The Argument Room

The Argument Room

From time to time commenters, who by virtue of their arguments, deserve a place here in the argument room.  Our inaugural commenter is whysoserious?, a stalwart who has previously graced this puddle and inspired several posts.  He faded into the woodwork after the last episode, but he’s back again with new argument.

The header video notwithstanding, some might consider the argument room a place of dubious distinction.  No, it is a place for arguments that require a bit of time to be properly considered and responded to. In some cases the questions or points are good ones, in others the argument presented carries only the veneer of dialectic while packing a load of emotionally driven rhetoric.

Commenters Pode (who has made too many excellent points to single one out), Aardvark and Pothos have all made the grade previously and with the return of whysoserious? I decided to start collecting comments, questions and arguments of high quality in one spot where the readers might find them.  Some of the points raised require a bit of time to consider and I’d hate to see the give and take buried and forgotten.


The Arguments

Commenter whysoserious? is still in opposition to the idea that sex with an eligible virgin is to marry her.

Status:  Closed.

Outcome:  commenter whysoserious? has created a situation that defeats his own argument.  The orthodox view of this issue devolved from the key, intentional mis-translation of “dabaq” in Genesis 2:24, which fully recognized the authority of Genesis 2;24 as authoritative to marriage.  With the word “dabaq” properly translated, the meaning is clear so commenter whysoserious? has finally (after multiple different attacks) decided to reject the authority of Genesis 2:24 as decisive when it comes to marriage.

Keep in mind that in challenging the orthodox position, I have been required to rigorously argue the case at every point with an exegesis that is in complete harmony with the rest of Scripture.  In a classic case of projection, commenter whysoserious? describes this as “eisegesis”.

However, in rejecting the authority of Genesis 2:24, whysoserious? has likewise chosen to challenge the orthodox position, only in a far more dramatic way:  he attempts to throw the baby out with the bathwater.  He does so with a decidedly ridiculous argument in which he fails to definitively provide an alternate and creates multiple conflicts with the rest of Scripture.  In other words, he fails.

In keeping with Vox Day’s magnificent instructional “SJW’s Always Lie”, whysoserious? has systematically engaged in lying and projection.  When called out on it he has doubled down on his ridiculous arguments.  Once his arguments are boiled down to their essence, he argues that the Bible contains no definition of marriage and therefore marriage is whatever he claims it is.  There are three major problems with this that he cannot overcome.

1.  Adultery is a death-penalty crime which is defined as a married woman having sex with a man who is not her husband.   According to whysoserious? we have a situation in which God commanded that people be put to death for violating a marriage but He somehow forgot to define what marriage is.  In Psalm 19 the psalmist David, speaking in the spirit, said the Law of the Lord is perfect.  A perfect Law provides a definition of marriage that will allow one to definitively identify the elements that will make one married every single time.

Whysoserious? claims that isn’t the case.  He says:

“The married are married when they are married, just like friends are friends when they are friends, or men are men when they are men. It’s a natural fact.”


An eligible virgin is married when she has sex with an eligible man and after that if the woman has sex with any other man she commits adultery.  Two people are friends when they mutually decide to be friends according to whatever criteria they might use, but nobody gets put to death if they get too friendly with someone else following that.  Men, of course, are men by virtue of having a “Y” chromosome.  The only natural fact in evidence is that whysoserious? is an idiot.

2.  Deuteronomy 22:28-29 is a judgment stating that if a man rapes a virgin who is not betrothed, if they are discovered, they are married.  The only act that has occurred to make the two married is sex and this clears up any doubt on the issue of the virgin’s consent (not required) and other actions (not required).  On the basis of absolutely nothing, whysoserious? claims the resulting marriage is “induced by society” and enforced by the State.  Based on what?  The fact they had sex, nothing else.  Otherwise, whysoserious? is claiming the state has the arbitrary authority to simply declare individuals married based on whatever criteria it chooses.

3.  In making his claim that there is no Scriptural definition of marriage, whysoserious? rejects Jesus as competent to identify the Scriptural authority on marriage.   Rather than the blathering of whysoserious? we have the sure testimony that Jesus, the Word Made Flesh, identified the authority on marriage and quoted it as the defining authority on marriage.  Our resident idiot offers no evidence that He didn’t other than his ranting.

Note that commenter whysoserious? has engaged in the following tactics:

  1.  He lies.  A lot.
  2.  He has no position to support and thus can only attack a position he does not like.  This proves he makes no search for truth but rather attempts to bury the truth.
  3.  He engages in a great deal of projection.
  4.  Through long and ridiculous arguments, he attempts to derail the discussion.
  5.  He doubles down on his idiotic arguments after they’ve been refuted.
  6.  He is not only wrong, his responses have descended to mere contradiction and because of that, he’s boring.

The argument is closed.



Commenter CyberSith1 doesn’t agree with me and thinks I’m living in a fantasy world.

Status:  Closed.  For refusal to follow instructions and general idiocy, Cybersith1 has now been banned and spammed.

Outcome: Cybersith1 engaged in churchian point and shriek, lied, projected about his fear that his comments would be deleted or changed… and he doubled down on his idiotic lies in the face of evidence to the contrary from women bloggers who refuted his idiocy.

Just in case he was too stupid to understand, I explained it to him:

I also gave him some (futile) advice because this isn’t exactly my first rodeo when it comes to dealing with churchian idiots:

Cybersith1 then proved he’s an idiot.  He  doubled down on his assertions, claimed I lied, ignored the evidence and refused to make an argument.   Remember:

  1. Churchians always lie
  2. Churchians always project
  3. Churchians always double down.

Cybersith1 claims I’m a liar, so we should look at a clear example of his accusations.

Actually, I quoted straight from his comment, which I cut and pasted from this one.  Here’s a screenshot, or you can see it for yourself at the end of his argument page.

I’d say that speaks for itself in terms of who is lying, but there’s more below that proves he has no idea what a “declarative judgment of God” actually is.

In his 7 points (in italics) that he claims are his purpose for arguing with me here on this blog, I’ll indent my responses:

i will summarize my entire position for all your readers to see, and then they can judge whether you are correct or me

I think that’s an excellent idea!

1: Genesis 3:16 is BOTH a statement and a declarative judgement from God based on Adam and Eve’s sin, it is NOT a command….mankind’s inherited sin nature has resulted in a situation where the sexes will always be in a perpetual war for power

Cybersith1 cites no Scriptural authority for this opinion and demonstrates his ignorance of what a judgment is.  Notice that Deuteronomy 6:1 gives the hierarchy:  God commands, He provides statutes that implement the command and then He gives judgments regarding specific situations.  Judgments have the force of Law in the same way that commands and statutes do.   How do we know this?  Because God said so twice in Leviticus 18:4-5 where He commanded that His judgments and laws be obeyed.

2: The words “fit to rule” has been added to the original Hebrew by Artisanal Toad for no justification whatsoever, he used EISIGESIS, instead of sound biblical hermeneutics.

Cybersith1 evidently cannot read English, much less Hebrew.  This is what I said:

Anyone who desires can compare the text in that screenshot from this link and observe that I did not add anything to the Hebrew text of Genesis 3:16.  Oops, it looks like he really got that one wrong.  The goal was to get a translation in English that accurately, truthfully reflects the meaning of the Hebrew Text.  Some might call this point a lie on the part of Cybersith1, but I think he’s simply too emotional to understand the issue.

3: Women are naturally rebellious towards male authority whether they have “game” or not, this rebellion resulted from Eve’s sin and has been passed down to all future generations…see 1st Timothy 2:12…this command would be utterly redundant if women by nature were submissive

Cybersith1 offers more unsupported blathering for our entertainment.  Once again, despite being cautioned to support his assertions, he provides no Scriptural authority to back up his opinions.  He claims that women (universally, all women) are naturally rebellious toward male authority as a result of Eve’s sin. Apparently he isn’t intelligent enough to realize this is an extremely easy argument to refute.

If all women are condemned to be naturally rebellious against male authority as a result of Eve’s sin, then there would be nothing any man or woman could do to cause a woman to be submissive.  Yet, we have testimonial evidence from women (here and here) that women can be submissive to male authority and submit to their discipline. I provided my own testimony.  Since we can observe that women can be submissive, Cybersith1 is incorrect in his assertion.

I provided a different explanation that he cannot accept… that women, by nature, are rebellious to a man they don’t respect and submissive for a man they perceive as being fit to rule over them, as a result of the judgment at Genesis 3:16.

He claims that 1st Timothy 2:12 would be redundant if women were naturally submissive.  Really?  That instruction (to the male overseers) meant they were not to allow women to teach or exercise authority over men no matter how bad the men were or how good the women were.  The entire passage leads to the point that I made previously, that women were to stay in the role they were created for no matter how submissive they are or are not.

4: A man’s “ruling over his wife” must be based on kindness, love and Christ centered, it is not based on using a rod of iron, or fear

Cybersith1 provides even more completely unsupported opinion that is provably wrong.  In Ephesians 5:25-27 the husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves the church.  The only two examples of how Christ loves His church are found at Hebrews 12:5-11 and Revelation 3:19.  Let’s go ahead and quote Revelation 3:19:

“Those whom I love, I reprove and discipline; therefore be zealous and repent.”

The husband loves his wife by holding her accountable in order that she might have no spot or blemish.  Obedience is following the rules.  Submission is accepting accountability for one’s actions and the consequences for violating the rules.  Wives are commanded to submit to their husbands.  In order for the wives to submit, the husbands must hold them accountable and that means punish them when they intentionally violate the rules.  If a husband refuses to hold his wife accountable, his wife cannot submit to him because he is refusing to do his job.

5: Notice the bible says that a woman’s desire is TO her husband, not FOR her husband….this tiny but crucial word changes the entire meaning of the phrase

And, one again, Cybersith1 simply throws out an unsupported opinion, not understanding what he’s saying.  According to my view on the passage in question, I like translating wə·’el- as “to” better than I like translating it as “for“.  As in “she will be attracted to the man who passes her tests.”  However, given that the translation committees for the conservative and well-respected NASB and HCSB have translated it as “for” rather than “to”, he has an uphill battle to fight.  Especially since he still has not addressed the major change that the ESV translation just made to this passage that is unsupported by the Hebrew text.

6: a wife’s submission to her husband is NOT conditional on the man fitting any requirements on his behalf, or him passing any “shit” tests she sets for him, or him being “fit to rule”…..this is a lie based on Toad’s philosophy of game, on the contrary, a wife is to submit to her man because Christ told her to PERIOD, that is HER responsibility
This does not absolve the man from taking responsibility to be a loving, caring husband that deserves respect etc, but her obedience is not conditional….Toad wants it to be conditional so he can uphold his “game” philosophy

Actually, I never said a wife’s submission to her husband was conditional.  Cybersith1 is free to quote me as saying so and link to it, but hasn’t because he can’t.  Because he’s the one who is lying.  In fact, I specifically stated the opposite, repeatedly.

7: Devoting an entire blog over at the Argument Room to attacking me personally, instead of refuting me on a biblical basis was uncalled for, and is the very reason you are despised over at biblicalgenderroles blogs…now I know why you’re not welcome there

Wow.  A single sub-page is now an entire blog.  The butthurt is strong.

The truth is that I wasn’t attacking Cybersith personally, I was showcasing his special flavor of idiocy for the world to see.  His problem is he’s evidently unable to read for comprehension in order to understand the real issue and too ignorant to understand that his blathering was refuted, from Scripture.  I suspect if he knew even a quarter of what he thinks he knows… he’d be dangerous.  As it is, he’s just a butthurt gamma.

The announcement that BGR despises me and I’m not welcome there was enlightening.  The man’s been pulling information off this blog, rephrasing it, leaving out critical parts and passing it off as his stuff for a long time now.

Interestingly, Cybersith1 has the same attitude and the same writing style as the author of BGR.    After taking a quick peek, I see that he comments there frequently, almost as if he was the authors’ sock puppet.   And since he claims I’m “despised” and “not welcome” at BGR it begs the question of how he knows that.

That question brings up the issue of his projection.  Several times he’s claimed that I’ll delete his comments or edit mine…  and that’s called projection.  It’s also what the author of BGR does.  Here’s an example of Cybersith1’s projection:

Here’s another example of his projection:

Unlike the author of the BiblicalGenderRoles site, I allow commenters to make their best arguments.  I don’t delete comments and I don’t edit my work to make myself look good.  I also admit when I get something wrong and explain why I believe I was wrong and what I think the real answer is.  I do occasionally ban people when they start acting like Cybersith, but it’s actually rare.  The only commenter that’s been banned in a long time is Don Quixote.

Cybersith1 and the BGR author display the same incoherent writing style, the same inability to cite Scriptural support for their opinions and the same churchian attitudes toward women.  Cybersith1’s projection tells me that (like the author of BGR) he’d delete comments and edit his work to make himself look good.  The question then becomes how Cybersith1 is so convinced that I’m despised at BGR and not welcome there. He’d have to be an administrator to know that.

I have only commented at BGR once (a long time ago) and as far as I know, that comment is still in moderation.  Toad’s Hall has only been linked in comments twice and my name is never mentioned on BGR.  There are two links provided to this blog in the comments at BGR, which were provided on a positive note of recommendation by one of the commenters.  So, the only way anyone could know that I’m despised and not welcome at BGR is to be the person in charge or very close to them.

Interestingly, after this blog was mentioned in the comments last year, the BGR author claimed that prompted him to complete his piece about “premarital sex” and “pre-wedding” sex.   He cribbed most of his ideas from this blog in order to write that post but left out the most critical piece.  I don’t blame him for leaving it out, because according to the Apostle Paul, he’s a liar.

So… how does Cybersith1 know I’m “despised” and “unwelcome” at BGR unless he’s part of BGR?   Is Cybersith1 a sock-puppet of BiblicalGenderRoles? That would explain a lot.


To end this, consider this revealing statement by Cybersith1.

women are naturally rebellious towards male authority and are not attracted to “normal” men,

Cybersith1 doesn’t want to admit he is in competition with other men for the attention of women.  He is upset by the idea of game because it gives other men an advantage over him and he doesn’t want to do the work of bettering himself.  He blames the women instead.

Men, rejoice.  As I pointed out in Five Is Not The Number You Want, most men could work their way into the top 6% with a couple of years of effort.  Yet, very few will and Cybersith1 is a living, breathing example of the Christian Hostility To Becoming Attractive.   Don’t listen to them, do the work and reap the rewards.  And don’t feel guilty at the butthurt you cause fanboys like Cybersith1 when you get the interest of attractive women, the promotions at work and the respect of men and women alike.  If men like Cybersith1 are “normal” then you most definitely don’t want to be normal.


9 Responses to The Argument Room

  1. Cybersith1 is now banned and spammed.

  2. Roy says:

    I hope you are doing well. Your posts are wonderful and thought provoking in a good way. I feel the church needs to grow-up. They have been so wrong on sex and marriage for so long. This has caused so many problems for young men and women along with unneeded emotional baggage. Keep up the good work. Thanks again Roy

  3. Jane says:

    In one of your posts, you said there’s nothing biblically wrong with a woman becoming a prostitute. Yet, this contradicts what you say about an eligible virgin becoming married to the first man she had sex with. At some point, the prostitute was a virgin. So when she has sex with her first client, she’s now married to him, and is committing adultery with her subsequent clients.

    • Jane, you don’t understand. There is a huge difference between a virgin and a woman who is no longer a virgin but not married. Just because a virgin is married with the act of sexual intercourse does not mean the widow, the legitimately divorced woman or the woman no longer bound are married with the act of sex. A virgin can be raped into marriage (c.f. Deut. 22:28-29) but the others cannot because they are free to choose (c.f. 1st Cor. 7:39). In othr words, they can choose to have sex without choosing to be married. Virgins are virgins. The others are not.

      Therefore, if a woman who is not a virgin and not married chooses to have sex for payment, they have done nothing wrong. I have been places where women (typically widows) did that in order to feed their children because there was literally nothing else they could do. Not much employment in a war zone.

  4. Pianoman says:

    I have a question about your statement concerning the high incidents of adultery in the modern church due to the fact that many women are “married” to someone other than the man who took her virginity. If abandonment is a just cause for divorce, is it not true that the man who took her virginity has abandoned her & she is free from that marriage to remarry? (Ex. 21:10,11)

  5. Pianoman

    The text you cited applies to slaves, not to free persons. Status is important and it makes a difference. In the recent “debate” on Dalrock’s blog, Evan P Turner tried to make the case that because some parts of the Law do not apply to slave wives, that slaves cannot be wives. That is ridiculous because according to that logic, there is no Christian marriage because by definition, all Christians are slaves.

    Why are Christians dead to the Law? Because they are slaves of Christ. Christ paid the death-penalty for their sin and He lived under the Law without sin. Because He is the Master, He has the authority to arrange His house as He pleases. There are additional restrictions placed on His slaves that do not apply to others, such as the right of a husband to divorce his wife for her adultery. Christian husbands are not allowed to divorce their wives for any reason.

    Your question points to the fact that everyone wants a nice, neat solution to the problem and they all have their own way of attacking what God said or finding a “loophole” that lets them overlook what has been done. The problem is that God is not mocked.

    • Feminism rejects what Scripture says and demands that the virgin has agency. No consent, no marriage
    • Churchianism rejects Scripture and demands some extra-Biblical Special Sauce™ requirement, typically a public ceremony with consent and vows.
    • Followers of the Easter Bunny reject Scripture in favor of the Magic Book of Medieval Opinions, AKA the Teachings and Traditions of the Church.
    • None wants to admit that what the church has taught for 1500 years is a lie

    Beginning And Ending A Marriage

    When the eligible virgin has sex she is married and thus bound in marriage until her husband dies. It does not matter that she didn’t know she was married because her consent was not required. The virgin has no agency. There are three ways a marriage might end before the husband dies.

    If she agreed to the act of marriage (she was seduced), her father can forbid her agreement to marry, after the fact, in the day he hears of it (Numbers 30:3-5). There is no time limit placed on when he may do this, except it has to happen in the day he hears of it. However, he only has the authority to do that if she was living in her father’s house in her youth. If he forbids it, as far as God is concerned they were never married, even though they had sex..

    If she commits adultery, her unbelieving husband is permitted to divorce her for her adultery (Deut. 24:1, Matt. 19:9). However, if her husband is a Christian he cannot divorce her because Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives for any reason (1st Corinthians 7:11).

    If she is a Christian woman who is married to an unbeliever and he refuses to live with her and be her husband, she is free (1st Corinthians 7:15). It should be noted, that instruction applies only to Christians. Under the Law, a husband could send his wife away without divorcing her and she would still be married to him.

    That is it.

    • Don Affleck says:

      I agree with most of your reply but I believe that we should recognize that Ex. 21:7-11 is divorce legislation. The woman in question is a concubine, for that is what a concubine is, a wife who is sold into marriage without a dowry, neither herself nor her children possessing inheritance rights.

      A concubine is just as much a wife as is a “free” wife (Genesis 16:3, Genesis 30:9) and is therefore entitled to all the benefits of the marriage as is the free woman, specifically, provision for the necessities of life & sexual relations.

      If the husband, after taking a second wife, fails to meet his marital obligations to his first wife, she is free to initiate divorce action. Polygamy, however, does not constitute grounds for divorce. Both wives, whether bond or free, are entitled to fair treatment. We have an application of this law in the New Testament, I Cor.7:3-5.

      • “A concubine is just as much a wife as is a “free” wife (Genesis 16:3, Genesis 30:9) and is therefore entitled to all the benefits of the marriage as is the free woman, specifically, provision for the necessities of life & sexual relations.”

        You are incorrect in that you are ignoring status.

        A good example of the impact of status is the fact a slave wife caught committing adultery is not put to death… “because she is not free.”

        This is also why Christ can forbid divorce (which is a right of men under the Law) to his slaves. And why he can forbid his male slaves from having sex with prostitutes.

        This is why a virgin is married with the act of sex but a prostitute is not. Status is huge.

  6. Tim says:

    You have done a lot of wonderful work on this site! For your consideration…
    There is a relatively new medical procedure called fecal transplant. Fecal mater is removed from, for example, a skinny person and placed in an obese individual. The obese person then may become skinny. Unfortunately there is the potential for great harm as unknown diseases in the skinny person are also transferred. I believe this procedure is a violation of God’s Law. Say a man has anal intercourse with two other people at the same event. He has the possibility of transferring fecal matter between those two other individuals regardless of their gender. In the Greek, I believe that Romans 1:26 forbids this penile anal activity between a man and a woman. Likewise the activity is also forbidden between a man and a man in Romans 1:27. This is unnatural intercourse. It is a health statute.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s