reasonable too.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Avenger November 16, 2011 at 14:12

I believe there are very narrow grounds for divorce: abuse, affairs, and in some cases, addictions. In many of those cases, Iíd argue that they should separate and not remarry, such as the case of addictions.

This female is an idiot and those grounds for divorce weren’t even permitted until recently in places like NY. Under traditional Christian doctrine divorce was permitted but you couldn’t remarry if the spouse was still alive so these people are just making up rules that suit them. Serial marriers are worse than whores because they want the “security” of marriage=money before they put out.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Rebel November 16, 2011 at 14:49

@Wayne
“Please donít shoot the messenger :ducks-for-cover:”

But you would deserve it for not thinking beyond the immediate..
And for not seeing too well.

For instance, a husband who jerks in front of a puter screen does it because mom said no to sex.
In this case, it is the husband who should divorce. The man’s efforts to overcome his failed marriage are not taken into account, as usual.

From your own observations, it is easy to see that the woman is at fault.

Do you see now?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 3
Skeptic November 16, 2011 at 14:52

My God,
What hamster spinning we have here!
In our current slutwalk, you go grrrrl, raunch feminist west and many other parts of the world too a man would have to be blind NOT to see porn every day many times over – just by taking a walk down the main street of his ‘civilized’ neighborhood, reading a magazine (especially women’s magazines) or simply switching on his TV!

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 27 Thumb down 2
Rocco November 16, 2011 at 15:13

Yes the christian women and in that I include catholics are the worst.

They always believed they were superior now with a little lying and some fake tears the money flows.

These skanks are like….faggetabout it…..I’m going for the money.

I remember my first ex, and Italian telling me every day of our marriage how she would skin me in divorce court.

We weren’t getting divorced but she just loved how the injustice of it would make me angry.

I still gave her the house when we split. She had chronic depression and would never own a home so I pay’d it forward.

I just got paid forward from my son’s mom….no child support requested, and that is signed.

No, these christian women are worse than prostitutes, they are lying in front of god and know exacly how long this marriage will last from the very first day.

IMO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 3
Paradoxotaur November 16, 2011 at 15:17

“This is true even in cases where the wife was withholding sex in an effort to control the husband.”

Dalrock, I’d be interested in hearing your or Ms. Gregoire’s opinion as to whether a wife unreasonably withholding sex in an effort to control the huband is a direct repudiation of her maritial vow “to have and to hold” him. It seems to me that if a wife uses sexual access as a tool or weapon, she has ended the marriage and he is free to do whatever he wants, as and there is no marriage for him to “cheat” on. The maritial vow is one of monogamy, not chastity, and certainly not chastity imposed by one’s “together in body and soul, as one, until death do us part” alleged spouse.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 30 Thumb down 2
Rocco November 16, 2011 at 15:24

@ Paradoxicator

Totally agreed. As DV is automatic grounds for divorce and for a disproportionate custody settlement, so alienation of affections, the simple withholding of love, the promise of which marriage is if it’s any thing should be met with full custody going to the one who declared the silent divorce, they are a bully and terrorist……an emotional abuser and hence a form of DV….don’t let them near the kids.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 20 Thumb down 1
woggy November 16, 2011 at 15:49

“Sheila is actually one of the stronger pro marriage voices in modern Christian culture.”

That’s true- and it’s sad.

I read some of the comments offered after the linked article. Among them were thoughts of sympathy for Christian husbands.

I’m not sure how many Christian husbands there really are; I am more confident that 75% of Christian churches aren’t Christian at all. As for the women (the wives)?
With certain trepidation, I’ll simply say that by their fruits (works) you’ll know them.
Bad churches produce Christian luminaries like Sheila Gregoire who, in turn, spew bad doctrine. Gregoire herself expanded Jesus’ stated grounds for divorce (only applicable in an ancient Jewish, not yet consummated marriage) to include things only mentioned by Jesus to illustrate to the holier-than-thou Pharisees their own sin (looking upon a woman with lust is “adultery”) and abuse ( not a tightly defined term either).
Give ‘em time. They’ll be up to speed with the feminist hate nags all around us- they’ll just have never gone braless in public- and every transgression possible, when committed by a man, will be “abuse”…
Right Sheila?
And the men?
What they will be doing is going to Promise Keepers, loathing themsleves in proper penitent fashion, even if they’ve never so much as perused a lingerie catalog and she does all the abusing.
What should they be doing?
Instead of dropping money in the plate every Sunday- making an over and above sacrifice that the church might add a wing for a women’s shelter- they ought to invest in plywood and nails, in preparation to do the only righteous thing left:
Board the church up- it’s nothing but a “Whited Sepulchre” already. Sheila Gregoire is ample proof of that.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 2
Jim November 16, 2011 at 15:56

This is so depressing. There is literally nothing worth saving.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 25 Thumb down 1
Charles Martel November 16, 2011 at 16:25

Jim
This is so depressing. There is literally nothing worth saving.

“Decadence is a moral and spiritual disease, resulting from too long a period of wealth and power, producing cynicism, decline of religion, pessimism and frivolity. The citizens of such a nation will no longer make an effort to save themselves, because they are not convinced that anything in life is worth saving.”………The Fate of Empires …Sir John Glubb

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 33 Thumb down 1
MWPeak November 16, 2011 at 16:48

Dalrock, your blog in now on my favorites list. You basically articulated what I could not put into words about the movie, Fireproof. Thank you, thank you, thank you.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Manlyman November 16, 2011 at 17:00

God sucks. Then you die.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 10
Zorro November 16, 2011 at 17:19

@Manlyman: Pretty much.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 6
Dalrock November 16, 2011 at 17:38

@keyster

But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp the authority over the man, but to be in silence. (Timothy 2:12)

Now ask yourselves this; is Laura Grace Robbins or any of the other Christian female bloggers defying the Word of God by voicing an opinion at all? Can you say ďhypocrisyĒ?

There is a great deal of criticism that women won’t speak up regarding the injustices being done to men. LGR is on a very short list of women who reliably do just that. She also criticizes female politicians who try to run on the “Traditional Motherhood” image for the obvious contradiction. I don’t see LGR trying to usurp anything. I see her holding women accountable. She is at the very least more on board with the issues we discuss here than any man I know outside of the internet (by far).

Davd November 16, 2011 at 17:45

Are these examples you-all are writing about, urban or rural? Rich or poor? In Christian Scripture and tradition, the cities mentioned are seldom praised: Jesus wept over Jerusalam, Rome persecuted the Faith, …. and Jesus’ most famous sayings is “It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God.” (Mat 19: 24; Luke 18:25; “man” was often a generic pronoun in those times, i will guess its usage would include Oprah, etc… cf Luke 12: 16-21.)

Hypocrisy among people who call themselves Christians? Definitely some exists, plausibly much: There’s an old Orthodox folk maxim that “the streets of Hell are cobbled with the skulls of erring priests, and the lampstands are erring Bishops.” Jesus Himself said, “not everyone who says to me ‘Lord, Lord’, will enter the kingdom of Heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father ….” [Mat 7: 21 {13-27}]

Beware hypocrites? Definitely. Call them Christian? It’s a common rhetorical trick, but invalid. Perhaps the best message to take away from this thread, might be that “Christian” is a name easier to put on than to live-up-to. If you do want a Christian marriage, riches and cities might be two circumstances to avoid; and treating civil marriage as Christian is one big mistake to avoid. Perhaps the most truly, faithfully Christian thing a church could do about marriage, would be to have marriage ceremonies that solemnized the principles of marriage as Jesus taught them, _without_ a civil marriage to dilute them, rather a “cohabitation contract” that commits the partners to what legal marriage once meant [and perhaps even a bit more].

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
Anonymous age 69 November 16, 2011 at 18:20

>>There is no commandment against lying however.

Depends on what: Thou shalt not bear false witness: means, doesn’t it?

I am not sure either, but I am sure it includes false rape charges.

And, I suspect it includes most lying, which is an attempt to change events, not just white lies with no effects.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 19 Thumb down 0
Anonymous age 69 November 16, 2011 at 18:40

Has everyone seen the word association games. I say, up, you think, down. I say, black, you think, white.

Well, if you say Christian male, I think pompous, conceited jackass. It’s not supposed to be that way.

In 1984, as I started 10 years of counseling divorced men, a Christian man called me. His wife started banging someone else, so he went to his pastor for advice and support. Said pastor screamed insults at him, and told him it was his fault, because he was not right with God.

This essentially means if a husband is right with God, his wife cannot sin. Repeat after me: S-T-U-P-I-D!!!!

I kept wondering how those Christians could have Satan in their hearts, and still be saved. Years later, I found the answer in Screwtape letters. The demon says, more or less; “We will tell stupid people if they do Satan’s work, they will be doing God’s work, and thus will be saved. But, they will not be saved.”

So, when stupid Christians (but I repeat myself) attack an innocent man and blame him for his wife’s sins, they are doing Satan’s work. And, they are going to Hell.

This s**t always comes from Pick-n’-choose Bible. Those idiots get down in Ephesians, and assume male leadership comes from men leading. It does not, and no where in the Bible does it say that. Male leadership comes when women submit to their husbands, period.

Imagine with me forming an Army. They appoint a five star general, who walks out in a large field, and shouts, “Fall In!!!” And, all over the country, millions of people frantically sew uniforms, and run to that field to fall in.

Doesn’t work. First, you form the Army, and create military discipline, then you appoint the General.

Ditto for male leadership. First, the woman submits, then the man becomes a leader.

Does everyone know what the Bible says a man is to do if his wife is rebellious and argumentative? It does not say get right with God. It says a man married to such a woman would be better off living in the desert or on a roof. Essentially, the Bible admits there is nothing a man can do if he is married to a fiend.

Eve rebelled against God, who was her spiritual advisor, not Adam, yet the stupid Christians (but I repeat myself) say Adam was at fault for Eve’s sin.

So, Eve was able to rebel against God, but these morons say an ordinary man is supposed to have a greater effect on his wife than God did on Eve.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 36 Thumb down 4
Davd November 16, 2011 at 19:09

(two little words got lost on that last comment-post):

“.. _one of_ Jesus’ most famous sayings is ďIt is easier for a camel…”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
GT66 November 16, 2011 at 19:28

At the risk of pissing those of mass marketed faith off, I have to say, organized religion is a fraud. It’s a bunch of hypocrites trying to plant themselves and *their* motives and ambitions between a man and his beliefs. If the only way you can commune or worship whatever God you believe in is through another man or his organization or that organization’s “house,” you are being screwed. If you feel the need to honor Him, go kneel in front of a tree or stand on the beach or talk to the ducks at the park. There’s more God in those places than in any church.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 5
Jimbo November 16, 2011 at 19:34

My take on the movie was that once again the woman was portrayed as the virtuous partner and the victim. How about a movie about a wife that is neglectful, abusive and constantly tortures her husband with the unspoken threat that his beloved children will not be sleeping under his roof from now on? The unspoken threat that his beloved children will be raised by a psycho woman that only pretends to be a real mother? How about the unspoken threat that he will never recover financially for marrying the bitch in the first place?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 1
Just Some Canadian November 16, 2011 at 20:17

Let me get this straight:

You were surprised that when one man, who believes in an invisible sky wizard who will promise him unending life, who is in love with a woman who is also has the same invisible friend, act irrationally.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 11 Thumb down 17
Bryan November 16, 2011 at 20:21

I consider myself a Christian “fundamentalist” although in a way I hate that term because the majority of people who self-identify with that term have scarcely read the Bible and are even less likely to have understood what they read if they read anything to begin with.

I’ve read the bible from front to back, studied the ancient cultures to understand some of the ancient expressions, sayings, etc, and I can safely say this…

If a woman insists that you, as a Christian man, submit to her leadership, then not only is she a feminist, but she is NOT a Christian, she is adversarial to God by being adversarial to her husband and refusing to subordinate herself to the leadership of her husband.

I’d say the only valid reasons for divorce are-

1- infidelity

2- chronic/severe PHYSICAL abuse

3- abandonment (if your spouse says they’re going on a business trip and they never come back, short of having been killed by some thugs, they probably abandoned you, and you should be allowed, at some point, to declare your marriage dissolved and move on in life)

I wouldn’t condemn or shame somebody for divorcing under those circumstances… I think “emotional” abuse is a frivolous catch-all which can mean anything as mundane as “he expected me to have dinner on the table when he got home from work, while I wanted to go out with my girlfriends” to “he told me that the dress didn’t make me look like a super model” to “he ran me down and called me nasty names for years” it can be something petty, it can be something moderate, it can be something real or imagined, emotional abuse is too subjective and is all too often dubious at best.

If one spouse has a gambling, drinking, or drug/chemical issue, how the other spouse wants to handle that is their business. I wouldn’t recommend a divorce, certainly not as a first or second option, but I wouldn’t shun them and denounce them as an anti-Christian/anti-Christ if they eventually decided to go that route. At some point if somebody in your life (be it a spouse, a brother, a sister, mother, father, daughter, son, cousin, uncle, aunt, friend, neighbor, etc) has decided NOT to serve God and instead to serve their own lusts (lusts for the flesh, lusts for chemical, lusts for a fast/dangerous life), then you may have to make a choice, what matters more to you, your relationship to God and your ability to serve God, or your relationship with the self-destructive person? Self-destructive people can and often will pull others down with them. I would never suggest to any man or woman that divorce be a first choice option for something such as a gambling problem (which in the spiritual realm is FAR less serious than infidelity), but if somebody put up with it for several years and it was clear that the other person had no desire to confront their demons and become a better person, divorce is probably necessary.

Remember…

Matthew chapter 10-

Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.

For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.

And a man’s foes shall be they of his own household.

He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 2
Bryan November 16, 2011 at 20:27

Anonymous age 69

My father went to my mother’s evangelical pastor to talk to him about why my mother was cheating on him with multiple men and he shouted at my dad and said, “you need to get over yourself! forgive and forget! walk with God! Take your wife home and make passionate love to her!”

At that point my dad could scarcely bring himself to look at my mother or talk to her because he had lost all respect for her and he probably (and rightly) saw her as damaged and dirty.

My dad then went to a secular female marriage counselor who listened to the facts my dad had to relate, and when my dad said to her, “I’d just like to hear from somebody that I’m not unreasonable in my expectation that my wife show me some loyalty” and the female counselor replied, “most men wouldn’t have given her so many second chances, they’d have left years ago, nobody should have to put up with that sort of behavior.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 34 Thumb down 1
Taqman November 16, 2011 at 20:45

@GT66

I have to say, organized religion is a fraud.

Evolution of coercion :

Step 1. Do what I say or I will kick your ass.
Step 2. Do what I say or my tribe will kick your ass.
Step 3. Do what I say or my god will kick your ass for all eternity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 8
Jaego Scorzne November 16, 2011 at 20:51

Strong Christian, Anti Communist-Zionist woman agrees with everything said here.

http://us.mg4.mail.yahoo.com/neo/launch

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 5
fmz November 16, 2011 at 22:00

With any luck the crucifixated god botheres will implode when the men leave that matriarchal charade. First they’ll have to grow a pair and backbone. Dont hold yer breath.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Avenger November 17, 2011 at 01:43

Not exactly. Under Jewish law at the time (and even today, actually) only men could initiate divorce. The first Christians took it for granted that this would not change.

And all he had to do is say “I divorce you” three times and rip his shirt and that was it :)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 17, 2011 at 01:49

The only reverend I like is Rev. Creflo Dollar.

Dollar is known for his controversial teachings of Prosperity theology.[9] He has been criticized for his lavish lifestyle as he owns two Rolls-Royces, a private jet, a million dollar home in Atlanta, and a 2.5 million dollar home in Manhattan.[9] Dollar has refused to disclose his salary and Creflo Dollar Ministries received a grade of “F” for financial transparency by the organization MinistryWatch

:)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 0
evilwhitemalempire November 17, 2011 at 01:56

Wayne November 16, 2011 at 12:50 Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

My own personal belief is Ö
Ö viewing pornography CAN be grounds for your partner to divorce you.

From a Christian perspective, adultery is the only reason that allows for divorce. The crucial question is; Is the viewing of pornography by a husband or wife considered to be adultery, or fornication?

The scripture spoken by Jesus at Matthew: 5:28 answers that question Ö
ďBut I say to you that everyone that keeps on looking at a woman so as to have a passion for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.Ē

Please donít shoot the messenger :ducks-for-cover:
************************

So then a wife that reads romance novels is cheating?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 24 Thumb down 0
Avenger November 17, 2011 at 04:25

The crucial question is; Is the viewing of pornography by a husband or wife considered to be adultery, or fornication?

Wayne, you really have to get out of the house more because you have a head full of mush. If you can’t tell the difference between trivial things like looking at porn or some cyber sex and real fucking then you have a problem. Personally I just find it boring from what I’ve seen but if someone likes the stuff I don’t care. I can’t see anyone wasting money on the stuff and the females don’t appeal to me but of course I’m not 20. I prefer the young innocent types :) 18+

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Common Monster November 17, 2011 at 10:16

ďHellĒ is being shackled into a loveless marriage with kids that arenít yoursÖ.yeah, sign me up! haha (Ken)

Poet Theodore Roethke (non-xtian) had some lines along those lines:

What’s hell but a cold heart?

and

What’s the worst portion in this mortal life?
A pensive mistress, and a yelping wife.

So, when are xtians gonna get around to organizing “promise keepers for wives” and start herding `em into coliseums for lots of badly needed remedial instruction? Just a thought from one of your friendly local neighborhood heathens.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Wayne November 17, 2011 at 13:20

[i]Avenger says: “Wayne, you really have to get out of the house more because you have a head full of mush. If you canít tell the difference between trivial things like looking at porn or some cyber sex and real fucking then you have a problem.”[/i]

Avenger, I certainly do know the difference between physical intercourse and cyber sex or pornography.
I can’t see how my previous post might have confused you, however I accept that it must have. Please allow me to help you:
My name is Wayne, not Jesus nor Matthew. That should be enough, however I can not be certain that you’re not projecting cranial mush. So …
… My previous post asked a question requiring a scriptural based answer. !Important – Please note that I have not authored any of the books of the Bible. I am simply attempting to interpret biblical content to discover an accurate answer to that question posed by me; “Does a Christian wife or husband have scriptural grounds for divorce if his/her partner habitually indulges in pornography (or cyber sex)?”

As was pointed out by Tony, in reply to my initial post, when read in context Matthew 5:28 may be open to different interpretations to that offered by me. Without disagreeing nor agreeing with Tony, he did cause me to consider whether someone who has “committed adultery in their heart” may not have actually committed adultery against their partner but instead just sinned against God. I haven’t reached any solid conclusions of my own yet. I prefer to ponder such things when I’m at home, enjoying some quiet space to myself. Unfortunately that is a rare occurrence. I’m out of the house too much.

Rebel asked me whether a wife was the responsible party if she had deprived her husband of sexual relations and he had found solace viewing pornography. Yes, in my view she would have contributed to him “committing adultery in his heart”. Is she the only responsible party? No. Otherwise women who have been abused by their husbands and have murdered them are innocent. And of course they’re not innocent! Women are responsible for their own actions too.
Ultimately, everybody is responsible for their own actions. However, there is the Bible principal of “blood guilt” where a seemingly innocent person might have influenced another person to do something wrong, or wicked, or sinful. That makes them complicit.

Evilwhitemalempire quoted my initial post and asked, “So then a wife that reads romance novels is cheating?”
That would depend on what is in her heart or what she fantasizes about, and considering this topic relates to Christian women, what God’s view on that matter is. Again, I am Wayne, not Yeshua or Jesus nor YHWH or Yahweh or Jehova.
They only way I can answer that question from a non-scriptural point of view is by asking a question. I often reverse the genders when considering questions such as that posed by Evilwhitemalempire.
If romance novels were written for men, would his wife feel that he is cheating if he appeared to be addicted to such novels?
If a husband discovered a boxful of flat batteries and a crusted-up, worn-out vibrator and cookies on his wife’s computer indicating an addition to porn, would he feel that she is cheating on him?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 4
Testos Tyrone November 18, 2011 at 04:30

From way back, I never really trusted “the church” too much. Somehow I just innately “knew” that much of it was poppycock. I want to take the liberty of posting a link to a video that I made which reveals my true feelings on such. If I am not supposed to do this, please notify me, and I will cease from such activities. If it is o.k., then please, enjoy the video. Although I don’t post much here, (which would probably classify me as a lurker), it is only because of my busy schedule as a work at home medical transcriptionist. I only mention that because in making a pretty good living by working in an estrogen driven industry, I consider myself chalking one up for the fellas! Again, enjoy the vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_lAhD7Gz9i4

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Anonymous November 18, 2011 at 07:51

“Jesus never said that we SHOULD divorce. He only said that in cases of affairs, divorce is permitted.”

Only when the woman committed leud acts etc, not the man. The female has no right to leave ever.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Anon66 November 18, 2011 at 09:59

“Not exactly. Under Jewish law at the time (and even today, actually) only men could initiate divorce. The first Christians took it for granted that this would not change.”

Since the early middle ages or before the Rabbinical Courts would torture the man untill he let the woman divorce.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 0
Svartalf November 19, 2011 at 10:20

@Bryan: I’d only change one thing… Abuse is abuse, regardless of whether it’s mental or physical. Seriously. Try living with a BPD woman sometime for 11+ years married to them. Never struck me once- but she might as well have for all the cruelty she inflicted on me, in addition to everything else…that was clearly room for a divorce. Second wife’s the same way, but she only lasted 6 months and is trying to take me to the cleaners in manners that only someone married as long as the first would honestly be remotely entitled to- and she cheated on me within weeks of the marriage, come to find out.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Mircea November 19, 2011 at 23:55

Shortly, under the guise of a pious Christian girl can hide a bitch…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
James August 3, 2012 at 20:30

The 7th Commandment .‚ÄĚDo not commit adultery.‚ÄĚ Adultery is defined as sexual intercourse between a man and a married woman who is not his wife. A least this is what God says.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Actually, that is a commandment against mixing seed and keeping kind after kind. Remember that the Israelites were STRICTLY forbidden to marry from the outside the tribes.

If you want the relevant commandment, use number 10. Do not covet thy neighbor’s wife. (nor anything else that is his)

A Christian will know that the commandments are basically two-fold:

1. Place YHWH first.
2. Love the rest as you love yourself.

This is the whole of the commandments. This is its spirit.

The so-called Judeo-Christians are Pharisees; selectively interpreting the scripture any way they want and selectively holding selected people to standards they hypocritically do not apply to themselves.

THE BOTTOM LINE SO-CALLED “CHRISTIAN LADIES” are you upholding the letter of The Law or are you a Law Breaker? Show me a law-breaker and I’ll show you a mirror (you can even doll yourself up if you want).

Selectively reading the scripture is something that Yahshua most certainly saw coming and that is why He broke it down into basic, simple terms and still idiots and selfish whores WHO USURP THE AUTHORITY ENTRUSTED TO MEN are so devious that they will INVENT scripture, reinterpret scripture or selective;y overlook scripture that destroys their SELF-CENTERED AND SELF-GLORIFYING interpretation.

Men are logical. Women are emotion driven based on almost complete selfishness even when trying to mask it as “the long suffering wife”.

I have chuckled more than a few times in my old church-going days, as this one “devout” lying woman expands her story of her divorce. I watched as with each new class of VICTIMS she CULTIVATES her story grows ever more horrible.

I am wondering if she dies in future STORIES she tells of her EVIL “X” (whom she has forgiven of course). I mean, he couldn’t be painted in a worse light than the latest VERSION I heard. Murder is all that’s left. She’ll have a hard time explaining how she is standing in the flesh before them, but I am certain those loose-tongued witches will figure something out and it will be based NOT on scripture, BUT HOW THEY FEEL.

You want to be fulfilled? Are you too damned busy in your UNchristian life to stick it out with the man your SWORE before your fake g-d to stay with? You think its nice destroying lives?

Go whine to the strange g-d YOU INVENTED. He’ll forgive you. His only commandment is “Do as thou wilt.”

Judeo-”christian” Women will throw their husband under the bus at the first sign that they actually have to work at their marriage. (Not all, but I have seen way too many)

Long-suffering? To them, long suffering means the husband had better get his act together before the end of the latest episode of whatever the Feminist Bolshevik Lifetime Movie brainf*ck channel is playing comes to an end.

Long-suffering means milking it for all the ANTI-Christian sympathy you can get and when it no longer “fulfills” you and enough of your fellow Whores of some strange g-d has told you its AOK to destroy your husband (cause you know, the wife never does anything wrong) then you can and you even have your fake-g-d’s blessing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
James August 3, 2012 at 20:49

So, when are xtians gonna get around to organizing ‚Äúpromise keepers for wives‚ÄĚ and start herding `em into coliseums for lots of badly needed remedial instruction? Just a thought from one of your friendly local neighborhood heathens.
____________________________________________

Common Monster,

Excellent question. I’m not holding my breath for the answer. Even the Judeo-”Xtian” men are in on the man-hating act. What a despicable poison that cult is.

Those so-called males are pussy whipped and don’t even have the balls to tell those loud-mouthed women to STFU as per scripture. There is a reason why YAH COMMANDED the woman to be subservient to the man AND KEEP QUIET IN THE ASSEMBLY. Just look as the chaos these feminist dregs, wearing a christian disguises, have caused – both male and female.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Arbiter June 8, 2013 at 19:14

I’m beginning to see why Jesus didn’t marry.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: