Dalrock’s True Color: Feminist Pink
Evidently this blog has made enough of an impact that Dalrock decided he had to do something about it. Or perhaps he just wanted a massive food fight on his blog. For whatever reason, Dalrock decided to do a takedown of what I write about, using a strawman argument he thought he could knock down.
It was not a debate or even a discussion. Dalrock already knew he couldn’t win the fight legitimately because the Bible is not on his side. So, he decided start the fight on his terms and used the theme of “it sounds nutty” in order to use shaming rhetoric, hand waving and the power of his bully pulpit. It’s true. To feminists, what the Bible says is nutty because feminism is opposed to God.
The question underlying all of it is simple:
Is the eligible virgin married when she has sex, even if she does not know that act makes her married?
The answer rests on the question of whether the virgin’s consent is required in order for her to be married.
Does the father have the authority to grant or withhold consent for his virgin daughter?
What does the Bible say? If the father can grant consent for her, then obviously she does not have agency to grant or withhold consent to marry. It must be understood that Dalrock is a feminist in practice, if not in belief, so he could not allow that question to be answered.
If Dalrock was correct in his doctrine, he should have been able to refute me easily. The problem is he isn’t correct and he can’t refute what the Bible clearly says by using the Bible. Dalrock’s argument was rhetorical, designed to sway the emotions and for the most part all he did was intentionally lie and engage in ad hominem. Commenter Gary Eden objected to all the ad hominem and the refusal to address what the Bible says. In this comment Dalrock responded and explained what he was really doing- attack me personally:
he still looks nutty, because he is writing nutty things.
In other words, Dalrock chose to take advantage of the ignorance and cultural conditioning of all his Dalrock bros and encourage the personal attacks rather than allow a rational debate to take place. In the end the “debate” touched the third rail of feminism (does the virgin have agency) and it had to end.
SJW = Churchian
Churchians are feminist SJW’s who dress their feminism up and hide behind the Bible. Or, they claim they do. As Vox Day explained in “SJW’s Always Lie”:
- Churchian’s Always Lie: Dalrock intentionally lied, over and over again.
- Churchian’s Always Double Down: When refuted, Dalrock doubled down.
- Churchian’s Always Project: Dalrock claimed I was doing what he actually did.
Dalrock’s action follows the classic SJW attack sequence that Vox explained in his book:
- Locate or Create a Violation of the Narrative.
- Point and Shriek.
- Isolate and Swarm.
- Reject and Transform.
- Press for Surrender.
- Appeal to Amenable Authority.
- Show Trial.
- Victory Parade.
My comments over the years and the complete inability of anyone to refute my argument has clearly been a violation of the narrative. Obviously I am not going to apologize or surrender and there isn’t any Amenable Authority to appeal to. Dalrock knows this. He created a post that combined point and shriek with isolate and swarm. He turned the multiple posts into a show trial.
But, the show trial didn’t turn out to be quite what he thought it would be.
Over 90% of the “argument” was lying about what I claim and ad hominem attacks, with very little attempt support their doctrine from Scripture. The centerpiece of Dalrocks theological argument was the claim that 1st Corinthians 7 is instruction that sex is only to take place within marriage and thus all sex “outside marriage” is a sin. But he can’t describe how marriage actually begins…
Dalrock claims that God didn’t provide us with a wedding ceremony. Then he doubled down and claimed that having sex and becoming one flesh doesn’t make a virgin married… because whores have sex and become one flesh with their customers and it doesn’t make them married.
According to that argument, either God got it wrong in Genesis 2:24 and Adam and Eve were not married because they didn’t have the Dalrock Special Sauce™, or Adam and Eve were not married because Eve was a whore. For some reason Dalrock didn’t respond to that.
The Importance of Dalrock’s 1st Cor. 7 Argument
What Paul actually said in 1st Corinthians 7 is simple: Because of the ubiquitous temptations of sexual immorality, each wife is to have her own husband (not someone else’s husband- sexual immorality) and each husband is to have his own wife (not someone else’s wife- sexual immorality). They are to have sex whenever either of them wants sex and neither can say no to the other, except for those times set aside, by mutual agreement, for fasting and prayer. When the time set aside for fasting and prayer is over they are to come together again and have sex in order that they might not be tempted by the sexual immorality around them.
The text Dalrock refers to is instruction to the already married people concerning sex and it does not have anything to do with the creation of marriage. The problem with the Dalrock brigade is they skip over the first part of the instruction in their rush to judgment and miss the fact that Paul specifically addressed sex outside marriage in 1st Corinthians 7:1.
“It Is Good Not To Touch A Woman”
- The word translated as “touch” is the Greek word haptomai, which means “I fasten to; I lay hold of, touch, know carnally“ and Paul is obviously using the “know carnally” meaning in this passage.
- The word translated into English as “woman” is “gynaikos“, a form of “guné“. Given the context of the instruction he gave immediately afterward, he is obviously not saying it is good not to have sex with your wife.
- If the woman is not a wife, then obviously carnal knowledge of such a woman is, by definition, sex outside marriage.
In the previous chapter Paul forbid men from having sex with prostitutes. Adultery, which is the sin of a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband, was forbidden in the Law. So was incest and male homosexuality. These acts are known as “sexual immorality” because they are specifically forbidden. However, “sex outside marriage” is not prohibited and when Paul addressed the issue directly, all he had to say on the subject was (paraphrasing)
“It’s good to not do that.”
Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and he knew exactly what God’s Law said and didn’t say. He knew that marriage begins with sex and sometimes… sex “outside marriage” is just sex that doesn’t result in marriage and it’s not sin.
Rather than prohibit sexual activity “outside marriage” as Dalrock claims, Paul actually said “it is good to not have sex a woman who is not your wife”. Meaning, “yes, that is permitted, but it’s good not to do that.”
As with his erroneous interpretation of Deuteronomy 23:17-18, Dalrock is claiming that 1st Corinthians 7:1-2 says something that it clearly does not say and can’t see that it actually says the opposite of what he claims.
The Show Trial Had To End
After two separate threads totaling more than 1400 comments, with several commenters asking why Toad wasn’t being refuted, it had to end. In order to get a violation of his blog rules, Dalrock asked this question:
If I follow your logic, raping a non betrothed virgin isn’t a sin then. Right?
Actually, he was intentionally not following my logic and he is incorrect, but it’s just one more example of Dalrock’s dishonesty. The subject is the rape of the non-betrothed virgin that creates her marriage to the man who raped her (Deuteronomy 22:28-29), but the issue is the agency of the virgin and whether her consent is required in order for her to be married. Obviously the virgin has no agency and her consent is not required.
What Dalrock did was ask a forked question. The classic example of a forked question is “Have you stopped beating your wife?” The question assumes wife-beating is or has been occurring. Dalrock’s question assumes that a rape cannot create a marriage, the community had to do so as part of the punishment for raping her. It was important for Dalrock to establish that some Special Sauce™ makes a virgin married, not just the sex and becoming one flesh as described in Genesis 2:24 that makes a virgin married.
Thus, according to Dalrock’s Special Sauce™ doctrinal view of Deuteronomy 22:28-29, marriage is a punishment and the rape victim is punished by being forced to marry her rapist. This is the level of ridiculousness they are forced to stoop to in order to justify their doctrines.
It was not clear whether Dalrock was putting on his pink vagina hat or not, so I asked for clarification before answering by changing the subject within the same issue of consent.
I think it safe to say that we should be able to agree that according to Scripture, the father has the right to give his daughter to the man *he* chooses for her regardless of her feelings about it. If you have an objection please let me know.
So, under that condition, is the man who gets her from her father in sin when he marries her? Just so we’re clear, he marries her with the act of penetrative sexual intercourse, against her will and over her objections.
Is that man in sin for marrying his wife?
Unlike the virgin who was raped into marriage, the subject of my question is a wife according to Dalrock’s doctrine, because she had the Special Sauce™ in the form of her father giving her to her husband in a “public status” ceremony in front of witnesses. Dalrock claims marriage is a public status and therefore it requires some sort of Special Sauce™ ceremony dictated by the particular culture. Obviously this girl had that because that particular culture lived under God’s Law and they said she was his wife.
So, is the husband in sin if he takes her by force? Lack of consent is the sine qua non of rape, so is her husband raping her? The question is whether her father has the authority to consent for her. If he does, it cannot be rape and more importantly it proves she does not have agency.
Is the virgin’s consent required in order for the sex to make her married?
According to the Bible, the answer is clearly no. Deut. 22:28-29 tells us that the virgin can be raped into marriage, which means her consent is not required. Therefore the idea that a virgin does not know that giving her virginity to some hawt boy will result in her being married is irrelevant. It doesn’t matter whether she knows or not, whether she consents or not, because her consent is not required.
Does a father have the authority to give his daughter in marriage to the man he chooses, against her will and over her objections? According to the Bible, the answer is clearly yes. Exodus 21:7-11 tells us that a father can sell his daughter into slavery to be a man’s concubine. Leviticus 19:29 limits that authority, with the prohibition on a father profaning his daughter by making her a prostitute.
Notice what Dalrock said in answer to the question:
All you’ve done is asked me the very question I asked you. But since you asked, yes, rape is a sin, and that would include raping a virgin.
Is Dalrock stupid? No, not at all. He knows very well that consent is the essential element in the crime of rape, he knows exactly what the Bible says and he carefully did not answer the question. He did not say that the man in question was raping his wife, he simply said that rape is a sin. I know that and he knows I know that. Dalrock gave the standard feminist answer about rape always being a sin and in so doing covered his ass, but he had reached the point he could not allow it to continue. Because feminism.
Dalrock banned me before I could respond and 1) call him out for not actually answering the question and 2) point to the real issue. Of course, I’d have also called him out for lying, once again, but that’s beside the point.
Obviously it’s Dalrock’s blog and he has every right to ban anyone he wants. I’m not complaining, because what he did was establish a few facts once and for all:
- Dalrock and all his churchian bros together could not refute (on any point) the teaching of Scripture that I’ve been writing about for years.
- In two threads with a total of over 1400 comments, several points emerged.
☠ The fact Dalrock could not argue without resorting to lying and ad hominem attacks proves he cannot debate the issue.
☠ The fact that he got his ass handed to him every time he put forth any kind of Scriptural argument to refute me proves he is wrong and he knows it.
☠ The fact he banned me proves he couldn’t tolerate publicly losing the argument.
☠ Dalrock is a dishonest, feminist churchian who does not like or agree with what the Bible actually says and does not say.
There were several novel points that got raised during the course of the argument that I’ll address in later posts, notably the position of Evan P Turner that slaves cannot be wives and his logical deductions resulting from that position.
For years, all Dalrock has done is keep up a steady drumbeat of posts that essentially boil down to one thing: men are losing the cultural war against feminism. For years, Dalrock has offered no solutions to help men and churches deal with the problem of feminism. The Dalrock message is clear: Men are losing and there is no hope.
The truth is that the early church threw out the Bible’s teaching on sexual morality and replaced it with a combination of Pagan belief, Stoic philosophy and Roman law. These teachings are encapsulated by the following:
- Sex is evil, don’t do it. However, because of the requirement of “be fruitful and multiply” sex is permitted within marriage, but only for the purposes of procreation. Obviously sex “outside of marriage” is forbidden. (pagan belief/stoic philosophy).
- Marriage is established by consent, not sex (Roman law)
- Marriage must be monogamous, polygyny is not permitted (Roman Law)
- Men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality (pagan belief)
This rejection of the Bible has resulted in two major problems. The first is the epidemic of adultery within the church. Solutions exist to solve this problem but the first step is to refute the lies and teach the truth.
The second problem impacts not just the church but the culture as well. The early church’s teaching that men and women are held to the same standard of sexual morality is to say that men and women are equal. Thus, the church is the creator of the moral foundation of feminism and feminism cannot be defeated within the church until that pernicious doctrine is rejected by the church.
In order to reject the the adultery within the church and the moral foundation of feminism, the church must teach and preach the standards of sexual morality that are contained within the Bible, not the lies they have been preaching and teaching for 1500 years. Men must accept the responsibility of the role they were given, by God and women must accept the role they were given, by God.
Men and women are not equal and they are not held to the same standards.