Quote# 112453

WELL MORMONS ARE NOT CHRISTIANS THEY ARE PRETENDERS

Mike Sturm, Christian News Network 32 Comments [9/1/2015 6:49:13 AM]
Fundie Index: 7

Quote# 112451

SO MANY CLUELESS. GENESIS GOD CREATED MARRIAGE BUT I DOUBT GOD WORD IS SOMETHING THEY SEEK .THE TRUTH OFFENDS

Mike Sturm, Christian News Network 33 Comments [9/1/2015 6:49:01 AM]
Fundie Index: 17

Quote# 112450

To allow Polygamy would bankrupt the US Welfare system just as Islam does when Muslim men have 4 wife's and many children on food stamps and TANF. This has caused the collapse of welfare funding in many countries in the UE, If this is allowed it will open the door to incest and pedophilia being legal. This has to stop somewhere folks. It clearly states in the New Testament that men should have only one wife at a time. Now the book of Mormon seems to differ on this matter and there is a warning in the book of Revelation about changing things. Polygamy is NOT a teaching of the Christian faith.

Rev T J Carter, Christian News Network 29 Comments [9/1/2015 6:46:40 AM]
Fundie Index: 14

Quote# 112446

I would like to address an extremely complicated and unfortunate topic which affects us all, one I've come to know too well in my years of matchmaking and community service: why are so many Jewish men consistently choosing, often by default, to be with non-Jewish women when there are literally hundreds of available Jewish women in St. Louis ALONE?

[...]

We women must take a look at ourselves and make some adjustments to address this ubiquitous problem in the world as we watch the Jewish population age and shrink. Do many of us fit the stereotype of the loud, whiny, shrill Jewish American Princess, often with a hard-edged personality? Could this be one contributing factor to the fifty percent divorce rate and the fifty percent intermarriage rate, and to the bigger picture of the decline in American and world Jewry?

[...]

The way the world has become is that in order for a woman to be successful, especially in certain previously male-dominated fields, she sometimes must become aggressive and even nasty. It seems that she must take on characteristics which are not feminine and therefore not appealing to most Jewish men. How to rectify this discrepancy? Men want "sweet and soft," descriptions I hear almost every day, and Jewish women seem to have abandoned those characteristics or never acquired them, virtually forcing Jewish men, including the Jewish women's sons, farther and faster into the arms of the sweet and soft (and often slim!) non-Jewish shiksas-I hate that word!!!

One such man I was matching and coaching is tall and personable, with good education and profession and sense of humor, qualities which Jewish women say they want. After meeting almost two dozen Jewish women, for one date or for a few months, he hoped several times that he'd found Ms. Right. He came up against so much entitlement, jappiness, and high maintenance that one day he walked out, practically right into the arms of a non-Jewish woman who is sweet, soft, slim, and low-maintenance. They are both very happy, much to my dismay.

Paula, Jewish in St. Louis 20 Comments [9/1/2015 6:45:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 6

Quote# 112445

[On "What should we do?" about the SCOTUS gay marriage ruling; formatting original]

It’s easy to conclude that the LGBT movement has now captured America and its grip is insurmountable.

Don't believe it. Any serious study of the history of political movements around the world over the last hundred years (both good and evil – viz. Lenin, Mao, Gandhi, Alinsky, Martin Luther King, the fall of the USSR under Reagan) reveals the massive weaknesses of the LGBT movement lurking just under the surface. In other words, given the right kind of opposition it could all come down. The more they talk about “being on the right side of history” the more it’s really covering up a house of cards.

Strategically, there are many things that need to be done make their movement collapse. We will be talking more about this in future posts.

But right now – as Pope John Paul II observed – the two most important that one must do are telling the truth and not being afraid. It may seem simplistic, but these alone are very powerful. No totalitarian movement can withstand it for very long.

That’s why the situation with Dr. Paul Church is so critical. As we reported recently, Dr. Church, a member of the Harvard Medical School faculty, has been fired from a major hospital in Boston because he insisted on telling the truth to other staff members about the medical dangers of homosexual behavior. He voiced opposition to the hospital’s aggressive promotion of LGBT activities. And he wouldn’t back down to threats and intimidation from the hospital administration to stop talking about it. (He even used the dreaded p-word — “perversion” — in his correspondence! And he quoted the Bible!)

Dr. Church did what almost no prominent pro-family leader has been willing to do. And he knowingly risked his job to do it. Everybody must do what Dr. Church is doing.

Another thing we all must do: Openly resist this Supreme Court ruling every chance we get, in ways big and small.

As Princeton’s Prof. Robert George observed about Abraham Lincoln and the Supreme Court’s clearly unconstitutional Dred Scott ruling:

"In office, Lincoln gave effect to his position against judicial supremacy by consistently refusing to treat the Dred Scott decision as creating a rule of law binding on the executive branch. His administration issued passports and other documents to free blacks, thus treating them as citizens of the United States despite the Court’s denial of their status as citizens. He signed legislation that plainly placed restrictions on slavery in the western territories in defiance of [Chief Justice] Taney’s ruling."

What would this mean in our daily lives? Maybe it means complaining loudly if your child’s school plans to teach about “same-sex marriage” to your kids. Or insisting in a conversation that “gay marriage” is an unnatural fiction. Or objecting if your company pushes it in “diversity training.”

To sum up, in many ways this horrible ruling was the predictable result of our own movement’s cowardice and incompetence. Not surprisingly, the proponents are moving fast to seal it in our psyche as permanent. Already, we’re seeing articles in the mainstream media that the world has changed forever and the ignorant dissent will soon be washed away. But the world is a lot more resilient than they think. Their modern day “thousand year Reich” is as unreal as the previous one. It’s up to us to take it down.

Unknown, Mass Resistance 17 Comments [9/1/2015 6:43:27 AM]
Fundie Index: 13
Submitted By: pyro

Quote# 112444



Getting right to the point. Russian immigrants holding signs outside the Massachusetts State House during Marriage Amendment Constitutional Convention demonstrations in 2007. They said to us, "You Americans don't get it. You've got to be radical if you're going to stop this." NOTE the policeman was stationed right in front of them the entire time.
[MassResistance photo]

Unknown, Mass Resistance 45 Comments [9/1/2015 6:43:04 AM]
Fundie Index: 14
Submitted By: pyro

Quote# 112443

[on "What really happened" during the SCOTUS ruling on gay marriage; formatting original]

Probably the biggest reason we’ve been losing this battle so spectacularly rests in the laps of our own movement. It pains us to say that in many ways the religious pro-family establishment is as treacherous and opportunist as the national Republican Party establishment.

For the past decade, the religious pro-family establishment has essentially made a deal with the devil on the LGBT issue. As they took on the “culture war battles” they desperately didn’t want to be labeled as haters, bigots, fringe elements, etc., by the liberal media and political class. In return they implicitly agreed not to demean homosexual (or transgender) behavior as being immoral, perverted, unnatural, destructive, unhealthy, or medically dangerous. Although they support traditional marriage, they purposefully didn’t oppose homosexual civil unions or domestic partnerships. And although they preached that “every child needs a mother and a father,” they didn’t oppose adoption by homosexual couples or describe the practice as harmful to children.

This large scale self-censorship was an incredible benefit to the LGBT movement over the years. It completely freed them from having to defend their most vulnerable and obvious weaknesses. Instead, they were able to pound away ad nauseam with their contrived “civil rights” arguments (which also were left unchallenged). At the same time, our side busied itself with unconvincing discussions of the nature of marriage, what’s “better” for children, religious freedom, and the like.

This terrible strategy also greatly hurt us in the LGBT “culture war” battle in society in general. The refusal by our movement and its leaders to tell the truth allowed corporations, politicians (including the GOP), civic organizations, left-wing churches, and other institutions to cave in to the LGBT movement largely unimpeded. (Our favorite: Pro-family groups rebuked corporations by politely asking them to “Be neutral in the culture war,” instead of demanding “Don’t support perversion.”)

Once the radicals got this momentum going, is it any wonder the LGBT movement was able to sail through the federal courts? Our side’s legal arguments were often so lopsided that judges were almost left no choice but to rule for the homosexuals. Back in 2009, in the California Prop-8 trial, the out-homosexual federal judge actually rebuked the pro-family attorneys for presenting such an inept presentation of their case.

The US Supreme Court “gay marriage” case continued this pattern, as we reported back in May. And the result, shocking as it was, was really much the same as in the lower federal courts.

Unknown, Mass Resistance 19 Comments [9/1/2015 6:42:42 AM]
Fundie Index: 10
Submitted By: pyro

Quote# 112442

it's okay to molest your siblings but gawd forbid you have an extramarital affair with a consenting adult

I saw a montage of liberal reaction to this family. No reasonable person could observe those reactions and call it anything but hate - written all over their faces, wrapped around every word, and seeping out of every pore. Only liberals can miss the irony of being the epitome of hateful while accusing others of being hateful.

Are you saying Josh is the monster, or all this publicity is the monster? I agree, if you mean the latter. A friend of mine literally lived and worked with Josh Duggar for a year when Josh was in his early 20's. He told me that Josh is one of the finest people he has ever been around. More than anything, that's what makes me think Josh was failed by his parents, his father in particular, in preparing him to deal with sexual issues, but despite some missteps by his parents, he was able to correct the problem by age 15, and I have a big problem defining the man now by what that boy did. I suspect none of us want to be judged that way.

The allegation of a cover up ("family buried it") seems to have no basis. A state trooper friend was consulted, their pastor and a group of close friends knew, they sought out a mentor, professional counsellors were used, and the parents took their son to the local state police post to report the behavior. If that's a cover up, it's a very poor one. The other sense you may mean "buried it" could be that the family tried to forget about it. That could be true, and it could be appropriate. Forgiveness and restoration could look like burying it, or be characterized as that, but it could also mean that the issue was dealt with successfully, and the matter put and left in the past. Going by the victims' statements, they love their brother, do not carrying resentment of him, and deny any unresolved emotional issues.

[Josh Duggar has held himself out there to be an moral arbiter in judgment of others. I can't even begin to feel the slightest bit of sympathy that he, personally, has to go through this.]

I have real trouble understanding how a child's sin negates his ability to hold and promote moral views as a man. I sense there is a standard being applied here that no one would apply to themselves. It would be like this if I were a public figure: Q: How do you feel about the morality of capital punishment? A: I can't hold a public view on that because I groped a girl in the 8th grade. Huh? Now, if as a 50 year old man I am molesting 8th grade girls, then I would have to agree that I have no standing to advocate any moral position. There is a logical gap/leap some anti-Duggars are taking right on this point.
This gets to one of the roots of the controversy and division this story has created.

It's basically the hypocrisy argument: "If you have ever had a moral failure, you are disqualified from holding any public moral view, and advocating for that view."

Which, of course, is total nonsense. The argument imposes on anyone who holds a public moral view a claim of moral superiority, if not moral perfection. The Duggars would, in fact, claim the opposite. A fundamental element of their faith would be that they are morally broken and imperfect people, and that the only way to be whole is through faith, but that while they have a living body, they are susceptible to wrong-doing. Because of this reality, they need moral boundaries to keep from harming themselves and others. Josh violated those moral boundaries, and he hurt himself and others. This is evidence of his imperfection, and it also demonstrates the need for those boundaries. It does not negate the need or diminish the quality of the moral standard itself, but rather shows why the standard is needed. If I strive to live by that standard, and so do my neighbors, and the people I work with, and all the other community members I come into contact with, we individually and collectively create a very good place for human beings to live with one another, in spite of the occasions where those standards are violated. So, you would want to advocate the setting of those standards for the benefit of yourself and everyone around you. You can't demand those standards are codified into law, although many are (don't murder, steal, lie), but every community has an ethos that defines it - what it values and discourages - and someone with views like the Duggars want that view to have a seat at the public table - not that they are perfect, because they are imperfect like everyone else - but because they feel the moral standard they hold is good for them and everyone around them. They would recogize that others would have other standards, and that a societal consensus may not want to adopt their standard. That's how democracy and freedom works.

But when we require moral perfection for one to hold moral public views, we are simply shaming with the label of hypocrisy in order to prevent a moral standard from being heard. That's not real democratic or freedom-honoring. The hypocisy argument is intended to discourage anyone from holding a public moral veiw they disagree with, since there are no morally perfect people. It's simplistic and inane, but there are a ton of people who buy it and repeat it.

By definition, hypocrisy can only exist where people are trying to live by a higher moral standard than what basic human nature provides. If you believe promiscuity is good for you, and you try to have sex with every woman in the bar, then you are not a hypocrite. But if you are the Sunday School teacher who has promoted sobriety and sexual purity, and you do the same, then you are a hypocrite. So, you see what your standard is determines whether hypocrisy exists. But again, the SS teacher's hypocrisy is only evidence of his imperfection, but does not prove that the standard is faulty. The choice is one in which we opt for a society with the lowest moral standards and no hypocrisy or one with high moral standards with hypocrisy. I'll take the latter, but I understand many prefer the former.

Idealogies clash - political and religious ones in particular. I have contempt for leftist and secular ideologies because I have seen that they are dangerous and destructive (as are some on the other side), and contempt for those from that bent who promote those beliefs through intolerance, hatred, name-calling, personal attack, and throwing fits like spoiled children - essentially what we are seeing in how they are treating this family. On the other hand, I cherish every one of my liberal friends who can sit down over a cup of coffee, make an intelligent argument, and teach me something. By definition, you can only learn something from someone who knows something you don't, or has a perspective you don't know about. Liberals have taught me a ton. Critics will point out to you the weaknesses in your thinking and confirm your strengths. In some cases, I have changed my thinking in subtle or drastic ways, or found confirmation in what I held. It's a great process, but I suspect very few people ever do it.

As for Josh's rehabilitation, you are aware that he received professional counselling, or not? I will assume that you do not claim the same kind of faith as the Duggars, so how can you judge what their faith principles and prayer can and cannot do? What we know now is that there has not been any reported repeat offences for over a decade. The people who know him best say he was/is a changed person. So, who do we believe? Who would have the proximity to make a reasonable judgment on that? I looked it up. The recitivism rate for those in Josh's category is much lower than what I assumed - around 10-15%. So, kids have issues, they get help, and the vast majority do really well going forward. I think we should be very careful about wanting to tattoo the label of "sexual offender" or "child molester" on a man who did what Josh did as a child.

Your noting all the mandatory reporters out there is a good point. I am a mandatory reporter. Because of my job, and my volunteer work with the juvenile court, I deal with social workers, psychologist, psychiatrists, probation officers, and various law enforcement every week. Some of the most outstanding people I know fill those roles, and I love using them to help people and families. The reality is that there are also some who are complete nuts - who I wouldn't want within 10 miles of any child. The minute you report, as a parent, you have no control over the situation. People who do not know you, and you don't know, begin to make decisions about what will happen to your children - what kind of punishment and treatment they will get, and whether they can remain in the home and under what circumstances. Knowing what I know, I would have never gone to the police or any mandatory reporter in this particular Duggar scenario (more violent or drastic offences, I would). I would have first tried to deal with it through parental action, mentoring, and probably a trusted expert who would help without reporting for a limited term (delay the reporting). If that worked, then the reporting could happen later. If it didn't, then you have to let the state have their shot. But it's so easy to tell other people to turn their children over to the state. It's a completely different story when it's your child. Given what I've seen, you would be a fool to do that in a situation like the Duggars found themselves in. Yes, I know what the law is, and there are good reasons for it, but as a dad I have to do what is best for my children, and so, yes, I would definitely skirt it, delay it, or whatever I had to do. The mandatory reporting system itself discourages reporting by parents because of what can happen after - and that creates tragedies when the problem is not solved and it never reaches the authorities.

Well, the Ashley Madison leak reveals that Mr. Josh was cheating on his wife. Now, before anyone goes off in a wrong direction, I do consider child molestation worse than infidelity, but I have no respect for a man who cannot keep his word to his wife and be faithful. Josh may have conquered his sexual curiosity about his sisters, but he did not conquer his desires for sex outside of the boundaries. You won't hear me defending him or his parents.

OSUK, Buckeye Planet 29 Comments [9/1/2015 4:51:06 AM]
Fundie Index: 8

Quote# 112440

There is no such thing as 'fetus.' 'Fetus' is in fact just another synonym for the word 'baby, a synonym which feminists use to try to gloss over their acts of murder and pretend they are not murdering babies, even though they are.

Just like the word 'abortion' when applied to humans is just another name for 'murder,' again meant to pretend that feminists' acts of murder are not murder.

In other words, a baby by the name of 'fetus' is still a baby, and a murder by the name of 'abortion' is still murder. Playing semantic word games does not change those facts.

Navaros, IMDB 28 Comments [9/1/2015 4:49:09 AM]
Fundie Index: 15

Quote# 112439

["Yes, but the result is that the feminist community, particularly online, is becoming insular and hostile without any apparent increase in the progress they're making"]

Meh. Men have been claiming feminist communities are insular and hostile since the days of fighting for the right to vote. It's nothing new and also nothing that's been empirically proven beyond the biased observations of a few.

["How do we know nobody in a position of power is biased against men/white people?"]

How do I explain how few fucks I give?

["The movements for equality aren't going to make much progress if their terminology and principles are being hijacked to promote hatred and bigotry."]

Name one movement for equality who *hasn't* had their terminology and principles hijacked to promote hatred and bigotry.

["Besides, nobody is saying that you have to spend time advocating against every claim of prejudice against men/white people, only the ones that actually happen."]

This is exactly the kind of stupid shit I was talking about. It's not the job of feminists/racial equality activists to spend time advocating against claims of prejudice against men/white people *even* if they're true. You wouldn't expect cancer researchers to devote time and manpower to researching heart attacks. You wouldn't expect cat rescues to spend resources on handling dogs. Placing that kind of expectation on the shoulders of women/racial minorities who, by definition, have less resources than men/white people is just a backhanded way of reinforcing the status quo. Men/white people can handle their own shit with their own vastly greater resources.

DJ, FSTDT 28 Comments [9/1/2015 4:49:02 AM]
Fundie Index: -9

Quote# 112435

MichaelVWilson: Turn the other cheek is the most misunderstood and misapplied statement in all of Scripture. It’s easy to demonstrate:

Most people (the vast majority) are right-handed. In order to strike someone on their right with your right hand, you have to backhand them. Backhanding someone isn’t an attack in the conventional sense of the word, it’s an insult. So Jesus was saying, if someone insults you, let them insult you again.

But when someone attacks you, you are perfectly free to defend yourself, else why would Jesus have told His disciples to go buy some swords the night He was arrested? It wasn’t to attack the mob that came for Him, it was to protect themselves. Furthermore, Jesus and the Father are One, so when God speaks in the Old Testament, telling people to go to war against this group or that, it was Jesus speaking.

Tristan is correct when he says the attack on Aaron and Melissa wasn’t from a personal enemy, or merely an insult against them specifically. It was part and parcel of an ongoing war against God. But right now, only one side is fighting.

It’s time for Christians to “suit up and show up”, or to, as John Wayne might put it, “Stand up on your, hind legs, and, fight for what you claim to believe, pilgrim.”

Thisoldspouse: There was also a standing admonition to expel the heretics and those causing dissension in the Church. Surely that includes physical force against the unwilling heretic. You have a right to clean house - by force, if necessary.


MichaelVWilson and Thisoldspouse, BarbWire 25 Comments [9/1/2015 4:46:50 AM]
Fundie Index: 18

Quote# 112434

Not even close to the same thing. Interracial marriage has existed since practically the beginning of time. An interracial couple fulfilled the requirements for marriage. Nothing immoral or disordered about it. A man and a woman. It was personal hubris on the part of any Christian who objected. But homosexuality is a disordered attraction for one's own sex that goes against the very design of God (and nature). It is so profoundly different from heterosexuality that marriage was never seriously contemplated for same sex couples until the later half of the last century.

BeccaJoe, OneNewsNow 15 Comments [9/1/2015 4:45:55 AM]
Fundie Index: 10

Quote# 112433

A federal court case involving a Kentucky county clerk could be a clue to whether the courts will honor religious freedom.

Rowan County Clerk Kim Davis has declined to issue marriage licenses to same-gender pairs based on her religious beliefs.

A federal court has ordered her to do so and the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to issue a stay pending outcome of her appeal.
Staver

Mat Staver of Liberty Counsel says attorneys are asking the U.S. Supreme Court now to issue a stay of that order.

"Kim Davis is not the only person to have this issue within the last few months since the Supreme Court opinion," Staver tells OneNewsNow. "But she certainly represents many people, not just clerks, but others and a wide variety of businesses and professions and occupations that are having their free exercise rights challenged."

The attorney warns that churches will be next "on the chopping block," echoing a warning from pro-family leaders in recent weeks after the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling in June.

A poll conducted soon after the U.S. Supreme Court decision suggested Americans are more concerned with religious freedom than homosexuals marrying.

So will the courts respect Davis' religious beliefs or destroy them?

"If we're going to go down this road where religious free exercise rights are just simply trampled," says Staver, "that's a completely different America. That's no longer the shining city on a hill."

Matt Staver, One News Now 39 Comments [9/1/2015 4:45:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 13

Quote# 112432

Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) (also known as sexual orientation anti-discrimination policies) are the most devious tactic of the LGBT movement for stripping Christians of First Amendment protections and setting the stage for the “gay” takeover of any social, political or cultural entity. These SORs are the seed that contains the entire tree of the homosexual agenda with all of its poisonous fruit. Once implanted, the entire agenda emerges like the trunk and branches of a Manchineel tree, producing what looks deceptively like wholesome fruit but in fact is known in the island paradise in which it grows as the manzanita de la muerte, or “little apple of death.”

Read more: http://www.mnn.com/family/protection-safety/blogs/why-manchineel-might-be-earths-most-dangerous-tree#ixzz3k7xUeEyG

The antidote to the poisonous SORs is First Amendment Supremacy! The solution is already in the U.S. Constitution and simply needs to be re-affirmed in either of two ways:

Our First Amendment Supremacy Clause is designed to amend existing Sexual Orientation Regulations (SORs) in cities, counties, states, corporations, schools and colleges, and other organizations to ensure that in any contest of SORs with the First Amendment, the First Amendment must prevail.

First-Amendment-Supremacy-Clause-Fact-Sheet

Our First Amendment Supremacy Bill is a stand-alone statute to be enacted by states which do not already have state-level SORs. FASB invokes the doctrine of preemption to “preempt the field” and mandate First Amendment supremacy over SORs within any sub-unit of its government and other entities within its jurisdiction.

First Amendment Supremacy Bill Fact Sheet

Send copies of these fact sheets to every pro-family political activist and public official you know and urge them to adopt the First Amendment Supremacy strategy.

Vigorously oppose any new SORs at any level. Attack them as “Gay Fascism Bills” because that’s what they are. (it worked in Springfield, Missouri http://www.scottlively.net/2012/07/09/christian-red-alert/)

It is SORs that have allowed the LGBT activists to take down Christian bakers, printers, florists, bed and breakfast hotel owners and others, and hung a sign saying “hateful bigot” around the necks of every Bible-believing Christian in America.

It is SORs that have allowed LGBT activists to take control of a vast number of huge corporations whose resources, identity, and community goodwill they are now cynically plundering to advance their selfish and destructive agenda.

Vigorously oppose the Federal Equality Act, which is an SOR at the federal level (ten times more dangerous than the SCOTUS “gay marriage” ruling).

Remind everyone that SORs are always sold as if they are limited to protecting homosexuals and transsexuals from employment and housing discrimination (despite almost zero evidence of such discrimination in America for at least 20 years), but in fact are ENFORCED as blanket prohibitions on all disapproval of the LGBT agenda!!

The LGBT agenda is poisonous, but we have the antidote in the First Amendment. Use it, or lose it!

Scott Lively, Scott Lively Ministries 16 Comments [9/1/2015 4:45:22 AM]
Fundie Index: 17
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 112431

New commenter Rachel attempted in several comments to redirect the topic in the discussion of Why won’t he hurry up and die already? beginning with:

Hi, I know this blog is about the destructive and weak behavior of women in their relationships with men. However, I was wondering if you can think of any comparable examples of behavior exhibited by men in their relationships with women. I know that’s not the focus of this blog, though.

There are several problems with the framing of her question. The first is that the post she was responding to was in fact an explanation of how men are failing women, and part of an extended series I’ve done on the topic. Men are failing women terribly by refusing to speak the truth about bad behavior of women. Calling out bad behavior of women is difficult and feels uncomfortable, and men are taking the easy feel good path. This hurts the very women men are refusing to speak the truth about.

But there is another way that men’s failure here is hurting women. Not all women are protective of a push to debauch the culture. While all women (just like all men) face temptation to sin, some women are actively trying to push for better standards of behavior by women. In a properly functioning society, much if not most of the day to day policing of female behavior is done by women, and this is a biblical role.

3 Likewise, teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. 4 Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, 5 to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands, so that no one will malign the word of God.

The woman in the previous post* was not only unrepentant in her adultery and terrible treatment of her cancer stricken husband, she was announcing her intent to fight against the sanctity of marriage:

When my outing happens, I suppose I might as well take a stand for those who are trapped in bad marriages. Many of us are doing the best we can, trying in our own imperfect way to cope with alienation, lovelessness, and physical deprivation.

Some women read the quote above in the original post and didn’t feel a desire to protect the woman who wanted to destroy marriage; they felt under attack by her. For these women, my post wasn’t an assault, but protection. What I would ask the women reading is to go back and consider your own reaction to my last post. Which way did my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress strike you? Did you feel that I was attacking you or being unkind when I called the unrepentant adulteress out, or did you perceive the adulteress as the threat and my calling her out as protection? Which side did you identify with? Likewise, I would ask the men reading how they perceived my criticism of the unrepentant adulteress. Did you perceive it as an attack against women, or protection of women?

*The woman may be real, or a literary device the blogger is using to try to debauch the culture. Either way, the purpose of “her” words are the same.

Dalrock, Dalrock 5 Comments [9/1/2015 4:44:51 AM]
Fundie Index: 7
Submitted By: Yuu

Quote# 112429

Trump's a patriot, for Americans, and the rule of law.

The EVIL lib media hates that

mister, Yahoo! Comments 26 Comments [9/1/2015 4:32:33 AM]
Fundie Index: 11
Submitted By: Yuu