Is Christian marriage only for elite women?

I’m reblogging this from a phone, so forgive poor composition.

Dalrock has this hopelessly backward. The presumption of Christian Life for men is marriage. Jesus himself made clear that he assumed men would lust for women, and commanded that each man marry the woman he fucks. Further, he can’t escape that marriage except by her infidelity. A woman, likewise, is commanded by longstanding Jewish law fulfilled and not overturned by Jesus, to reamain married once married, even if married to a man not Christian.

Nowhere in this discussion is either a man or woman considered worthy, much less DESERVING of marriage. Couples join, and once joined, a man cannot quit a marriage unless his wife fucks another man. I’m not certain the same is even true for a woman with (non-Christian) philandering husband.

I’m like a broken record on this topic, but Christians never seem able to see how plain the rules for marriage are according to scripture. The WORTH of a spouse isn’t relevant. Once a Christian couple fuck, they’re married.

Now, on the off chance somebody says, “Hey, this is about guys and gals who can’t seem to find a spouse!” I answer, “Are these people virgins?” If you’re a man, and you’ve never fucked, then, sure, you can then talk about finding a “good” woman. But if not, then may owe somebody a proposal.

Dalrock

Love one another with brotherly affection. Outdo one another in showing honor.

–Romans 12:10, ESV

Last week Pastor Michael Foster and I had an excellent exchange in the comments of my post Unless the men are *Christian*.

The discussion was around what it takes for Christian young men to gain the respect of older Christian men, as we both agree that this is very important for a Christian man who hopes to attract a Christian wife.  Pastor Foster explained that for a Christian man to be respected by other Christian men he needed to prove himself to be exceptional:

In general, men gain status through diligent work. They outwork their peers in efforts and/or wisdom. That is what he meant by, “You’ll get men to respect you by working hard.”

I pointed out that only elite Christian men would be able to marry under this model, since he had also…

View original post 698 more words

Advertisements

The Truth About the Shutdown: “Smoke Out the Resistance”

Republished in its entirety from the Daily Caller.

As one of the senior officials working without a paycheck, a few words of advice for the president’s next move at shuttered government agencies: lock the doors, sell the furniture, and cut them down.

Federal employees are starting to feel the strain of the shutdown. I am one of them. But for the sake of our nation, I hope it lasts a very long time, till the government is changed and can never return to its previous form.

The lapse in appropriations is more than a battle over a wall. It is an opportunity to strip wasteful government agencies for good.

On an average day, roughly 15 percent of the employees around me are exceptional patriots serving their country. I wish I could give competitive salaries to them and no one else. But 80 percent feel no pressure to produce results. If they don’t feel like doing what they are told, they don’t.

Why would they? We can’t fire them. They avoid attention, plan their weekend, schedule vacation, their second job, their next position — some do this in the same position for more than a decade.

They do nothing that warrants punishment and nothing of external value. That is their workday: errands for the sake of errands — administering, refining, following and collaborating on process. “Process is your friend” is what delusional civil servants tell themselves. Even senior officials must gain approval from every rank across their department, other agencies and work units for basic administrative chores.

Process is what we serve, process keeps us safe, process is our core value. It takes a lot of people to maintain the process. Process provides jobs. In fact, there are process experts and certified process managers who protect the process. Then there are the 5 percent with moxie (career managers). At any given time they can change, clarify or add to the process — even to distort or block policy counsel for the president.

Saboteurs peddling opinion as research, tasking their staff on pet projects or pitching wasteful grants to their friends. Most of my career colleagues actively work against the president’s agenda. This means I typically spend about 15 percent of my time on the president’s agenda and 85 percent of my time trying to stop sabotage, and we have no power to get rid of them. Until the shutdown.

Due to the lack of funding, many federal agencies are now operating more effectively from the top down on a fraction of their workforce, with only select essential personnel serving national security tasks. One might think this is how government should function, but bureaucracies operate from the bottom up — a collective of self-generated ideas. Ideas become initiatives, formalize into offices, they seek funds from Congress and become bureaus or sub-agencies, and maybe one day grow to be their own independent agency, like ours. The nature of a big administrative bureaucracy is to grow to serve itself. I watch it and fight it daily.

When the agency is full, employees held liable for poor performance respond with threats, lawsuits, complaints and process in at least a dozen offices, taking years of mounting paperwork with no fear of accountability, extending their careers, while no real work is done. Do we succumb to such extortion? Yes. We pay them settlements, we waive bad reviews, and we promote them.

Many government agencies have adopted the position that more complaints are good because it shows inclusion in, you guessed it, the process. When complaints come, it is cheaper to pay them off than to hold public servants accountable. The result: People accused of serious offenses are not charged, and self-proclaimed victims are paid by you, the American taxpayer.

The message to federal supervisors is clear. Maintain the status quo, or face allegations. Many federal employees truly believe that doing tasks more efficiently and cutting out waste, by closing troubled programs instead of expanding them, “is morally wrong,” as one cried to me.

I get it. These are their pets. It is tough to put them down and let go, and many resist. This phenomenon was best summed up by a colleague who said, “The goal in government is to do nothing. If you try to get things done, that’s when you will run into trouble.”

But President Trump can end this abuse. Senior officials can reprioritize during an extended shutdown, focus on valuable results and weed out the saboteurs. We do not want most employees to return, because we are working better without them. Sure, we empathize with families making tough financial decisions, like mine, and just like private citizens who have to find other work and bring competitive value every day, while paying more than a third of their salary in federal taxes.

President Trump has created more jobs in the private sector than the furloughed federal workforce. Now that we are shut down, not only are we identifying and eliminating much of the sabotage and waste, but we are finally working on the president’s agenda.

President Trump does not need Congress to address the border emergency, and yes, it is an emergency. Billions upon billions of hard-earned tax dollars are still being dumped into foreign aid programs every year that do nothing for America’s interest or national security. The president does not need congressional funding to deconstruct abusive agencies who work against his agenda. This is a chance to effect real change, and his leverage grows stronger every day the shutdown lasts.

The president should add to his demands, including a vote on all of his political nominees in the Senate. Send the career appointees back. Many are in the 5 percent of saboteurs and resistance leaders.

A word of caution: To be a victory, this shutdown must be different than those of the past and should achieve lasting disruption with two major changes, or it will hurt the president.

The first thing we need out of this is better security, particularly at the southern border. Our founders envisioned a free market night watchman state, not the bungled bloated bureaucracy our government has become. But we have to keep the uniformed officers paid, which is an emergency. Ideally, continue a resolution to pay the essential employees only, if they are truly working on national security. Furloughed employees should find other work, never return and not be paid.

Secondly, we need savings for taxpayers. If this fight is merely rhetorical bickering with Nancy Pelosi, we all lose, especially the president. But if it proves that government is better when smaller, focusing only on essential functions that serve Americans, then President Trump will achieve something great that Reagan was only bold enough to dream.

The president’s instincts are right. Most Americans will not miss non-essential government functions. A referendum to end government plunder must happen. Wasteful government agencies are fighting for relevance but they will lose. Now is the time to deliver historic change by cutting them down forever.

The author is a senior official in the Trump administration.

Marriage and Family isn’t an “Option”

The choice is marriage (and family) or cut off your dick. It isn’t, “You can have a family if you want.”  It’s, “If you fuck a woman, you married her, and you live happily ever after.” If you love ’em and leave ’em, then you’re an adulterer by being a maker of adulteresses.

His disciples [said] unto him, “If the case of the man be so with his wife [he cannot divorce his wife because her eventual remarriage is adultery, and that makes him a party to adultery, and thus an adulterer], it is not good to marry.”

But he said unto them, “All men cannot receive this [following] saying, save they to whom it is given.

“For there are some eunuchs [men without dicks], which were so born from their mother’s womb: and there are some eunuchs [men without dicks], which were made eunuchs [men without dicks] of [by other] men: and there be eunuchs [men without dicks], which have made themselves eunuchs [men without dicks – in Greek, ‘made themselves eunuchs’ is a single-word verb] for the kingdom of heaven’s sake [for the sake of the church which is the assembly of Christians]. He that is able to receive it [cut off his dick], let him receive it [cut off his dick rather than marry].”

This from the guy who advised men to cut off a hand or cut out an eye if it will lead to sin (and damnation).

Marriage isn’t an “option:” it’s the only permissible way for a man to fuck. According to Old Testament scriptures, the act of fucking constitutes either marriage (fucking a woman not married) or adultery (fucking a married woman) or rape (fucking a woman without permission – which a husband can’t grant to his wife). Since scripture commands humanity to “be fruitful and multiply,” the Christian standard is a lifelong bond of a wife to her husband (and only her husband) initiated by copulation, with no provision for postponing children, and only modest provisions for temporary abstinence from sex. A wedding ceremony only publicizes which woman is attached to which man so that nobody can later claim ignorance.

The alternative to marriage is meant to be harsh because the assumed state of men is marriage, not celibacy. A man is assumed to fuck women, banned from fucking men, and so required to never divorce the women he fucks.

The only exception to “never divorce” is for a man whose wife fucks another man (adultery) – then he can quit the marriage because it’s already over. If a man mistakenly fucks a whore who later fucks another man, then he’s off the hook. On the other hand, if he intentionally fucks whores, then that’s fornication, which is forbidden to Christian men.

That’s not great news for Heartiste and Rooshv, but that’s the rules.

Halal? Is it me you’re cooking for?

No, Sam: you misunderstand (or perhaps misrepresent) the typical Christian and secular Western opposition to halal (Muslim ritual) slaughter.

The Christian objection to halal slaughter is that the meat is sacrificed to a false deity, “Allah.” A small minority of Christians also abstain from certified kosher packaged food (common in the USA) for the same reason; conversely, some Christians embrace kosher food, such as Seventh Day Adventists, who (generally) abstain from meat altogether. [A full explanation of 7th-Day beliefs literally comprises volumes of writing, so it exceeds what I can present here.]

A strict reading of Christian scripture reveals that eating halal (and kosher) slaughtered meat is not a sin, per se (all food is lawful for Christians because false gods have no power and therefore cannot make food sinful), but may cause a less confident Christian to indulge a diet which in turn leads to other sin. Note: these rules apply to all Christians, regardless of ethnicity and correlating skin color.

So, among Christians, prohibition of halal (and kosher) slaughter and refusal to accommodate halal (and kosher) dietary rules follows from religious prohibitions against participating in the worship of false gods, like Allah or a deity which is not the Father of the Son of God, such as Judaism’s god, and against creating circumstances which may tempt another Christian to sin. If you then comprehend that the UK is a (historically?) Christian country assembled from among 2-4 (historically?) Christian nations (English, Irish, Welsh, Scots), then it makes sense that the (historically?) Christian nations of the UK would object to alien nations settling within the UK borders which practice sacrifice to false gods: it constitutes condoning idolatry.

Most Christian religious considerations fall under the general command that Christians remain “above reproach,” that is, so innocent that they cannot be believably accused of wrongdoing, even (NOT especially) by other Christians. If Christians are living in a place that becomes so hostile that it is not possible to peaceably live as a Christian (arguably how things are in the UK), then the Christian is obliged to flee, if possible. “What if a Christian can’t flee?” That’s a question among Christians much more unsettled to answer so I won’t try to answer it myself, but the various and conflicting answers have something to do with what you’re observing in the UK.

Among “secular Westerners” who are not Christian, the objection is to ethnic and religious exceptions from otherwise universal legal requirements for the slaughter of animals. While Western laws may be contradictory and allow for cruel slaughter, the issue is not the cruelty of the slaughter, an argument you correctly ridicule, but the permission of an exception from the law which is purported to apply equally to all persons. Among Westerner nations, unequal application of the law (and the ensuing imbalance between responsibilities and privileges) historically leads to civil war, and then often to revolution, so tolerance of exceptions by seems a particularly self-destructive policy for the government.

Sam, if I remember correctly, you were born and raised in the UK, so you know all this – or at least the secular argument. I’d be interested to know why you think these explanations I’ve provided aren’t the motives of the majority of ethnic English/Scots/Welsh who object to halal slaughter. Even if the motive is entirely “racist,” racism itself requires a motive, that is, an internal logic that motivates the racism; “skin color” isn’t an adequate explanation.

Do you really think this is a case of unmitigated “white supremacy?”

Left at the Lights

There are 2 billion Muslims in the world, the majority of them observing halal practices such as the slaughter of animals for food or redistribution of wealth (for example). Halal means permissible, whether this refers to consumption of food products or platonic interactions between the sexes or a bank account that does not accumulate interest, these conditions protect the rights of all human beings to a fair and healthy life.

Muslims, like Jews, and even some Christian factions do not consume pork which is deemed haraam, a sin. Contrary to popular myth it is not because it is a dirty animal but because pork is a perishable meat and prone to parasites like trichinella. From a health perspective it made sense to avoid it 1500-2000 years ago in the middle east but in these times of modern refrigeration and advances in microbiology this argument falls short for those of us…

View original post 693 more words

Loud and proud complementarians: No more taboos.

I am astonished by how much I agree with what’s posted by this Christian blogger, Dalrock, who I’d all but forgotten until Heartiste featured his blog.

My wife is Christian, so I try to stay aware of what’s ailing the remnant of the Christian church. I very much appreciate what Dalrock and the commentators are doing here. Most of what’s alleged to be Christian in the USA isn’t, so it’s nice to see evidence of the “7,000.”

Dalrock

Secular gay activists have worked for decades to remove the taboo from homosexuality.  “Loud and Proud” is their motto, and now Christian gay activists are doing the same work in conservative churches.  Eve Tushnet writes in There’s a Place for Us: Revoice and Gay Christian Futures

There is a future for you in the Church which is not isolated, silent, and shamed, but rich in love and fruitfulness. Whereas almost all the advice and theology I’d heard up until that point had two components: 1) Here’s what you can’t do; and 2) Have you tried being straight? Have better desires!

Rachel Gilson at The Gospel Coalition is preparing a space for loud and proud gays in the conservative church.  The first step of course is to give gays trusted access to our children:

Lily was crushed. She’d told just a member of her church her secret, and the member warned…

View original post 1,184 more words

Bureaucratic Hell Destroys America

I don’t have time to post this, but I think it’s important to put it down so that people can see what happens in America that will wrecks the trust people have in US government. This particular example comes from the state of Louisiana.

After a few years with no projects in Louisiana, I decided to withdraw my business from the state. Licenses fee accumulate, and without revenue, there’s just no good reason to maintain an out-of-state business certification and pay the registered agent fees. So, i contacted the Louisiana Secretary of State, obtained the correct forms, and filed to withdraw.

About a week later, near the end of October, I received notice from the Secretary of State’s office that my paper filing was not permitted: I must file online. No problem (never mind that there was nothing I could find online warning me a paper filing wasn’t permitted), I got online, registered with the SoS online system, then filed my withdrawal.

Thereafter, I received notice that the LA SoS office requested a clearance letter from the La Department of Revenue. No long after that, the DoR requested I file back taxes for Louisiana – even though I have done no business in Louisiana for the years they requested. After I looked at the complexity of the tax filing required, I contacted my accountant and engaged him to assist me. Within 48 hours, he completed all my taxes and mailed the forms to Louisiana. We are now at November 9. So far, so good.

By late November, my business is still pending withdrawal from the LA SoS, but I do see progress: i receive notice that a credit (?!) to my DoR account has been applied to 2016 tax year. Then I receive a puttance of a check from DoR for a business tax refund for 2016. Then I receive another refund – more substantial – for 2017. Those checks are dated late November and early December, respectively. I check online: still no clearance letter, and the 2018 filing doesn’t appear on my DoR account online.

December 05, I receive a request from the Department of Workforce Services to complete an affidavit affirming I have no employees in the state of Louisiana. I return that form (witnesses by a notary public) by email – as requested – on the same day.

A week passes and my withdrawal is still pending.

So… this morning I call the LA SoS to ascertain the status of my business withdrawal. The SoS office refers me to the DoR and the DoWS. I get the correct phone numbers from the SoS representative, and call DoWS. From them I learn from the first representative to answer my call that there is no record of my affidavit, so I request transfer to the person who sent me the affidavit and to whom I returned it (as instructed). After checking, she confirms that she has received the affidavit (12 days ago) and promises to send the clearance letter to the SoS. [While writing this, I receive an email from DoWS purporting to be notification that DoWS sent a clearance letter to the LA SoS.]

Next, I contact the DoR to ascertain the status of my account with them. They tell me that they have not receive my 2018 tax filing, which must be filed before DoR will send a clearance letter to the SoS. So, I call my accountant and speak with one of his office managers: she checks her records and confirms that their office mailed the tax filing. She promises to notify my accountant of the problem.

On a whim, i call the DoR again to confirm that they did not, indeed, receive the 2018 tax filing. After I explain the the DoR representative that I have checked with my accountant and confirmed that they mailed the tax filing, the representative finds that – surprise! – DoR DID receive my 2018 tax filing… but, since it was filed on a 2017 tax return, DoR automatically rejected the tax filing – but didn’t notify me or my accountant of the rejection.

I know what you’re thinking: “How is that the mistake of the LA DoR? Your accountant used the wrong form: isn’t that his mistake?” Well, that makes perfect sense… except LA DoR hasn’t yet published the 2018 corporate tax form, which means that if i want to file 2018 taxes, which I must do so that I can withdraw my business from Louisiana during 2018, then I must file the 2018 taxes on a 2017 form, per the instructions of the LA DoR.

So, now that the representative has confirmed that – contrary to previous assertions – the DoR did receive the 2018 tax filing, she promises to EMAIL the tax filing to a person within the DoR who can enter that 2018 tax filing onto the DoR electronic system.

When should I call back to confirm that DoR processed my 2018 filing and that the clearance letter has been sent to the LA SoS? Friday.

Meanwhile, I’ve delayed paying my registered agent invoice too long, so I’ll reconcile that today, and sort out prorated services for Louisiana when I finally receive notice from the SoS that my application to withdraw has been approved.

Many years ago, I lunched with my investment manager. He’d returned from Czech Republic where he’d visited the post office. The process took an hour for what I recall being some mundane task such as determining postage for a package. He blamed the leftovers of communist bureaucracy.

I don’t think this is a function of communism, per se. There seems to be a tide within most governments that creates impediments to accomplishing tasks. It’s like deposits of waste that accumulate within a circulatory system: plaque in the arteries or grease in sewer pipes. Except somehow this seems more insidious.

Our governments take up bad habits akin to eating a poor diet of affirmative action hiring, union employee privileges, ever-expanding tax codes, and document filing requirements, and then never stress the system with measures meant to flush the system of accumulated detritus clogging government with its stench of death.

We did this to ourselves. We license small variances from our ideals – we hire an employee that isn’t really qualified, we make a small change to the tax code that requires others to pay a little more so that some “deserving” class may pay less, we demand another affidavit to account for the few people who evade taxes – and we tolerate the consequences of these bureaucratic indulgences – incompetent civil servants, onerous tax forms, officially witnessed written assurances – and the consequential failures within the complex government systems ever burdened with more and more and more and more shit both human and human-contrived. But we never address the fundamental problem.

We tolerate people who do wrong. Worse, we tolerate people who intentionally do wrong. Worst, we tolerate people who do wrong because they aren’t competent to do right, and they will never be able to do right. If we ever want this country to be better, then we must start by restoring intolerance for incompetence – no matter where that intolerance inevitably leads.

He almost had a masculine thought.

Dalrock

After seeing How To Prepare Our Sons for the Matriarchy over at The Good Men Project, I decided to poke around a bit and see what else they offered.  While the nameplate declares that it is “The conversation no one else is having”, it is standard issue SJW content.  Most of the pieces are by women, for women, and about women.  It is a truly breathtaking example of feminist territory marking.

But even worse, the odd piece that is written by a man is effeminate melodrama.  In My Tribute to Mount Washing Machine, Shannon Carpenter writes about his fears of laundry inadequacy:

We have just begun, and the journey is long.  I think of the fathers before me and hope I stack up….

I drop my load and grab Carl, a white plush polar bear. I tell him my laundry issues as I stroke his comforting polyester fur…

View original post 322 more words