Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism


In any relationship there is a balance of power and in general one person will be dominant and the other will submit to their dominance.  In any given interaction between people the same dynamic tends to hold true.  Dominance will be established over time by the individual (or group) who has the dominant frame.  So, what is frame?

Frame is a specific interpretation of perceived reality and an individual’s frame is often determined by emotions rather than anything else.  Think carefully about the words “perceived reality” and consider that an individual’s “perceived reality” does not require facts or even what we call reality.

What does this mean in the real world?  Simply that how one looks at an issue determines how one feels about that issue.  In the photo below we get two different frames (perspectives) of how to view the same physical act.  Obviously it’s all in how you frame it.

Frame is also a matter of focus because the “frame” determines what is seen and what is not seen, which determines what is important and what is not important.  How one frames anything will lead to a particular value judgment due to the emotional impact of the focus.

Fitness Testing and Frame

Women test for dominance and loyalty.  By definition, a dominance test is a test to determine who has the strongest frame, because either the man enters the woman’s frame or she enters into his.  Within that, the test is also a test for confidence because lack of confidence indicates a weak frame and a weak frame means a lack of confidence.

A frame is a particular view of perceived reality and that perception of reality doesn’t need to be established on facts, reason, experience or logic.  For women, feelings are usually more important than anything else.  Fitness testing takes many different forms and sometimes it isn’t an individual, it’s a group.

Once there was a professor who told dirty jokes in his class.  The women decided he was a sexist pig and wanted to protest.  They discussed it and decided the next time he started telling a dirty joke they’d all get up an leave the class.

Somehow the professor heard about their plan and at the next class he said “In Sweden a prostitute makes $2000 per night.”  All the women stood up and started to leave the class.  The professor shook his head and shouted “Hey!  Ladies, there’s no need to hurry, the next scheduled flight to Sweden isn’t until day after tomorrow.”

Here is another example:

One evening an old farmer decided to walk down to his pond and look it over, as he hadn’t been there for a while.  He grabbed a five gallon bucket so he could pick some fruit and bring it back.  As he neared the pond, he heard voices shouting and laughing with glee.  As he came closer he saw it was a bunch of young women skinny-dipping in his pond.  He made the girls aware of his presence and they all went to the deep end.  One of the women shouted “We’re not coming out until you leave!”

The old man frowned and said “I didn’t come down here to watch you girls swim naked or make you get out of the pond naked.”  He held up the bucket.  “I’m here to feed the alligator.”

While these are jokes, they illustrate the power of framing and the influence frame has on how an issue is perceived.  In the first example, the professor didn’t argue about whether his statement was inappropriate.  In fact, the protest the women planned was designed to not allow any argument in the matter.  “He said something inappropriate and we walked out!”  They were to be the judges of his behavior.  Afterward, the fact they’d walked out would prove that whatever he said was inappropriate.  The professor reframed their behavior completely:  “I mentioned that prostitutes in Sweden made $2000 per night.  They all got up and started leaving.  I know they aren’t bigoted against sex workers so I can only conclude they immediately decided to go to Sweden.”

In the second example, the old farmer didn’t argue with them, he simply reframed the women’s view of the pond as being a place of safety to a place of danger.  Which is more important, modesty or not getting eaten by an alligator?  Notice that in these examples, perception is everything and the “facts” are subject to interpretation.

Another example of reframing is the argument of feminists about equal pay for equal work.  Heartily agree that equal pay is a good thing and it’s horrible that white prostitutes make about three times as much as black prostitutes for the same work.  They all do the same job and they’re all women, so there should be a law that sets the fees for prostitutes and guarantees that either the white prostitutes have to charge less or the black prostitutes have to charge more.

In this case, the feminist frame is one of equality and the false claim that men and women are equal and should be treated as interchangeable.  The lie is exposed by shifting the view (frame) to the unequal pay between female white prostitutes and female black prostitutes.  The funny part is the feminists will double down and claim it’s a matter of racism, not equality.  Anything to avoid admitting their argument actually hurts women who desire to work and do a good job.

The subject might be equal pay, but the issue is the right to choose based on personal preferences and tastes, which is clearly demonstrated in the case of prostitutes.


Framing An Argument

The way an argument is framed will usually determine who gets to win the argument.  Clarence Darrow was famous for saying that he would defend any case and win, regardless of the facts, if he got to decide the issue before the court.   In other words, if he was allowed to frame the case, he’d win.

The argument about evolution is a good example.  If evolution is argued from the frame of evidence (does the evidence support the general theory of evolution), in an evolution vs creation debate the creationists tend to win.  That, by the way, isn’t opinion.  The evolutionists will generally no longer debate the creationists.  They would never admit the reason is because their lack of evidence for evolution is embarrassing when compared to the evidence for creationism, but it cannot be denied that creationists tend to win the debates, just like atheists get destroyed by the Christians.

Our recent commenter Jenny has been very helpful in this regard, so let’s look at her comment.

Toad- once again I don’t agree with your conclusions but I find your thought process very interesting and engaging. People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.” How’s that for a shit test?

Oh, and despite your “true word,” no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3. By not following all your “word” and just cheery picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all. The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.

Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

While it’s true that Jenny makes a factually deficient argument based almost solely on feminist rhetoric, the truth is she’s making a moral argument in which she’s confused.  She thinks she’s pointing to a moral ontology when in fact she’s got a moral semantics problem.

Jenny presents a mish-mash of incoherent statements that she obviously feels strongly about and apparently she thinks this passes for an argument.  First, she makes a declarative statement:

People can disagree without it being a “test.” But i believe men like you two react this way because of deep seeded insecurities which cause you to interpret everything as a challenge to your “manhood.”

Jenny’s argument was Snapper’s test with respect to how he chose to handle it.  It was his test because he had to choose to either accept her frame and argue within her frame or reframe her argument and instead of arguing the semantics, argue the ontology.  Or, he could have ignored her, not giving her any attention.  His response to his test became his argument.

In this comment she’s reacting to my comments to Snapper, in which I described the earlier exchange she had with him as a shit test.  My point to Snapper was that by arguing the details within her frame, he was conceding his frame to hers and she won.  She claims she was making an argument and in truth she was.  However, her argument was a test for Snapper that I labeled as a shit test for dominance, because it was.  Jenny claims identifying it as such is a sign of “insecurity” because I’m fearful of losing my “manhood” to the mental strength that makes her a strong independent woman.

With any conflict we begin with a status quo that represents our system of beliefs, because we do not exist within a vacuum.  When someone makes an argument that attacks that system of beliefs, such an attack is an argument on the part of the one making it and a test for the individual receiving it.  How the attack is dealt with tends to establish who wins.

I chose not to respond to Jenny’s original comment because I don’t expect anyone to agree with me and I don’t even expect them to understand.  She’s free to disagree and I’m free to ignore her.  However, Jenny wanted me to engage so she again brought forth her argument.  In doing so, she demonstrated she has no idea who she is talking to.  She stated:

no one gives a shit if you eat a lobster, get a tattoo, or get laid before marriage, which is why I suspect you have at least done 2 of the 3, if not all 3.  By not following all your “word” and just cherry picking, you reveal yourself as the weak, feeble and insecure people that you so clearly all.

At a philosophical level, I’m an ontological reductionist.  That is, someone who deals with reality and tries to reduce everything to its basic essence in order to make it easy to understand.  The simple reason is that virtually everyone has been lied to all their lives about practically everything and in order to get them to understand what the truth is, it has to be presented clearly and concisely.


The Frame Built by Crazy Aunt Andrea

Jenny’s argument is incoherent and that problem is compounded by the fact she’s apparently woefully ignorant of what the Bible actually says.  In addition, Jenny does not know me in real life and has no clue how I live my life.  Yet, she makes certain assumptions, claims she’s correct in her assumptions and on that basis claims I’m weak, feeble and insecure.  Which is actually hilarious for everyone who knows me because my worst enemies would laugh at such an assertion.

As the regular readers here already know, I am a complete asshole and I truly don’t care what other people think.  God, however, is a different matter because I do care what God thinks of my behavior.  As I said, Jenny is obviously rather ignorant of what the Bible says, so let’s see how her assumptions play out.  I have most certainly eaten lobster and will again, as well as crabs, shrimp, crawfish, clams, oysters and other seafood that are forbidden by the Law.  However, Jenny has obviously never read Colossians 2:16 and since I’ve never written a post about this, I’ll quote it now.

Therefore no one is to act as your judge in regard to food or drink or in respect to a festival or a new moon or a Sabbath day

According to the Apostle Paul, the dietary laws (as well as keeping the Sabbath, the feasts and holy days) are specific issues that can be disregarded for Christians.

Then there’s the issue of “sex before marriage” and the regular readers are probably rolling on the floor with laughter at this one.  Jenny, seriously, you probably think I’m a churchian, but you have no idea.  Just as an example of the many posts I’ve done on this subject, take a look at these:

Can You Explain Biblical Sexual Morality? (Simple explanation)

Fornication, Premarital Sex and the Easter Bunny (long, detailed explanation)

Marriage, Whores and Churchians (scroll down for the section on premarital sex)

It doesn’t stop there because practically everyone has been lied to all their lives about what the Bible actually says, so what about other issues like lesbians, prostitutes and having more than one wife?

Prostitutes And Lesbians  Rugmunching isn’t a sin.  Neither is prostitution.

Polygyny (more than one wife) Polygyny and the idiot arguments against it.

Polygyny & Female Competition  Socially Imposed Monogamy hurts women.

Those are specific posts that provide a lot of detail.  For a general outline on what the Bible actually says about sexual morality, see the page titled “Sexual Morality” in the blog header.  According to the Bible I’ve never been married, so obviously all the sex I’ve ever had has been “before marriage” and about 99.99% of it was adultery.  That’s according to what the Bible actually says.  According to churchians I only did the premarital thing back when I was a heathen and the only time I committed adultery was with that one woman who didn’t tell me she was married until the 3rd or 4th time.  And I dumped her for it.

Now that I understand what the Bible actually says about who I’m authorized to have sex with, I developed a process to deal with it.  It’s resulted in some interesting conversations and even more interesting experiences, but the bottom line is if she’s attracted she’ll do it.  If she’s not, she won’t and there’s no point for a man to continue talking to another man’s wife.  That is what we call a compliance test.

As far as tattoos are concerned, there are specific prohibitions at Leviticus 19:27-28 against getting tattoos as well as “rounding off the side-growth” of the head or harming the edges of the beard.  I don’t have any violations of this.  It’s actually funny, back in the day I had the entire crew of unwashed heathens with me partying at the home of the country’s most famous tattoo artist.  He inked the entire crew except for me.  I never had any use for body graffiti.

So no, I’m not cherry-picking Scripture, which is probably why most Christians and practically all churchians hate what I write about.  Witness the recent argument with Cybersith1- he objects that I’m calling the men out for their behavior.   However, while the individual’s obedience to God will impact them at some point, their obedience or lack of obedience does not impact the truth of God’s existence or God’s requirements of mankind.  I write for Christians who want to be obedient to the God they serve and it’s my desire to be a thorn in the flesh of those who claim to be Christians but don’t want to obey the God they claim to serve.  I suppose every needs a hobby.

Churchians sing songs about their boyfriend Jesus and how they’re just worms who don’t deserve the grace they’ve been given.  Really?  Christ died for a pile of worms?  That’s horseshit.  Neither do I subscribe to the gospel of health, wealth and prosperity mixed up with the modern day dharma that is the churchian concept of love.  Look at what Jesus actually said about being one of His followers:

34 “Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. 35 For I came to set a man against his father, and a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law; 36 and a man’s enemies will be the members of his household.

37 “He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me; and he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. 38 And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. 39 He who has found his life will lose it, and he who has lost his life for My sake will find it.

That’s not for the weak, feeble and insecure, which is why preachers don’t quote that passage, just like they don’t talk about the Phineas Priests.

Jenny might not like the fact that God made woman from man, for man, to be used by man in order to accomplish his mission, but that is the testimony of Scripture.  Even worse, it does not matter whether the man is obedient to God or not, the woman is still commanded to submit to him.  1st Peter 3:1-2 says

In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the Word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, as they observe your chaste and respectful behavior.

Jenny’s frame for this argument is that people who think for themselves are mentally strong (like her!) but men who believe the Bible (like me) are “weak, feeble and insecure.”  It appears that her outlook is the same as that of the novelist Harry Harrison, who sees Christianity as a religion for slaves rather than the faith of slaves.  Which is another case of semantics because everyone is a slave and the only freedom anyone has is the freedom of choosing one’s master.

All of which is incomprehensible to mindless churchians and those outside the church.


Only Two Sources For Law

Take all the philosophy and theology and everything else, boil it all down and we’re left with only two sources of authority.  If God exists and He is the Creator of everything (He says He is) then He has the right to make the rules.  And He did, which is what is known as “God’s Law”.  But, if there is no God, then everyone is equal and the only way anyone’s ideas of right and wrong are applicable to others is if they can enforce them.  This is the idea of “might makes right” and is known as “the Law of the Jungle”.

With that in mind, let’s continue with Jenny’s argument.

The strong (muscle) do not rule. The strong in mind rule them.

This is patently ridiculous because anyone with any perception at all knows that strength of mind or body is irrelevant when it comes to ruling.  The powerful rule.  They derive their power from a combination of economic, political and military force at their command.  The biggest lie in America is the “American Dream” that you can grow up to be anything.  No.   Regardless of their character, the sons of the wealthy will sit on the boards of directors, reap the profits and exercise control.  Those who were not born to privilege will (as a rule) serve the ones who were.  The individual like Bill Gates and Jeff Bezzos and Mark Zuckerberg are the exceptions that prove the rule.

Most leaders and lawmakers throughout time were not the physically strongest. They were smart enough (mentally strong) to rule over those who were physically stronger and get them to do their bidding. Throughout time the physically strong have been submissive to the mentally strong. Which is why u hate educated women. By default it means collectively you weak minded people are submitting to them!

Jenny is attempting to claim that not only am I physically weak, feeble and insecure, I’m weak of mind and therefore I hate educated women.  Given what she cited as her “argument”, it’s no surprise that her conclusion is what is known as a “non sequitur“.

Throughout history, the most common form of government has been a monarchy.  As a rule, a monarchy was put in place when an exceptional man who was physically strong, intelligent and ambitious gathered a group of other strong men around him and took over an area by force.  Conquest is the word we’re looking for and they gained the right to rule by force of arms.  If that leader was wise and fit to rule, then the area he conquered prospered and he lived his life and passed on the franchise to his kids.

A system of nobility was thus established whereby the leader was the king, his stalwarts were nobles and his thugs and headbreakers became knights.  The nobles possessed hereditary titles and their control of the productive assets and the people of their fife gave these individuals not only physical (military) power but also economic power as well.  The combination of military and economic force gave these individuals political power.  As time passed, economic power alone was able to generate political power and political power granted military power.

Case in point?  Donald J. Trump.  He leveraged his economic power into political power which gave him military power.  How did he get his economic power?  He inherited wealth and did a good job producing more.

And what was it that Trump said about women?

But what about all those strong, independent women?  Where are the female rulers?  Can we find any historical queens who became queen on their own merits, rather than inheriting the throne from their husband or father?  There are some historical records of queens in various countries, some of them great ones.  However, I know of none of them that didn’t get the throne handed to them by a relative and they only got it by virtue of being in the line of succession.  Not by being mentally strong.

Being mentally strong is not enough for a man and especially not for a woman (although a woman can get a lot of mileage out of good looks and a mercenary attitude combined with high intelligence).  Without a system that provides a mechanism for the mentally strong to exercise their economic, political and military power, their mental strength is useless.  Without at least economic power (or inherited political and military power), mental strength doesn’t go any further than physical strength (although they work well together).

This, for example, is a mentally strong and independent woman who discovered that for all her mental strength, she wasn’t capable of refusing to submit to one overweight cop with an IQ of less than 100.  And inside the jail?  Mental strength is good but physical strength is far better.  When it comes to the law of the jungle, might makes right and the idea that mentally strong women actually rule is a fantasy.

The fact is, only within a system of enforced morality in which right and wrong is firmly established by law (such as the one we have, which is founded on Christianity) do women get treated as anything other than cattle.  Systems like that are put in place through the application of force, which requires strength.  The brute strength of men, not women.


Credit Where Credit Is Due

Despite being incoherent, Jenny’s argument is actually a good one for churchians, but not for the reasons she thinks.  It’s true that most churchian men are rather weak individuals who submit to their women.  The reason is the feminist churchian system stomps the masculinity out of them as boys and young men and teaches them to be weak and repulsive to women.  They are taught the toxic doctrines of “Servant Leadership” and “Mutual Submission” and encouraged to worship their women.

The modern churchian cannot handle real submission of wives in a monogamous marriage, much less submission in a polygynous marriage and the idea of a woman submitting to her husband’s physical discipline scares them to death.  Interestingly, the women don’t have much of a problem with it once they figure out what is in it for them, but even mentioning any of that drives the men right over the edge.   The only thing that causes worse meltdowns is the point that having sex with a virgin is to marry her.  Which means that if he didn’t get her virginity when he married her, the wedding was a fraud and he’s living in adultery with another man’s wife.  Oops!



This isn’t a churchian blog and I’m not a churchian.  I’m a man who carefully studied the Bible and slowly pieced together what it says about sexual morality.  I’m not an evangelist and I’m not here to tell you about Jesus, because you’ve either got him in your heart or you don’t.  What I do here is explain what the Bible actually says about sexual morality.

Consider this:

  1. God is the Creator of mankind and He knows men and women better than anyone.
  2. As Creator, God has the right to order His creation as He sees fit.
  3. God gave His Law to man, in which He rewards obedience and punishes disobedience.
  4. God’s instruction on marriage is complete and satisfies the needs of men, women and children in the family.
  5. Each part of God’s marriage plan is necessary for the plan to work as intended.
  6. Modification to God’s plan by removing or adding parts has caused unmet needs.
  7. The vast majority of the marital problems today result from not following God’s plan.
  8. God’s original design is the only real solution to the marriage problems today.
  9. Only by understanding God’s original design can it be successfully implemented.

The logic of that syllogism is tight and if point #1 is accepted none of the other points can reasonably be questioned.  As for the issue of whether there is a God, the atheists don’t have much confidence in themselves, for good reason:  When they debate Christians they lose.   As far as other religions such as islam, they get destroyed even worse than the atheists when they take on Christians.  Islam is so incoherent, so easy to refute and so obviously inferior to Christianity that the default position of Muslims has been to kill anyone who left islam to become a Christian.  However, whether you believe in God or not is irrelevant to me, as well as whether you are or are not a Christian.  I teach what the Bible says about sexual morality.  What you do with it is up to you.

Everything in the logical syllogism above is fine for most Christians until we get to the nitty-gritty of what God’s plan for marriage actually is.  The simple truth is that God’s plan for marriage has been covered up and lied about for over 1500 years.  I’ve written quite a bit about that and quoted definitive histories regarding the subject.  The fact that the church threw out God’s plan for marriage and replaced it with a combination of pagan practice, stoic philosophy and Roman law is indisputable.   The way that was done was by re-defining the meaning of words and telling lots of lies so the “new” plan fit.  And they “interpreted” a lot of passages in a very self-serving fashion.   Yet no-one ever questioned that Genesis 2:24 was the law of marriage that defines what marriage is, they simply claimed it meant something different and after more than a thousand years of killing anyone who disagreed with them (heretics), everyone believes it now.

If you were to read my debate with whysoserious? you’ll notice that when he couldn’t refute my argument concerning what the words of Genesis 2:24 really meant, he went through a steady progression of argument that devolved into saying that we really couldn’t know anything about marriage at all because Scripture doesn’t tell us what it is.  Which is preposterous.

The information on this blog is a source of extreme embarrassment to churchians everywhere because they cannot refute it and it exposes their traditional teachings as a lie.  Patriarchy?  Movements like “quiverful” are a joke and they aren’t patriarchal because they don’t know what patriarchal is.  They espouse a parody of patriarchy that places the wives in a very difficult position and when the women don’t measure up, they are blamed.  But not the men.

You mentioned manhood being threatened.  The truth is that the vast majority of feminist churchians are not comfortable with masculinity, are frightened of male dominance and in general are thoroughly feminized.   The women find such men repulsive but are placed in a position whereby they are told to submit to a man they don’t respect because they’re required to.  And, naturally, they rebel against that.

Perhaps you’re opposed to Christianity.  If you wanted to embarrass Christians for their ignorance and unintended hypocrisy, it’s pretty easy because even the professional Christians don’t know what the Bible actually says about sexual morality.  Go to the Sexual Morality page linked in the blog header, print that out and memorize it.  Know what those verses say and how they fit together (you’ll find this extremely useful) and with that, you’ll have all the ammunition you need to embarrass virtually any churchian you meet, using nothing but the information straight from the Bible.   Keep in mind that they’re extremely sensitive to this because at least 80% of them are living in adultery.  That can be fixed but first they have to acknowledge the truth.  You are probably living in adultery too, but if you don’t believe in God, why would His rules on what constitutes adultery be an issue?

As an aside, do you know why “God damn you to hell” is a blasphemy?  The reason is that God doesn’t damn anyone, they do it to themselves.  Everyone has violated God’s Law and the penalty for that is death.  God sent His only son on a suicide mission and then sat on His throne and watched His innocent son get crucified and die a horrible death in order that people like you and me could live, because with that act His Son paid the price for everyone.  The unforgivable sin is to refuse to accept the free gift while you have the chance, to reject the sacrifice that Christ made.  According to God, one day everyone will be judged and at that point it’s too late.

So, if you choose to reject God’s Word because you’re mentally strong, what’s a bit of adultery?   Your body, your choice, right?   Unintended pregnancy?  Abort the little bastard!   If God doesn’t exist and you’re mentally strong you can make up your own rules.   And if anyone says you’re going to hell then you can agree (why argue about their fantasies?) and tell them you’re determined to enjoy the trip.  Right?  You go girl.  YOLO!

Anyway, you’ll find that abusing misinformed churchians gets boring quickly and is actually pretty cruel and leaves you feeling depressed, because virtually all of these folks have been lied to all their lives.  Genuinely, sincerely lied to by people they viewed as good and godly men who hold positions of authority, because these lies go back over 1500 years.

OTOH, maybe you’re a Christian of one flavor or another, but enough of a feminist that the Biblical truth I’m pointing at just rubs you the wrong way.  If that’s the case you need to investigate this carefully and choose which side of the fence you want to be on.  Straddling the fence doesn’t give you the benefits of being on either side and eventually you wind up with a sore crotch.  Who needs that?  There are far more pleasurable ways to get a sore crotch that God doesn’t have a problem with.

At the end of the day, though, the Bible is a take-it-or-leave-it proposition.  You don’t get a Savior without getting a Master who requires obedience.  He made you and gave you a job to do, which is His right.  As it is written, “Does the pot speak back to the potter?”  Part and parcel of that is the fact that woman was created from man, for man, to be used by man as a helper to complete his mission.   Later, in judgment, God said of women, “he shall rule over you.”

The only possible question is whether God changes.  According to His testimony, the answer is no.

Again, I don’t expect you to agree with me, I don’t even expect you to understand.




This entry was posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Crazy Women. Bookmark the permalink.

8 Responses to Frame, Fitness Tests and Feminism

  1. Mycroft Jones says:

    Quote: According to the Apostle Paul, the dietary laws (as well as keeping the Sabbath, the feasts and holy days) are specific issues that can be disregarded for Christians.

    You only quoted part of the passage. If you include the final bit, the structure is: Let no man judge you in matter of …., except the body of Christ. That is, the ecclesia is very much authorized to judge you in matters of food and drink and sabbaths and new moons.

    I know this is confusing in the King James, which reads “but the body is of Christ”. When you take out the words in italics, and look at the text in Greek, it becomes clear.

    I was wondering why you wrote about having hogs in your Castle one or two posts ago. Now I know.

    • Mycroft, you are completely incorrect as to your interpretation, once again. Reference Romans 14, in which Paul gives instruction with regard to eating and keeping the Sabbath and made it clear such was an issue of conscience. Who are you to judge? He was not speaking to the world but to the church.

      The problem with your interpretation is it has the Apostle Paul contradicting himself. In Romans 14 he clearly teaches that eating the meat sacrificed to idols and keeping the Sabbath are issues of conscience which are not to be judged by the body of Christ. Your claim that in Colossians Paul is teaching that the same issues of eating, Sabbaths and holy days are to be judged by the body has Paul contradicting himself.

      This exegetical error is called an antinomy, which is not allowed. The contradiction between your interpretation and the established meaning of Romans 14 means you got it wrong. Your interpretation of Colossians 2:16-17 must be in line with Romans 14 in order for it to be correct.

      So, either you can admit you’re wrong on this one or you can explain how Romans 14 means the opposite of what it says.

  2. Renee Harris says:

    you wrote that disability disqualifies a woman from being an eligible virgin. Can you explain that .

    • I don’t recall that but “Eligible” means “eligible to marry the man in question”. Meaning it is a disability to marriage for her to be a blood relative of the man, for her father to have forbidden her to marry that man or for her to have already married another man. Disability in that sense does not mean being physically disabled such as being blind or missing a limb because that does not affect a woman’s eligibility for marriage. As to whether it affects her desirability for marriage, that is a different story. Observably, men marry women who are batshit crazy on a regular basis, as well as paraplegics. It isn’t unusual to see men marrying women in prison, women with cancer, women on their death bed and women suffering from all manner of issues.

  3. cybersith1 says:

    *Witness the recent argument with Cybersith1- he objects that I’m calling the men out for their behavior*

    Still lying are we?….Lol, you just can’t man up and admit when you’re wrong
    Even a cursory glance at our “argument” will show your readers that I wasn’t objecting to YOU calling out men for their behavior at all…..I was in fact calling YOU out for adding words to scripture, then you went and lied about what I really said and what my position was in our theological debate, , which in my view amounts to slander….both my comments and yours can be compared by your readers for proof of the veracity of my charge of slander against you….tsk, tsk, you got caught out again Toad

    • Cybersith1, you are behaving like a petulant child. You are the one who abandoned the debate by refusing to answer the critical point of the argument.

      If you care to respond, on point, you may do so in the comments on your page, I left the comments open in case you desired to do so.

      As far as having a “theological debate” you failed spectacularly. I summarized it here when I closed the argument.

      If you care to respond you may do so on your page, but there really isn’t much to respond to except what is required (see below). You are the one lying, which is clear because I put everything in one place for all to see.

      If you wish to respond you are required to answer the critical point of the argument as well as back up your statement from your point #6, in which you lied and claim I’ve asserted a wife’s submission is conditional.

      If you do not address the required points or continue acting like an idiot, you will be banned and spammed.

  4. Aaannd…. right on schedule, Cybersith1 has now been banned and spammed. He proved he was not tall enough for this ride.

  5. Linny says:

    “Which means that if he didn’t get her virginity when he married her, the wedding was a fraud and he’s living in adultery with another man’s wife.”

    I have questions regarding this sentence. What if the woman he marries is one that you said was eligible but not a virgin? One that the father forbade a marriage or is a widow. Would the the man be married if the woman in question consents? Or are you saying he will never be married unless he gets a virgin?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s