It’s “Baroque” To Be Feminine

Let’s take a look at this.  Turn up the speakers and sit back.

Other than the fact they can really sing, what do we notice about that video? To begin with, the women are all modestly dressed in a feminine manner. They haven’t hacked their hair off. While maybe a couple of them could lose a few pounds, they are all nicely height-weight proportionate, far more so than the majority of middle-aged women. Their makeup is so tastefully applied they appear not to be wearing any and there is not a tattoo in sight.  The only way these ladies could go further would be longer hair and head coverings.

Wait.  Did he say head coverings?  Indeed I did.  While I was only referring to using scarves, there is something about a woman who covers her head in submission to men that is quite attractive.  Some even consider it erotic.

But let’s not get sidetracked.  They smile. A lot.  They display smiling affection to the men.  Their body language is gentle and feminine.  Add it all up and we have a very attractive collection of middle-aged women who give every appearance of being ladies. Why? Because they’re modestly feminine in their demeanor and dress. Dare I even say it?

They come across as sweet and submissive Christian ladies.   Yes, I know, they’re playing a role.

Let’s compare them to another group in which the women are 20 years younger.  These kids go to Bowdoin College, which is consistently ranked as one of the top 10 liberal arts colleges in the United States.

Younger, and… what? They don’t appear to have hacked their hair off but that’s about all I can say. They aren’t feminine.  At least they can sing, though.

Maybe I’m being unfair, because the first video was a professional production piece and the singers are professionals.  Serious professionals.  The costumes they wore were intentionally chosen to communicate a message.  Their countenances and demeanor during the performance are also meant to communicate a message.  The second video is an amateur production of college students who dress the way feminism has taught them, not realizing their choice of costume also communicates a message. Instead of smiles, we see the occasional smirk; and even though I think they were trying to be serious because it’s a spiritual song, their demeanor also communicates a message.

The difference is day and night.

But, they’re still young.   They could learn but they probably won’t and one reason is it’s rare to see one attractive woman dressed in such a modestly conservative fashion, much less a group of them.  The girls just don’t have good examples any more.   It isn’t in the clothes, it’s the attitude the clothes and demeanor represent.  A state of mind, if you will, and it signals a clear message to men:  We are worth marrying.

You know it’s coming… The smiles, the affection for each other, can you imagine coming home to these three?  Can you imagine listening to them sing your children to sleep?


But, wait!  These girls are younger, hotter and tighter!  Pick one!  They’ll have a fabulous degree from a top-ranked liberal arts college!  And that red-head in the second row might clean up well…


Just know this:  you’ll remember that sweet voice in your nightmares after she’s cranked out a couple of kids and then divorce-rapes the shit out of you a few years after that.  Because that feminist education and indoctrination will never go away.

Now I’m accused of cherry-picking to make my point.  I wish I were.  Yes, the women in the original video are all beautiful and way above average in their youth, but they are all in middle age now.  Here’s a collection of young women from the same college at the height of their youth and fertility, the all female A cappella group Miscellania:

That blonde on the left, the one with the dress that comes all the way down to the top of her knees, she’s on the right track but if that dress were a foot longer it would really emphasize how slim she is.  The blond in the middle has a nice smile but that dress makes her look fat or worse yet, pregnant.  Granted, these girls look somewhat feminine, but it’s the next photo that gives it away.

The blonde in the middle with the nice smile?  She can’t believe what the idiot to her left is doing.  And the one in the light blue dress on the right of the photo?  She rotated her pelvis so you could see the strap-on.  Talk about sending a message.  Even our semi-conservatively dressed blonde on the left of the photo is sending you a message, telling you what’s going to happen in a few years after you put a ring on it.

Take a good look guys, pick your favorite and ask yourself this question:  Is that the woman I want to send my child support and alimony checks to?



Posted in Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way | 7 Comments

Biblical Dread Game and Why Christians Hate The Idea

Biblical dread game is founded on the husband’s authority and right to take another wife or a concubine. There’s nothing immoral about it (God had 2 wives, are you going to claim He did something wrong? See Jeremiah 31:31-32), nothing in the NT forbid it, and it’s still an allowable marriage option for men today. Note- I’m not making a defense of polygyny here, just stating that as fact.

Because modern Christianity teaches monogamy is the only permissible form of marriage and refuses to acknowledge men have the authority and *right* to more than one wife, the definitions of words like lust, fornication and adultery have become feminized and equalized, resulting in a huge negative impact on church doctrine. Probably the worst impact is in the modern doctrines concerning marriage, divorce and remarriage.

As a rule, as soon as the subject of dread game comes up the whole  “sex before or outside of marriage is forbidden” objection comes up when talking about husbands flirting (or going further) with women they aren’t married to.   The problem is such a prohibition cannot be found without making a reference to fornication or adultery and you might be surprised at what those words mean and don’t mean. Modern churchians don’t have a good definition of either of those terms because they ignore what the Law says (and more importantly, doesn’t say) as well as the critical point that a man is allowed to have more than one wife.  I discussed this a bit in “Pot… Kettle… Black” but I’ll get a bit more in depth in this post to demonstrate the extent of ignorance Christians have about the Bible.

In general marriage consists of 4 elements: the permission of the woman’s father, the agreement (commitment to marry) of the man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife; with the consummation of the marriage being the sine qua non of the marriage. In Genesis 2:24 the authority to initiate marriage was given to the man, there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, look at Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, which are “The Law” concerning pre-marital sexual relations between a man and woman eligible to marry each other.

In those passages we see no prohibition or condemnation on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, but there is a judgment: With the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay her father what he is owed (the bride price) and live with the woman as husband and wife. The judgment isn’t about punishment but rather the requirement of the man to meet his responsibilities; with the additional restriction that because he has “humbled” his wife he can never divorce her. Because the father is in authority over his daughter, he has the right to refuse to allow the marriage (that would REALLY be punishment for the woman, who would be publicly known as damaged goods) but he still gets to collect the bride price from the man. There is no distinction between a married man and a single man because it doesn’t matter- married or single they can still marry her. However, with no prohibition or condemnation, the sexual activity cannot be called a violation of the Law (sin) and thus cannot be called “sexual immorality” which is a sin

Since I’m already throwing sacred cows on the BBQ I may as well deal with a married man using a prostitute, which reinforces the point I’m making. There is no prohibition or condemnation of a man using (having sex with) a prostitute in the Law and it isn’t a sin for a non-Christian. A close study of Samson’s story confirms this. Samson was a Nazerite and the Spirit of the Lord was with him. The Law of the Nazerite is found at Numbers 6:1-8 and if you read that passage you’ll notice that part of the Nazerite vow was to remain holy and not become unclean. Yet, we see Samson going into a prostitute (Judges 16:1) but he remained holy and the Spirit of the Lord remained with him until he violated the Nazerite vow by having his hair cut. Having sex with a prostitute was not a sin and cannot be considered sexual immorality- and the Spirit of the Lord stayed with him because sex with a prostitute didn’t violate the Nazerite vow.

I said sex with a prostitute wasn’t a sin for non-Christians, and this is why: 1st Corinthians 6 contains a prohibition on Christians having sex with prostitutes, not because it’s sexual immorality (Paul did not violate Deut. 4:2 and claim it was) but because Christians are specifically forbidden to join the members of Christ to a whore by becoming one flesh with them. Following that Paul said to flee from immorality, but he did not use the word “porneia” but rather the word “hamartéma” which is defined as “a fault, a sin, an evil deed.” Paul made it clear he was talking about sexual sin and said the immoral man (one who violates God’s Law) sins against his own body. However, the instruction is specific to Christians because the non-Christian cannot join the members of Christ with a whore because he is not one with Christ.

Some claim 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 specifically forbids sex outside marriage, but there are three problems with that. First, that isn’t what the text actually says. Second, if that is what Paul really meant then Paul is guilty of a violation of Deuteronomy 4:2, adding to the Law. The third problem is that exegesis hinges on the definition of porneia, which would only work if porneia could be defined as any sex outside of marriage.

“Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch (Greek word “haptomai” meaning to have carnal knowledge of) a woman. But because of immoralities (Greek word “porneia”), each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

It is far more reasonable to read the text for what it actually says, and if we try to get a deeper meaning from it as Paul saying that because of the temptation of porneia around us, each man is to have his own wife (rather than the wife of another man) and each woman to have her own husband (and not any other man). Keep in mind that Paul was a Pharisee who was well trained in the Law and he knew what sexual immorality was… and wasn’t. He was also well aware of the prohibition on adding to the Law.

The Greek word “porneia” is translated into English as either “fornication” or “sexual immorality” and is clearly a sin but what we think of as fornication isn’t specifically defined anywhere in Scripture. The word can describe both physical sexual sin and thus encompasses adultery, bestiality and incest; as well as idolatry, which is giving that which properly belongs to God alone (worship, praise, authority) to anyone or anything else. We know from Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 that where there is no Law there is no transgression and no sin imputed. In other words, if God didn’t forbid something in His Law, it isn’t a SIN (forbidden for all time for all people) and yes, I realize just how uncomfortable that is for most Christians, which is probably why pastors don’t teach about it. Since there is no prohibition or condemnation of the extra-marital sex mentioned in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, such sexual activity cannot be porneia (fornication), which is a sin. There are consequences to such behavior (don’t have sex with a woman you are unwilling to marry) but it isn’t a sin and to claim it is a sin when God didn’t do so is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2 (you shall not add to the Law or subtract from it).

(NB: This gets a bit complicated for Christians because that which is not of faith is sin and if one knows the right thing to do and doesn’t do it, that is sin to him (Romans 14:23 and James 4:17). There are also restrictions placed on Christians that go beyond what the Law required, such as the prohibition on using a prostitute in 1st Cor. 6 and the prohibition on divorce between married believers in 1st Cor. 7, but there is no specific restriction on pre-marital sex in the NT even though Christians really wish there was.)

To get to the definition of fornication we should also look at Hebrews 13:4, which says the marriage bed is to remain undefiled (Greek word “amiantos” meaning “undefiled, untainted, free from contamination”) and describes two sins that defile the marriage bed: adultery and fornication. As seen above, a man can have sex with a woman that’s not his wife and not be in sin, but if a married woman has sex with anyone not her husband it’s adultery. Adultery requires a married woman and a man can only commit adultery if he has sex with another man’s wife. The definition of the Hebrew word we translate as “adultery” applies equally to both illicit physical unions and illicit spiritual worship. In the physical sense the word carries with it the connotation of illicit sexual activity that can produce an illegitimate child, which means a penis in a vagina.

However, the word in Hebrews 13:4 that is translated as “fornicators” (“pornos,” not “porneia”) refers to a man who indulges in unlawful sexual immorality. What is unlawful sexual immorality? For that we have to go back to the Law and we’ve already seen that a man isn’t in sin because he had sex with a woman he wasn’t married to as long as she wasn’t married or betrothed to someone else. The word translated as “adulterers” is defined as the man who commits adultery. Thus, both the husband and wife are able to defile the marriage bed, the wife by introducing the adulterer and the husband by engaging in unlawful sexual intercourse (adultery, homosexuality, incest, bestiality, etc.), but this passage clearly points to the wife who dallies with another man and either commits adultery or engages in some other illicit (unlawful) behavior with a man she’s not married to.

What illicit activity doesn’t reach the bar of being adultery? The word “pornea” includes any illicit (unlawful) sexual activity from incest to bestiality, and within marriage encompasses anything the wife might do that gives to some other man that which rightfully belongs to her husband, such as the “emotional affair” or any other activity (think Monica Lewinsky) that isn’t sexual intercourse and couldn’t produce a child. When Christ interpreted Deuteronomy 24:1-3 in Matthew 19, He specifically used the term “porneia” and said that was the only reason for which a man could legitimately divorce his wife. It can even be argued that idolatry was grounds for divorce under what Jesus taught. After all, that’s why God divorced Israel.

Examining the words we translate as adultery and fornication using the teachings of the Law and the NT, we must conclude (leaving aside homosexuality, incest, bestiality and other perversions) that within marriage, what we like to think of as adultery and fornication are specific sins that require the presence of a married woman; with the term fornication being a broader descriptor that includes infidelities on the part of a wife that would not rise to the level of adultery.

This goes further than most Christians would imagine. Given the teaching in Matthew 5:27-32, a married woman who deliberately dresses provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire (lust) of men could be described as a fornicator. However, a woman eligible to marry who dressed provocatively or immodestly in order to garner the sexual desire of men could not be described as a fornicator because she isn’t married (or betrothed) and any desire she stimulates on the part of the men is not lust because the man’s sexual desire for her can be legitimately satisfied by marrying her.

The objections of the modern Christians to dread game are not supported by the Bible because if a husband is not in sin for having sex with a woman that isn’t his wife (as long as she’s not married or betrothed) then he certainly isn’t in sin if he’s flirting with her. The teaching of the modern church concerning monogamy robs the husband of an extremely effective tool, the legitimate threat of taking another wife if the one he has refuses to honor, obey and please him.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 51 Comments


As you’ve probably already noticed, I’m in the process of cluttering up my blog. I’ll be going back to edit some older posts, perhaps combining a few and in general trying to straighten things out.

One of the things you’ll see is a comprehensive discussion of marriage and polygyny from the legal, cultural and Scriptural perspectives, as well as a more thorough treatment on divorce that will focus on being solution based.

I’m also thinking of starting a section on resistance, but I don’t want it to get out of hand. One of the things that’s really bothered me is the apathy of blogs like Dalrocks, in which the men seemingly don’t want to discuss solutions. In fact, Dalrock won’t allow me to post on what he calls my “pet theories” and thus won’t allow a discussion of solutions.

More changes are coming, but I’ll try to keep any photos safe for work. The new header, for example, is the photo I sent my daughter when she asked what I though of her getting a tattoo. I told her that if she must, that one was the only one I found remotely appropriate. Her response? “Eewwwww, Dad, that’s grosss!” But, I notice the subject of tattoos has not come up since then.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way | 10 Comments

Pot… Kettle… Black

I love the way Christians get bent out of shape over basic things because they don’t know the definitions of words the Bible uses.  This is combined with their unconscious internalization of cultural norms which effects the way they perceive what the Bible says.  Usually in error.  So, let’s take a look at words.  Keep in mind, when it comes to Christianity the Law forms the skeleton and grace fleshes it out.

Lust.  There isn’t anything really on point as to what lust is, but we can logically deduce what lust isn’t by looking at God’s various prohibitions.  Lust is contextually defined as a sin and is closely related to coveting, but a good basic definition of lust is it’s a desire that cannot be legitimately fulfilled.  The problem with this word is it falls afoul of the Biblical double standard between men and women.  The cultural norms say we’re “equal” but this just isn’t so in the way that most Americans want to define equality.  Yes, we’re equal in value but not in status because of the authority structure that God ordained for everyone.

Can a man or woman lust after their spouse?  No.  The question is ridiculous, because a desire for one’s spouse is natural, normal and healthy.  Then come the ankle-biters who want to reframe the issue saying “but what about an unhealthy fixation or infatuation with the spouse?  Isn’t it a problem when a person is so focused on their desire for their spouse that they ignore God?”   See how they do that?  Gosh, if I said it was natural, normal and healthy to have an appetite they’d start talking about overeating and gluttony.

The reason I bring up the word lust is it’s one of those difficult words that’s often twisted to become a club used to beat men with.  The passage in Matthew 5:27-32 where Jesus said if a man looks on a woman with lust in his heart he’s already committed adultery in his heart is a beautiful case in point that demonstrates how an improper understanding of Scripture results in bad doctrine.  First, the only way to look at a woman with lust in the heart is if she cannot legitimately be obtained and the only way that happens is if she’s married.  It doesn’t matter if the man is married or not because a man can legitimately have more than one wife, but the only woman a man can legitimately marry without committing adultery is one who is eligible to marry.

A young man who looks on an unmarried woman with desire in his heart is not lusting after her because his desire for her can legitimately be fulfilled.  That desire is the driving force behind the desire to marry and only an idiot would truly think men decide to marry women they aren’t attracted to.  It may happen from time to time for various reasons, but in general it simply doesn’t happen.  Why?  Because that’s the way God made men.

Understanding how much trouble the word lust can cause, let’s try the word “Adultery.”  According to the Liddell Scott lexicon, the word “adultery” is best translated as “to mongrelize”  and there’s both a physical and spiritual component to the word.  Idolatry is spiritual adultery and adultery is physical idolatry.  The problem with adultery in the physical sense is it’s a sex-specific crime (sin) which requires a married woman.  No married woman, no adultery.  Women don’t like this because they want adultery to apply to men who have sex with a woman they aren’t married to, but it doesn’t work that way according to Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  If a man (with no distinction between married or unmarried) seduces a virgin he is to pay the father the bride price and marry her.  Because he has “humbled” her he cannot divorce her all the days of his life.  If the father refuses to allow the marriage the man is to pay a price equal to the bride price.  That’s it.  No prohibition, no condemnation.

In general we see marriage consists of 4 elements:  the permission of the woman’s father, the agreement (commitment to marry) of the man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife.  However, we also see many examples of valid marriages that did not contain all these elements, with the root essentials being the commitment to marry on the man’s part, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation as husband and wife.  However, the consummation is the sine qua non of the marriage.

In Genesis 2:24 there is no prescribed ceremony required to initiate marriage and the authority rests solely with the man. With that in mind, let’s look at the situation with the seduction of a virgin not betrothed in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29.  (Under the Law a betrothed virgin was considered to be legally married, not a single woman)

We see no prohibition on a man seducing a not-betrothed virgin, nor a condemnation.  Back to the elements of marriage, with the consummation of the marriage already accomplished, the man is required to pay the father what he is owed (the bride price) and publicly live with the woman as husband and wife.  It isn’t punishment we are looking at but the requirement to meet his responsibilities with the additional restriction that because he didn’t follow proper procedure and get the father’s permission first, he cannot divorce her all the days of his life (he has “humbled” her).

There is no distinction between whether the man was married or unmarried, because a man can legitimately have more than one wife.  This is difficult for women because women are treated differently in this situation.  If a virgin living in her fathers house (not betrothed) has sex with a man and later gets married as if she was a virgin, it’s a death-penalty offense if she’s caught but there’s no corresponding penalty for the guy she gave her virginity to because he didn’t commit adultery.  She’s defrauding her husband (having cuckolded him before she married him) and having fraudulently married him she’s now guilty of adultery, which is a death-penalty offense.

The point is the Law makes a clear distinction between sex outside of marriage with an unmarried (and not betrothed) woman and sex with another man’s wife or fianceé.  There is no specific prohibition or condemnation of the first, but the second is a death penalty offense.  Again, the crime of adultery requires the participation of a married (or betrothed) woman.

With that in mind, let’s look at the word “fornication” and I can already hear the screams of outrage.   What is the definition of fornication? The problem is there is no passage in Scripture that defines what fornication is, specifically, so we have to work with context and identify what fornication isn’t to help us understand what it is.

Since fornication is obviously a sin, the previously mentioned example of a man having sex with an unmarried woman outside the bounds of marriage cannot apply because that activity has no prohibition or condemnation.  Please note, I didn’t say that the pre-marital sex was not a sin, I pointed out that it wasn’t fornication.  However, we must juxtapose the word fornication with adultery because the two are related.  Given that the word adultery is literally translated as “mongrelize” it carries with it the idea of penis-in-vagina sexual intercourse that could result in a bastard child being born.  But what about other actions that don’t reach the point of sexual intercourse, such as a blowjob, heavy kissing petting and that sort of thing?  Could it be that fornication is sexual (and possibly even emotional) infidelity on the part of a married woman that doesn’t reach the level of fornication?

Fornication and Adultery are related because in Hebrews 13:4 we see the command “Marriage is to be held in honor among all, and the marriage bed is to be undefiled; for fornicators and adulterers God will judge.”  Fornication and adultery are in the same class of sexual sin that defiles the marital bed.  We see in Matthew 19:9 and Matthew 5:31-32 that Jesus interpreted the Law concerning divorce as only being permitted for the sexual immorality of the wife.  The term He used in both those passages was “porneia” which is quite often translated as “fornication” or “sexual immorality.”  Notice that in both cases the word was specifically applied to the married women.  Adultery is a married woman having sex with a man she is not married to and both the man and married woman are guilty of the crime.   Given the contextual placement, fornication appears to be a more inclusive term which would encompass even the non-physical aspects of a married woman giving her affections to a man she’s not married to (the “emotional affair”).  It also includes any sexual contact that doesn’t cross the bar to be classified as adultery.  Let’s see how that works with Matthew 5:27-32:

“You have heard that it was said, ‘YOU SHALL NOT COMMIT ADULTERY’; but I say to you that everyone who looks at a woman with lust for her has already committed adultery with her in his heart.  If your right eye makes you stumble, tear it out and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to be thrown into hell.  If your right hand makes you stumble, cut it off and throw it from you; for it is better for you to lose one of the parts of your body, than for your whole body to go into hellIt was said, ‘WHOEVER SENDS HIS WIFE AWAY, LET HIM GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE’; but I say to you that everyone who divorces his wife, except for the reason of unchastity, makes her commit adultery; and whoever marries a divorced woman commits adultery.”

The only way a man can look on a woman with lust is if she’s already married or betrothed to be married, because again, the crime of adultery requires a married woman and the man who looks at the woman with lust has already committed adultery in his heart.  A man cannot commit adultery with an unmarried woman.  The eye that causes the man to sin is the eye that looks on the married woman with lust, the hand that causes the man to sin is the hand that touches her.  The married woman who dresses immodestly out of a desire to stimulate the sexual interest of men is fornicating, it’s sexual immorality.  The married woman who allows herself to be touched in a sexual manner by other men is fornicating and it is only for this reason, the sexual immorality or fornication, that Jesus said divorce was allowed.

I suggest the word “fornication” doesn’t mean what most people assume it means and as numerous posts on this blog have pointed out, there is a double standard in the Bible when it comes to men and women’s standards of behavior. Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are very clear:  where there is no law there is no transgression and no sin is imputed.  No Law = No Sin.  It gets a bit more complicated when you take Romans 14 (that which is not of faith is sin) and James 4:17 (not doing the thing you know to be right is sin) into account, but this is dependent on the individual.

(Pre-marital sex may not be listed as a sin in the Law, but given the instruction of Romans 14 and James 4 I think it’s something a Christian would have a difficult time justifying in their heart as being of faith and the right thing to do.  However, the classification in the Law impacts how we define words like fornication.)

So, with no Law prohibiting or condemning the extra-marital sex of the man and woman in Exodus 22:16-17 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, we cannot call it a sin unless marriage is to be referred to as a punishment.  This cannot be because God created marriage and called it good, therefore it is not fornication.  It does not matter if the man is married (he’s authorized to take another wife) or single.  In fact, the married man in such a situation cannot be committing adultery because the woman (not his wife) he was having sex with was single and not betrothed.  To claim this behavior is contrary to the Law (sinful) is to violate Deuteronomy 4:2, the crime of adding to the Law.

Notice also that the Law was silent on a man having sex with a prostitute, and silent on a woman working as a prostitute.  I’m not arguing that it’s right and good, but God didn’t declare it to be a sin.  Why did Paul take pains to instruct the believers in 1st Corinthians 6 not to have sex with prostitutes if it was considered fornication (it wasn’t) and a sin (it wasn’t).  Consider also that Paul said of joining the members of Christ with a whore “may it never be!”  Even though the Law was silent on this, it is immorality for a Christian to do so.  Just as Christians are forbidden to divorce their Christian wife, this is a restriction that applies to the Bondservants of Christ- not a change to the Law.

Again, I’m not claiming that Christians get a free pass on extra-marital sex because the Law doesn’t condemn it.  However, it is impossible to understand what adultery and fornication are without examining the issue of sex outside the marriage and having pointed out that the Law contains no prohibitions or condemnation of pre-marital sex between persons eligible to marry, I have to also point out that Romans 14 says we are not to judge in such matters.

In the case of the married man who keeps a mistress on the side, is she a mistress or his concubine?  I’d say concubine and I can’t see that it’s a sin according to what the Bible says.  What I cannot approve of is the modern cultural response that in such cases the husband and wife should get divorced so he can marry his mistress.  In such a case neither the wife nor the husband have legitimate grounds for divorce and I must say that I believe destroying a family with an illegitimate divorce is a sin no matter who does it.  Anyone who wishes may feel free to argue the point, but make it an argument from Scripture rather than from emotion.

Since I already know I’ll have rocks thrown at me I may as well seal the deal:

Everything I’ve discussed in the last few posts has highlighted the double-standard between men and woman in the Bible, which is God’s ordained structure of authority.  There are numerous restrictions on the behavior of women that are not placed on men, but before getting upset about that one must understand that God made both men and women and He understands exactly what women are really like.  It is obvious to me that God placed the restrictions on women’s behavior that He did because women needed to be restrained.

I’ve been going over the definitions of key words in this post and it should emphasize the truth of the goal of the feminine imperative: to maximally restrict men’s sexual options while giving maximum freedom to women.  Folks, this started in the church.  Look at how marriage was redefined from the patriarchal multiple wives allowed model to the feminist requirement of monogamy.  Look at how the words lust, adultery and fornication have been expanded and changed to apply to men in ways they were never meant to.  Look at how women, who were never given the authority to divorce their husbands (except for 1st Cor. 7:15 and in the case of polygynous marriages Exodus 21:10), have created such a “right” out of thin air and use it frequently.

At the end of the day men have a great deal of freedom in how they may act, but with that freedom comes responsibility.



Posted in Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , , , , , | 16 Comments

Solutions To The Dilemma

Several have commented on the previous post (both in the comments and privately by email) that I’m unduly harsh and don’t leave a way of escape.  That isn’t true, but that doesn’t mean that it’s easy.  In this post I’ll discuss solutions to the problem of rampant, institutionalized adultery within the church.

Keep in mind that the source of much of the problem here is the idolatry of Christians refusing to acknowledge that marriage belongs to God.  By ceding the authority over marriage to the State and refusing to teach sound doctrine the church has brought this upon itself.

Let’s say a guy’s wife separates from him, runs to the state and some judge issues a “Dissolution of Marriage” document under the no-fault divorce laws. Her offended husband doesn’t want to be sentenced to sexual starvation and looks for another wife. What’s really going on?

#1, The so-called divorce is illegitimate and she’s still married to her husband although (contrary to the command in 1st Cor. 7:10-11) separated from him.

#2, If she finds another guy to purportedly marry (in further violation of the command of 1st Cor. 7:10-11) they won’t actually be getting married- a married woman cannot marry another man because she already has a husband. If she does so she isn’t really married to him, they’re simply shacked up in adultery.

#3, Given that two married believers are forbidden to divorce, any such “divorces” are illegitimate and God won’t accept them (c.f. Matthew 5:32-33), so when the husband starts looking within the church for another wife, he has to exclude just about every so-called “Christian” divorcee from consideration.

#4, Any divorce initiated by a wife before she came to the Lord is automatically illegitimate because women don’t have the authority to divorce their husbands (except for the *Christian* woman who’s unbelieving husband left her, 1st Cor 7:15). This further reduces the number of women eligible to re-marry.

#5, Any divorce initiated by an unbelieving husband for reasons other than the unfaithfulness of his wife is illegitimate and God will not accept it. Likewise, any divorce initiated by a Christian man (except for the aforementioned exception in 1st Cor. 7:15) is also illegitimate regardless of whether his wife was unfaithful or not.

#6, Points 3-5 indicate the number of legitimately divorced “Christian” women who are actually eligible to remarry is remarkably small. So small, in fact, as to be non-existent. It also means that the prohibition of the wife returning to her first husband in Deuteronomy 24:4 does not apply, because that prohibition only applies if the divorce was legitimate.

#7, This leaves the offended husband with a choice between widows (not many, although it doesn’t matter if they have children or not), never-married women without children (usually damaged with unrealistic feminist expectations) and so-called “single-mothers.” It also leaves all those illegitimately divorced wives with the option of returning to their husband (the guy they’re still married to) and according to 1st Peter 3:7 he doesn’t have the option (as a Christian) of refusing reconciliation.

#8, Even in the cases in which the offended husband can find an eligible woman to take as a second wife, he defrauds her by claiming to be divorced (the implication is that the divorce is legitimate) and not explaining that his first wife is separated from him and IF she wants to come home she will be welcomed and he expects her (the 2nd wife) to stand there with him with a smile on her face to welcome the first wife home because at that point he’d have 2 wives.

#9, This leaves the offended husband in a rather bad position because there are very few women he’d want to marry who are eligible to re-marry and culturally these women reject the idea of anything other than monogamy.

#10, As we go down the list I’ve just enumerated, at some point both Christian men and women reject it out of hand. I didn’t make this stuff up, I’m just the guy that’s pointing out what God the Father and the Lord Jesus Christ require of men and women, but there’s a whole lot of of so-called Christians who can’t accept what the Bible actually says. Their usual line of defense is “I don’t agree with that interpretation” but such arguments are childishly easy to destroy if one actually knows what the Bible says.

What does all that mean? There’s a whole lot of adultery going on out there.  If the believing wife who separated herself from her husband violates her instruction and shacks up with another man she’s committing adultery and as a Christian she has an obligation to her Lord to stop sinning. If the man she purported to marry as a “second husband” is a Christian he is under the same obligation to stop sinning by removing himself from the adulterous situation.

The refusal to do so by either or both parties automatically calls into question whether they’re even Christians and 1st John 2:3-6 applies but does not alleviate the sin, because adultery is a sin whether one is a Christian or not.

This brings us back to my point of my last post, that the Christian men are hypocrites for calling the women out on their sin but in the hardness of their hearts refuse to do what they were commanded to do; which is forgive, be reconciled to and restore their wife if she, in humble repentance, returns to him and desires reconciliation.

Solutions: I gave some hints, but I’ll spell it out. This is the solution for the wife who separated herself, has repented and wants a husband again without being in sin.

If the Christian wife who wrongly separated herself from her Christian husband realizes her sin and repents of her sin, she is to go to her husband asking to be reconciled to him. 1st Peter 3:7 is a command, stating “husbands, LIVE WITH YOUR WIVES” and as a Christian he doesn’t have a choice.

(Comment: What if she doesn’t want to return to her first husband? Well, recognize that God puts people in our lives to accomplish His goals and help conform us to the image of Christ. The irritations act to polish out the imperfections in the individual and if the wife is truly desirous of being in obedience to her Lord, she will obey Him even if she doesn’t have a desire to do so. In all likelihood the husband doesn’t want the wife back (probably having been traumatized and deeply offended) so one of two things will happen: Either he does want her back and the Lord wants that union restored, or he refuses, which means Christ is ready for someone else to take over the job of polishing up the wife and presenting her as “spotless and without blemish of any kind.” The wife is under no obligation to explain all this, she is simply to present herself in humble repentance.)

If the offended husband refuses to accept and be reconciled to her she is to give him time to think about it, then return with witnesses and confront him again. If he still refuses to repent of what is now his sin, she is to take it before the elders of the church. Under the authority of 1st Corinthians 5 and under the standard of 1st John 2:3-6, the church should give him the opportunity to make his case (he won’t, but I’m describing an ecclesiastical court) and if he refuses to repent should excommunicate him.

With such a judgment made, regardless of her sin (which she has repented of) he is now the unbeliever who left her, 1st Cor. 7:15 applies and she’s free to legitimately remarry. She should reflect on all the things she did wrong in her first marriage and try to solve those problems (entitlement attitude, rebellion against his authority, refusal to honor him and be submissive in everything, major weight gain, etc.) BEFORE thinking about being courted by and agreeing to marry another man.

Given the serious shortage of attractive high-value men within the church willing to marry a divorced woman (especially a divorced woman with children), the woman would be better off if she partnered together with one or two other Christian women who were eligible to marry with an agreement to offer themselves as a “package deal” in a polygynous marriage. Sounds crazy? Perhaps, but look at what’s available in terms of high-value men and what they’d want in order to agree to marry. I wrote an entire series of novels that started off with a group of three women doing just that. The research I did in writing those books really opened my eyes.

In such a situation the women (who had better all be Christians with a serious desire to be obedient to the Word in terms of submitting to their husband in *everything*) would be offering a package deal that provides the following to the man of their choice (if he’s willing to take the offer):

  • Marriage by covenant only with no license and no chance of divorce, no splitting of assets and no loss of custody of children.
  • Virtually unlimited sex, on demand, with variety and the option of all at once if he wants it. Why do I make that point? Because sooner or later the guy will want it. Men are like that.
  • Obedient wives who will hold each other accountable in their performance as wives.
  • One wife working at home, the rest working outside the home (could be rotated among the wives) means a higher household income than any monogamous marriage could provide. In addition it means a well-run home and children who would be well supervised and cared for. Homeschooling is an option with a SAHM so no need to turn the kids over to the state to be corrupted.
  • Socially, the guy with multiple wives is super high-status. This is countered by the fact that finding a church home with a leadership team willing to accept such a marriage would be difficult at best.

This is not to say that restrictions could not be placed on the offer.  If all the women are in agreement there are things that would truly offend their conscience and they believe such things should not be done, such things can be placed as restrictions the man must agree to in order to marry them.  One restriction might be “No X-rated photos or videos and don’t ever do it in secret for any reason.”  For health reasons they may decide on a restriction of “No anal intercourse.”  It’s all negotiable and he can either agree or not as he chooses, but we’re talking about things God placed no prohibition on, so this should be very carefully considered before making a list of all the things the wives would refuse to do.

Some women can handle that but most can’t and the question becomes why they can’t. The masculine Christian men willing to truly husband their wives are few and far between. Why a woman would settle for a much lesser man is beyond me, but perhaps that’s because such a man isn’t willing to settle for what now passes for “Christian” women. In other words, if a woman wants it all she has to be willing to give it all. They draw a line, unwilling to totally surrender and thus rob themselves of what they might have had because they don’t trust God.

Solutions for the husbands (although arguably far more difficult)

Prior to looking for another wife, he really should do everything possible to maximize his SMV with a focus on his attractiveness, game and earning potential. Hit the gym, lose the gut, learn game, maximize income, develop a life that a woman wants to be a part of, etc., etc., etc. You’ve heard it all before, just do it.

If the illegitimately divorced husband can find another woman to marry (he is entitled to take more than one wife) and is stupid enough to try monogamy after being burned the first time he MUST explain the situation to her. If she can accept that, great.

(Comment: What if the husband truly never wants to see that BPD/NPD landwhale of a wife again? The one who made his life a living hell for years, destroyed his family, alienated his children and used the police power of the state to extract money from him for years, perhaps even putting him in jail if he was unable to pay at some point? Well, sir, your sin put Christ on a cross, so consider that before getting all huffy about what she did to you.  Christ forgave you, gave you eternal life and accepted you into the body of Christ; so are you justified in refusing to forgive her and be reconciled to her?  Reconciliation is not a requirement to put up with her previous antics. Reasonable conditions could be put in place that she would have to comply with prior to a full reconciliation.

This could include a requirement to make public confession of her sin before the church, describing her offenses, why she was wrong and a request to be held accountable now that she is in repentance of her sin. After that, a requirement to lose the weight, submit to him in everything and help to repair the damage done to the children would go a long way to demonstrate she truly is repentant. Upon meeting such requirements a true reconciliation could be accomplished. But, and this is important,  they are already (and still) married as far as God is concerned and should not again engage in the idolatry of getting officially “remarried” in the eyes of the state. As far as the state is concerned, they would be co-cohabiting and she should work with him to get the state out of their marriage and cancel any child-support or alimony payments. That may require moving to another state.

Ideally he should seek out several women to marry in a polygynous marriage (far better than a monogamous marriage in this legal environment) because if he can swing that, explaining point #2 is nothing more than the same sauce applied to the first wife. I’ll repeat the point that in marrying wife #2 the husband will have two wives- not a wife and an ex. If you don’t like it, take it up with God. This is a win-win situation for the husband whether he wants wife #1 back or not. If he does want her back and she’s willing, great. If she’s not, he’s still getting his needs met and he can continue to pray for her. If he doesn’t want her back, well, keep reading.

He should explain to wife #2 (and #3, #4, whatever) that after they’re married they will visit the separated wife and invite her to be reconciled to her husband (clearly explain the door is always open to her if she wants to return) BUT now that there’s more than one wife, things will definitely be different. For one thing, disobedience, disrespect, dishonor and fighting between the wives will not be tolerated and they will be disciplined, if necessary, for engaging in such behavior. Further, group sexy-time with all wives present will be mandatory at some frequency or another. A PDA on the part of wife #2 toward wife #1 after that’s explained will probably totally creep her out. In the case of multiple wives, a few PDA’s between wives (while smiling at wife #1) is probably all it would take. The door is open but the emotional price is high, so the only question is whether she’d be willing to throw her pride on the altar and submit. Most likely the answer is not only no, but HELL NO!

If she’s “married” to another man she’s pretty much guaranteed to reject this completely, but regardless, in explaining she has a right of return the husband will have met his obligations and not have defrauded his other wife/wives.  Remember, Deuteronomy 24:4 does not apply in this situation because she was not legitimately divorced.  If she is convicted of her sin and repents (which will probably depend greatly on how dissatisfied she is with her current “marriage”), a sister in Christ has been saved from her sin.  If not, that’s between her and the Lord but the husband will have done his duty.

If points 2-4 are followed, it pretty much guarantees the 1st wife will never come back under any circumstances. If she does, it also pretty much guarantees she’s seriously in repentance and willing to be obedient. However, if she’s not willing to end the adultery, 1st John 2:3-6 applies and the husband has the option of taking it before the elders, the end result being that she is the unbelieving spouse that left him and he is free. The big question of whether she’s actually a Christian will be settled by her willingness to be obedient.

Problems with these solutions:

  • It’s extremely difficult to find a church that actually believes and acts on what the Bible says, which makes the “take it before the elders” solution difficult to say the least.  In reality the church would be in a difficult position because having committed the sin of idolatry by incorporating their church, they might be subject to some liability at some point by rendering such a decision (their charter doesn’t give them the authority to sit in judgment of their members, regardless of what the Bible says).
  • It’s extremely difficult to find Christian men and women who are committed to obedience to the Word, especially when they don’t want to be obedient.
  • The very idea of polygyny (which is the de facto and de jure status of any man married to more than one woman, regardless of what the State says) is anathema to Christians due to feminism (polygyny is as patriarchal as it gets) and the traditional wrong teachings of the church.
  • Taking a stance of obedience to the Word means not just going against the flow, but taking a stand that will anger and embarrass other Christians who are in sin. Rocks will be thrown.
Posted in Crazy Women, Divorce, Healthy Living, Marriage, Polygyny | Tagged , , , , , | 16 Comments

The Difference Between The Hypocrisy of Christian Men and Women

Dalrock’s blog has been at the forefront of exposing women’s refusal to obey the clear commands of Scripture and pointing out that, as a rule, their rebellion is because they don’t like what God had to say. Unfortunately, and I say this as constructive criticism, there is a similar condition for the men in that certain points the Bible contains are not discussed because they are profoundly uncomfortable for the men.

In fact, Christian men refuse to accept the standards of behavior the Bible requires of them for the very same reasons the women rebel against God’s Word. Plenty of Christian men in the manosphere will probably take issue with that, but it’s true. In fact, these same men will reject what I’m saying for the same reasons the women reject what God has to say- it’s just too uncomfortable.

I married a very attractive, conservative Christian woman 10 years my junior who was still attractive and still enjoyed having sex on a daily basis after giving birth to more than 6 children. Judging from the commentary in the Manosphere that makes me an extreme outlier in the marital sex sweepstakes.  Yet, she drank the feminist kool-aid and decided after 17 years of marriage that she was missing something that must involve another man’s penis… so she took me to court and destroyed our family. Yes, what she did was completely immoral but at that time I didn’t know what was happening and I’m convinced that if I’d understood then what I know now I’d probably still be happily married.

According to the Bible, she had no authority to divorce me (no woman has that authority) and God won’t recognize or accept an illegitimate divorce (c.f. Matthew 5:32-33 the woman could only commit adultery if she was still married, but if it had been a legitimate divorce she would no longer be married and thus couldn’t commit adultery).  So, lawfully we’re still married and 1st Corinthians 7:10-11 applies to her. Just as she had no authority to “divorce” me, much less any reason to do so other than her NPD fueled EPL fantasies, she has no authority to “remarry” another man (a married woman cannot lawfully marry another man)… not that any man she’d be attracted to would have her at this point.

To continue the narrative, we get into areas that become progressively more uncomfortable to men, particularly Christians, because what the Bible says doesn’t agree with what the churches have taught for well over 500 years.  The problem here is there are two sides to the ledger:  Authority and Responsibility.  My wife doesn’t get to sentence me to celibacy because men have the authority to take more than one wife and if they choose to do so God provided His rules for such marriages in His Law. God does not regulate sin.  I recently told some friends that I’d never do monogamy again, and it’s true: even if I married another woman in a monogamish type marriage (which I’d never do), I’d still have two wives and if #1 ever wanted to come home I wouldn’t have a choice in the matter (c.f. 1st Peter 3:7: “Husbands *live* with your wives”).  Yes, I’d expect #2 and #3 to be standing at the door with smiles on their faces to greet #1 and welcome her home.

The major point that makes Christian men and women extremely uncomfortable is the headship doctrine.  “Wives, submit to your own husbands as unto the Lord, for the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church.  As the church is in submission to Christ, so also is the wife to submit to her husband in everything.”  That is a massive disconnect for women who can’t stand the idea that they are to be in submission to a man, but it gets worse.

The relationship between Christ and His church is a master-servant relationship, so therefore the relationship between husband and wife is a special form of master and servant relationship.  That alone is enough to cause the white knights to come out of the woodwork, pointing and shrieking.  The point is further made in 1st Peter 3:1 that wives are to submit to their husbands, in silence, even if their husbands are disobedient to the Word. Is adultery disobedience to the Word?  Of course.  And the wives were commanded to do what, if their husbands are disobedient to the Word by committing adultery?  Submit, in silence.  Not only the women but also the men go ballistic over that, but it gets better.  The first part of 1st Peter 3:1 says “Therefore” or “In the same way” which is a direct reference back to 1st Peter, chapter 2, the instruction to masters and servants. Read it and understand that it applies to the wives as well.

Christian wives claim that they want their husbands to love them as Christ loves the Church and this is one area in which the wives have a valid complaint although it’s based on ignorance.  How does Christ present His church as spotless and blameless in the day of accounting? Revelation 3:19 is one specific part of that, He hold’s His church accountable: “Those whom I love I reprove and chasten; be zealous therefore and repent.” A reproof is verbal, chastening is done with a rod. It’s right there in one of those areas of Scripture that’s studiously ignored, because to mention it is to evoke screams of outrage from both men and women.

However, there is yet another side to loving the wife as Christ loves the church that is mocked and ridiculed, as evidenced by the comments in many threads on Dalrock’s blog as well as other Christian manosphere blogs.   The problem is while men can legitimately claim that the women are in rebellion and using the police power of the state to abuse men, the men are also in rebellion because Christian men are completely uncomfortable with just how far their grant of authority goes and the responsibility such authority likewise entails.  It literally scares Christian men to death.

I recently got into one of these discussions and after destroying one argument after another my opponent was finally reduced to saying this:

“I believe what I have been taught, that… [polygyny and all it entails] is sin.

An attack on Artisanal Toad’s position cannot be made by showing a prohibition against it, as no verse does so. The question then becomes, how do I make a Biblical case that it is sin absent such a verse?”

My response was simple: Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 are clear- if God did not prohibit something in His Law, it isn’t Sin. That isn’t to say it isn’t sin for a particular person (“whatever is not from faith is sin” and “to one who knows the right thing to do and does not do it, to him it is sin”), but those are personal issues between the individual and the Holy Spirit and the brother is NOT to be judged over such issues (Romans 14:4). To say that an Apostle in the New Testament “changed” the Law is incorrect because that would have them in violation of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32 “You shall not add to the word I am commanding you, nor take away from it, that you may keep the commandments of the Lord your God which I command you” and “Whatever I command you, you shall be careful to do; you shall not add to nor take away from it.”

Yeah, I know, lots of people have problems with that and I take massive amounts of flack for pointing out that a man can have more than one wife and even more flack when I point out just where that can lead.

My opponents’ answer exemplifies the attitude of both feminist women and feminized men, who are so indoctrinated in the ethos of our modern-day culture that issues like God’s ordained authority structure (the headship doctrine) and the responsibility of the one God has placed in authority to hold those under his authority accountable are not allowed to be discussed for fear of the point and shriek response by feminists and their gamma SJW churchian white knight defenders. They ignore the fact God requires husbands to hold their wives accountable and seek to find some Biblical justification to claim it’s a sin. At the same time, the aggrieved men who have been run through the divorce mill, had their families destroyed, been subjected to betrayal trauma, gas-lighting, passive aggressive behavior and worse are in their own way rejecting what the Bible has to say about how to deal with their wives.

I can understand Dalrock’s reticence and unwillingness to allow discussion of such things (I’m guessing) for fear of being painted as an extremist.  I am well aware (probably more so than most) that the legal climate in which we live presents Christian men with the choice of either obeying God or man because of the laws that criminalize what Christians are ordered to do. Yet, we also have God’s Word:

Jesus said to “Render unto Caesar that which is Caesars’ and render unto God the things that belong to God.” Marriage belongs to God because it was created by God, marriage is a covenant relationship to which God is a party, God provided His rules for marriage and Scripture says God takes an active part in the marriage (God opens and closes the womb, children are a gift from God).  The problem is this gets very uncomfortable very fast.

This Is How It Works

  • Marriage belongs to God, not to the state.  God created marriage (Genesis 2:24), God gave His rules for marriage (Ephesians 5; 1st Cor. 7; 1st Peter 3 and lots of others), God claims to join the husband and wife as one flesh (Matthew 19) and God is a party to the marriage because it is a covenant agreement (Malachi 2).  Therefore, it is idolatry to give to the state that which belongs to God (Matthew 22:21).
  • Husbands are in absolute authority over their wives.  Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands in everything (Ephesians 5:22-24) even if said husband is in sin (1st Peter 3:1).  The husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church and part of that is the responsibility to hold her accountable in her behavior and if necessary to discipline her for her rebellion (Revelation 3:19).
  • No woman has the authority to divorce her husband (Deut. 24:1-3).  In fact, 1st Peter 3:1 specifically states the wife is to submit herself to her husband even if he is in disobedience to the Word, which means adultery on the part of the husband is not grounds for a divorce, even if women had the authority to divorce their husbands.  The only place in Scripture that provides any justification to a wife divorcing her husband is in 1st Corinthians 7:15 in the case of an unbelieving husband leaving the believing wife.  In such a case the wife is free to remarry, but only a Christian man.
  • God will not accept an illegitimate divorce (Matthew 5:32-33; Matthew 19; etc).  As we’ve already seen, no woman has the authority to divorce her husband (except for the cited exception) so any divorce on the part of a woman is illegitimate as far as God is concerned and the woman is still married.
  • A woman who legally divorces her husband and marries another man is not really married to the second guy because she is still married to her original husband: both she and the man she’s now “married” to are committing adultery (Matthew 5:32-33; Matthew 19:9; etc.).
  • For two married believers, divorce is forbidden.  The wife is commanded not to separate herself from her husband (but if she does she’s to remain single or be reconciled to him) and the husband is commanded not to send his wife away (1st Cor 7:10-11).  This did not change the Law (Deuteronomy 24:1-3) but is a further restriction placed on the bondservants of Christ by their Master.
  • If the wife who separated herself from her husband comes to the point of repentance and seeks reconciliation with her husband, he is commanded to live with her, meaning he doesn’t have a choice in whether he takes her back or not IF she (in repentance) confesses her sin and willingly submits to him (1st Peter 3:7)
  • A man can have more than one wife, so a man whose wife has separated herself from him can legitimately marry another woman, but he has two wives: one living with him the other having separated herself from him.  The state will claim he’s divorced but from God’s perspective he isn’t and the second wife should be clear on that fact and be aware that the husband has a responsibility to be reconciled with his first wife if she ever wants to come home.
  • All of the above can’t be argued because the instruction concerning marriage is among the most clearly stated in all of Scripture.  It’s so clearly stated when taken all together that rather than discuss it most Christians prefer not to mention it at all.

The subject of one of Dalrock’s recent posts, Constance, said this:

“My ex husband and I had a mutual divorce 5 years ago and I’m still not over it. It hurts every single day. There was no cheating, just a long period of separation and drifting apart… I deeply regret the divorce and I feel like I had amnesia and trying to find my life back.”

She may call it a “mutual” divorce, but odds are she’s the one who pushed the issue, she’s the one who filed and her husband went along with what was obviously a done deal. Reference is made to the woman writing the frivolousdivorce blog to emphasize the point Constance was responding to:

“I didn’t have the strength of character to make it through the demanding years of our childrens’ teenage and college years. If I had endured those tough years, I would now have a companion to come home to, to eat dinner with, to go to a movie, travel, and grow old with. I do all of those things alone now. Seven years after the divorce, I still miss him.

Another woman has him as a husband and best friend now and he has forgotten me.”

If both Constance and her husband are Christians, there is a major problem with her situation and it’s sure to make most Christian men extremely uncomfortable.  The point is Constance clearly violated a command from the Lord when she separated herself from her husband and she was further commanded to either remain single or be reconciled to her husband (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), but this is where the men rebel.  The Word says “husband,” not “ex-husband” because she’s still married. Her husband was commanded in 1st Peter 3:7 to live with his wife and in Ephesians 5:25 to love his “wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her; that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the Word.”

But look at the responses of the men. It’s as if nobody ever heard of the book of Hosea. Yes, the husbands were placed in absolute authority over their wives (who are to submit… in everything), but with that authority comes responsibility and forgiveness isn’t optional if the wife returns, confesses her sin and in repentance seeks reconciliation.  Yes, he can demand she toe the line (scripturally speaking) as a condition of reconciliation, but if she’s willing to be obedient he’s stuck with her.

Why do you think the disciples said to Jesus in Matthew 19:10  “The disciples said to Him, ‘If the relationship of the man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.'”  They understood that Jesus was saying that if you marry her you’re stuck with her.  I have no desire to ever have my wife back in my life after what she’s done, but God willing, if she ever made the decision to seriously seek reconciliation I must trust that God will give me the grace to embrace her again (along with the extra 140+ pounds of lard she’s put on- excuse me while I vomit).  I’ve read lots of horror stories of divorce, but I must say that I have to be in the top 5% of acrimonious divorces.  This woman is STILL trying to put me in jail and refuses to allow me to see my children (the judge gives her anything she wants).

Marriage is a type of the relationship between Christ and His church.  What sinner, when he or she returns to Christ in broken repentance is ever rejected by Christ?  How then can the husband, who made a vow to God to love her all the days of his life…  how can he reject her when she returns to him in repentance after she has sinned against him?  The answer is he can’t because they’re still married as far as God is concerned, regardless of what some judge says.  Husbands, you were commanded to live with your wives and commanded not to send them away.  If your pet land-whale comes back to you in repentance and submission, you don’t get to say no.

You say the husband married another woman? So what- like that’s an excuse? No, he now has two wives and an obligation to provide both of them with equal food, housing, clothing and conjugal rights (Exodus 21:10). That isn’t a polite suggestion. You might say “that’s illegal!” but you’d be wrong because it isn’t (see Brown v. Buhman, which struck down Utah’s prohibition on polygyny).  Many people claim it’s a sin, but that disagrees with Scripture: Romans 4:15 says “Where there is no law there is no transgression” and Romans 5:13 says “where there is no law there is no sin imputed.” Not only is there no law prohibiting polygyny, but rather exactly the opposite: God regulated polygyny in the Law in the same way He regulated farming. God does not regulate sin, He prohibits and condemns it. In fact, look at Jeremiah 31:31-32, where God said He was married to both Israel and Judah. To claim having more than one wife is wrong is to claim God did something wrong… Christian, you probably don’t want to go there.

The point is simple: Women have some real problems with Scripture and what God says, as do men.  However, there is a difference: Men were placed in authority over women, not women over men (1st Timothy 2:12-15).  With authority comes responsibility and it is just as wrong for men to avoid the uncomfortable passages of Scripture that point to the extent of their authority over women and the corresponding responsibility men have been given for them as fathers and husbands as it is for women to avoid the uncomfortable passages of Scripture that point to the extent of the authority men have been given over them.

Yes, she divorce-raped you, took half your stuff, stole the kids, alienated them from you, screwed them up to the point they now have behavioral problems, got used as a cum dumpster by multiple men… but now she’s finally realized what a fool she was and is repentant.  She wants to have her husband back.  You married her, you have an obligation as a Christian to take her back.

Yes, you’re stuck with her.  After all, you made a VOW to God, who will require that you keep it (Read Numbers 30).

Yes, I know, it doesn’t seem fair.  The fact remains that Ephesians 5:22-24 is very clear.  In commanding women to submit to their husbands in everything, the corollary is the husband has responsibility for his wife in everything.  Look at Numbers 30, the law of vows.  Just as wives will not be able to escape judgment by claiming she was legally entitled to divorce her husband for any reason or even no reason at all, so too the men will not escape judgment for refusing to hold their wives accountable because holding a wife accountable is now criminalized.  Neither will they be held harmless for refusing to forgive and *restore* their wife if she is convicted of her sin, confesses it and seeks reconciliation in repentance.

There are solutions to these problems but to refuse to discuss such issues because they are uncomfortable for men and upsetting to women and their gamma white knights is not the answer.  The situation we’re presented with is extremely complicated, but King Josiah faced the same situation.  What did he do?

If you’ve made it this far, I’ll give you guys some relief.  There’s a fairly simple way to ensure she’s serious about repentance and submission, but wife #2 had better be on board for it as well.  In fact, part of the problem is men refuse to recognize the wife of their youth is in sin and still a wife, regardless of what some family court judge says.  They refuse to acknowledge that and explain to their second wife that as far as God is concerned they’re still married to wife #1.  In doing so they defraud their second wife.  However, I’d guess that over 90% of the so-called “Christian” wives who divorced their husbands are unwilling to accept the following:

“Hon, while you were in rebellion against both God and me, I took another wife.  If you want to come home, that’s great, but you need to understand that I will require that you meet your obligations as a Christian wife.  That is, you will submit to me in everything.  One thing I require is that you get along with my other wife.  In fact, we will all sleep in the same bed and when we have sex all three of us will become very intimately acquainted.  Scripture is completely silent on sexual contact between women and there’s nothing sinful about it, so I don’t want to hear the word no pass from your lips because nothing we could possibly do together is sinful.  You had a monogamous marriage with me but due to your rebellion that’s changed.  If you want to come home you’ll have to deal with it, cheerfully.

That separates the wheat from the chaff.

Posted in Crazy Women, Divorce, Marriage, Marriages Go Their Own Way, Polygyny | 37 Comments

Underground Houses

Expanding a bit from my previous post about growing ginseng, I’ll talk a bit about building an underground house.  The correct term is actually an “earth sheltered home” but most folks would call it an underground house.  Underground homes can be extremely expensive to build and all you have to do is hire an architect who doesn’t know anything about it.  He’ll consult with a civil engineer and you’ll wind up with something that looks like it was designed by the department of defense with a comparable price tag.  Fortunately, there’s an easier and much less costly way to do it, using what’s known as “off the shelf” technology.

The basic building block is the ubiquitous shipping container.


These things were made to hold about 30 tons of whatever needs to be shipped and fully loaded, stacked 8 high on ships to be transported around the world.  Truthfully, these things changed the way global trade works.  Ships come into port fully loaded and spend less than 24 hours getting unloaded and reloaded.  It’s amazing.


The first thing to notice is these things are made of steel.  Steel can be cut and welded.  In the picture above, the containers are hooked together, but when they get welded together they are a really strong single unit.  In fact, they’re ideal for building an underground house because the weight of four or five feet of dirt on top is nothing compared to what they were designed to hold.

A second critical piece of building material is the bridge panel.  These are lengths of prestressed reinforced concrete that engineers build bridges out of (among other things).


Let’s start with the design of a 1900 square foot home made from six 40-foot “high cube” shipping containers.  A normal 40-foot shipping container has outside dimensions of 8’x8’x40′ which means a ceiling of a bit over seven feet on the inside.  The high-cube containers have exterior dimensions of 9’6″x8’x40′ which means about 8′ 10″ for the ceiling height.  That’s more in line with standard residential construction.

simple house plan

This home is 48’x40 feet in exterior dimensions, with the bottom facing the south and a wall of windows on the dining and living room and more standard windows for the kitchen.  Keep in mind, this is a simple floor plan.  The children’s bedrooms could each hold anywhere from 1 to 4 children with lots of room for their stuff.  The master bedroom and bath aren’t huge, but what’s the point of designing a home for sybaritic excess if most of your time will be spent working somewhere else?  This home can be built for under $60,000 and a 20% down payment is only $12,000.  The only problem is finding a lender, because this isn’t “normal” housing and they worry about the resale value if the home has to be foreclosed on and sold.

I believe it’s possible to get a lender to give such a home consideration due to the very low cost to build and the fantastic energy savings, but it just depends on how anal they are.  If a bank won’t lend, there are a number of private lenders who can and will lend with a well-written loan proposal.  In this case, being able to show the low cost, energy savings and other advantages will go a long way toward convincing them.  A reasonable family budget demonstrating that such a home could be easily paid off even working a low-wage job will probably do the trick.


One of the neat things about building this way is the home can be built as modular units, pre-wired and pre-plumbed.  If you look at the plan carefully you might be able to tell that the second container from the left is the only one that contains plumbing, with all three bathrooms and the kitchen sink and dishwashers all contained in that container.  This makes building the home far simpler to build than a “normal” home, in which one has to wait until the home is under roof before putting in the wiring and plumbing.  What this means is the home could quite literally be built over time with a pay-as-you-go approach.

A crane will be required to put the units in place, but an empty shipping container only weighs about 8000 pounds so figure one in which finishing work has been done will weigh no more than 10,000 pounds.  That’s only five tons.  This means that two containers can be welded together and a crane can still easily lift them to put them in place.  If the containers are properly placed on a good support when they’re delivered, fitting them together correctly can be accomplished with 8-ton bottle jacks.  Once welded together, the sections that need to be cut out can be removed and finishing work can be accomplished.

In the plan above, notice that almost all the work will be in the left one third of the home.  In fact, the middle third and right third are basically just removing and installing walls.  Because of the corrugation of the steel walls, running the electrical and water lines is easy to do before putting the drywall on.  Quite literally, this is a home that could be semi-finished by a single person in less than a year before being lifted into place and welded together.


If desired, three 20-foot containers could be positioned perpendicular to the home to make a two-car garage with 10’x24′ parking bays.  That would add to the cost of the home or it could be added at a later date without any problem, but the point is this could be considered a “starter home” that has a simple design and provides enough room for a growing family for years to come.  Five 20-foot containers gives the home a garage, storage area and a private space if it’s desired.  Something like plan with garage

That plan has a safe room and an escape tunnel, which isn’t a bad thing to have in our most interesting of times.  The nice thing about this is the garage, storage space and safe room will cost out at about $15 per square foot, or an extra $12,000.  That extra 320 square feet of storage and safe room space could always be finished out as living space, bringing the home up to 2200 square feet.  It’s rather easy to build an escape tunnel out of three-foot steel culvert, but that costs out at about $25 per foot just for the pipe, so 400 feet of escape hatch tunnel will set you back about $10,000.  All that together would bring the price of the home to somewhere in the neighborhood of $82,000.

For those preparing for the zombie apocalypse, the ultimate security measure is a couple of precast concrete panels that can be raised quickly to seal off the front of the home.  This isn’t nearly as difficult as one might think, because it isn’t that difficult to dig a couple of pits for counter-balance weights.  A 24×9 4 inch thick concrete panel only weighs about 10,000 pounds, or five tons.  That’s the same as a 4 foot by 4 foot by 4.5 foot block of concrete.  A lesser means of security can be had by taking steel panels removed from the interior of the home and crafting them into rolling steel shutters that close off the front of the house on barn door hangers.

One note on safe rooms and escape tunnels.  I realize that some readers of this blog might be tempted to do something contrary to the laws of the land with such a hidden room, and might even figure that running banks of metal halide lights would make up for the lack of other electrical usage and not show an inordinate power consumption; and the escape hatch could be used to vent interesting smells out into the woods.

pot growing

Listen carefully.  If the home is hooked to the grid, it will have a smart meter, which will be able to tell what the power is being used for.  The only way to defeat this is to run the incoming power through an inverter into a battery bank and back out on the other side.  Such a battery bank would provide backup power during power outages and would allow the installation of solar panels or wind generators if wanted.  It also makes efficient use of a generator.   As with any such endeavor, unless it’s for personal use, the problem isn’t the job, it’s the company you have to keep.

The escape tunnel should always go downhill away from the house to prevent water infiltration.  It’s possible to run the first section downhill for 40 to 50 feet to a sump with a drain, before going uphill with it, but God help you if your drain becomes clogged and the tunnel fills with water at the low point when you really need it.  Recumbent bicycles and specially built skateboards can travel quickly through such a tunnel.  Anyone who ever shows up at your home with evil intent will not have looked at the land registry before coming, so a little creative landscaping can give the appearance that a property line is much closer than it is.  For homes on large tracts of land, a hedgerow that defines the yard likewise serves to restrain movement, channel the intruders and keep them focused on a rather small piece of terrain.  In more residential settings the escape tunnel could literally go to another building several hundred feet away that appears to belong to someone else.

There is another type of tunnel that’s useful above ground.  Plants like Washington Hawthorne, floribunda rose, acacia, osage orange and others all produce lots of sharp thorns and can form an impenetrable hedge.  It isn’t unusual to see a treeline overrun with such plants and planting these bushes three to four feet apart and later pulling the tops together so they grow together can leave a hedged in tunnel underneath if care is taken to keep the interior trimmed.  This was a favorite of mine as a child, when I took old woven fencing wire and created arbors which were quickly overrun by honeysuckle and wild blackberries.  Carefully trimming fields of fire later in the season made these the ultimate deer-hunting blinds.  I strongly favor protecting the exit point of your escape hatch with a hedge of protective plants that will prevent anyone from getting close to it.

For those not so inclined to wild scenarios, a simple escape hatch can utilize a short piece of culvert and a ladder that goes straight up, out of the house onto the top.  The only problem is if there’s a fire, it creates a wonderful chimney effect to fan the fire.  Not that there’s much to burn in an underground home, which is constructed of steel and concrete.  Drywall doesn’t burn and one would have to work pretty hard to get the home on fire to the point it did some serious damage.  However, the problem with fires is smoke inhalation and even a small fire can kill the occupants.

One of the critical points to an underground house is air flow.  There isn’t a lot of room for standard HVAC ductwork, so the solution is to go with a high velocity mini-duct system which uses 3″ tubes instead of standard ductwork.  this allows almost inobtrusive ducting that allows a constant flow of air through out the home.  Standard homes leak air from the outside all over the house.  Underground homes don’t, so care must be taken to keep the air circulating and a supply of fresh air coming in.  If the builder installed an escape tunnel, that can be rigged up to bring in fresh (earth temp) air, but a fan is required.

Another critical point to these homes is insulation.  Use sprayed on closed-cell urethane foam insulation sprayed on the outside of the house, three to four inches of it.  This will ensure there is never any condensation on the ceiling or walls of the house.  Failure to do this will result in a home that over time is uninhabitable due to the condensation and resultant mold growth.  On the inside, the walls must be covered with drywall or some other wall covering because the steel reflects too much sound.  I suppose cloth wall hangings such as tapestries would work as well or even better though, but I’ve noticed that women like things to look “normal” even when they aren’t.

One other critical point is drainage.  Build the home into the side of a hill, and I don’t mean at the bottom.  When the site is excavated (like any residential construction) the water and sewer lines need to be dug in first.  In addition, gravel and perforated pipe needs to be installed to ensure that any water infiltration that makes it under the house is drained away downhill.

One of the big decisions is whether to put the containers on piers or a slab.  The slab will be more expensive and has to be completely level, but piers work just as well if not better.  As long as the house is level on a solid foundation, it isn’t going anywhere.  What is critical is a monolithic foundation that supports the corner pillars of every container.  Piers will suffice to support the floor rails.  Overhead, a 4 inch reinforced slab will distribute the load and prevent the ceiling from buckling from the weight of the earth, or one can use precast reinforced concrete panels that have the advantage of being pre-stressed.  These have the advantage of being trucked in and stored until needed, put into place with a crane and immediately sprayed with foam.  With proper preparation one could literally put the modules in the ground, put the roof in place, foam it and have it covered with dirt in a single day.

simple house plan2

Back to our simple house plan, a good way to support the overhead load is to have a four-inch gap between the three joined 2-container units and fill the gaps with concrete.  Everywhere you see a red line represents a 4 inch concrete support wall, which means no extra reinforcement is necessary on the sides of the containers.  The back of the house has corner pillars every eight feet so very little extra reinforcement is necessary there.

Shipping containers were designed to support weight on their corner pillars, not on the roof, so in order to keep the dead load of earth overhead, reinforcement needs to be provided.  Concrete is a very cheap way of doing this.  In fact, for remote sites renting a large concrete mixer that mixes a yard at a time might be the best alternative to having concrete trucks deliver it.  Not as easy, but not nearly as expensive either.

This post wasn’t designed to teach you how to build an underground home, but I did want to make a few points about how they’re constructed and the benefits of living in them.  Essentially, with a good supply of water these are comfortable, safe and effective homes with no electricity at all if they’re designed right.  Tornado and storm proof, convenient fallout shelters, soundproof and mostly bulletproof, a lot can be done with a house like this.

Posted in Ginseng, Healthy Living, Messages to a young man, Wars and rumors of wars | 7 Comments