Biblical Capital Crimes

[Minor edit 19 February 2019]

What follows is an ongoing enumeration of all crimes (sins) listed in the Bible for which the penalty is death. For simplicity, I omitted the method of execution. I organized crimes I consider to be subsets under the broader crime. A more extensive discussion may be found here.

  • Idolatry
    • Witchcraft
    • Prognostication (False Prophesy)
  • Murder
    • Infanticide
  • Impiety (as a category, not a crime)
    • Blasphemy
    • Disregarding Sabbath
  • Disregarding Authority
    • Battery Against Parents
    • Insulting parents
    • Disobeying parents
  • Sexual Degeneracy (as a category, not a crime)
    • Rape (the only defense a woman may have for alleged adultery)
    • Adultery (a man fucks another man’s wife, or betrothed wife)
    • Fucking a woman and her daughter or granddaughter
    • Fornication by the daughter of a Priest
  • Enslaving by Kidnapping
    • Kidnapping for any purpose
  • Perjury (punished according to the crime falsely alleged, thus a falsely alleged rape would earn the perjurer the death penalty)

If you find one I’ve missed, please tell me.

Advertisements

If I Fuck Several Girls, Which is My Wife?

[Edit 23 Jan 2019: more added below the postscript.]

[Edit 22 Jan 2019: A postscript is added below.]

@Scott

You asked,

If a man has had a number of LTRs [ONS’s, and other sub-optimal relationship configurations] throughout his life and then marries the ostensible “last one” he had relations with, which one of them is he married to according to the model you put forth?

If a man has a long term relationship (LTR) with a woman including sex, then by any measure other than the government marriage license, he married her. If the LTR ended when he dumped her for something other than her infidelity, then he is guilty of adultery, according to Christian scripture, specifically, the words of Jesus of Nazareth. His only escape clause is her infidelity.

If a man has a one-night-stand (ONS) with a woman, then he’s whoring. This is also forbidden in Christian scripture, and for the same reason. The Christian letter-writer, Paul, usually describes such behavior as “fornication,” and the meaning of the word hasn’t changed much since the King James Bible. Jesus, in the same conversation where he describes dumping a loyal woman to be adultery, ironically suggests that a man who can’t manage to marry a woman, but instead indulges a “number of LTR’s, ONS’s, and other sub-optimal relationship configurations” would do better to cut off his dick.

So, I’ll answer your question, “If a man had a number of LTR’s throughout his life and then marries the ostensible “last one” [with which] he had relations, which of them is he married to according to the model you put forth?”

Potentially, ALL OF THEM.

Let’s say, for sake of argument, that you’ve had three LTR’s during your lifetime, two ONS’s, and one fuck-buddy (FB). Right now, you’ve obtained a marriage license for your marriage to a seventh woman. [If your notch count is higher, the same rules apply, but the accounting gets more difficult.] This can get complicated, so we’ll need to list this out.

For simplicity, let’s assume you’re not Christian, but you’re asking me what (I think) Christian scripture requires of all men, even men who aren’t Christian. Again, for simplicity, you have no children. Children muddy the argument but aren’t technically relevant.

  • LTR’s: Jane, Jill, Janet
  • ONS’s’: Meg, Mary
  • FB: Sally
  • Wife: Prudence (Pru)

Jane cheated on you, broke your heart, and eventually married your (now former) best buddy.

You had a one-night thing with Meg not long after Jane left you. You have no idea what happened to Meg after, since you met her at the lake while you were on a vacation.

Your next steady high-school girlfriend, Jill, went to college and never came back.

You and Janet always had a rocky relationship which ended when you slept with Mary, a hot number who invited you home from the bar one night after you ran some Game on her.

Last you heard, Mary was shacked-up with a guy you remember meeting at a party. They aren’t legally married.

You were fucking Sally before you met Pru. It was a no-strings thing, so you used condoms and didn’t ask her whether she was fucking other guys.

Pru knows about Jane, Jill, Janet, and Mary, but not Sally or Meg.

Of all the above, Christian scripture only lets you off unequivocally for your failed relationship with Jane. She fucked another guy and you were hoping to legally wed her, so you’re off the hook. Her responsibility to you is entirely different, but you’re not obliged to take her back.

For everything that follows, you owe each woman at least an apology, including your wife. You’ve probably been fornicating ever since Jane.

You may be married to Meg. Your obligation is to find her and see how things are for her. If she didn’t think much of your fling, moved on to the next guy (and the next, and the next), and isn’t interested, then, as with Jane, you’re off the hook. You’re not obliged to her. On the other hand, if she’s one of those rare women who hasn’t bedded a man since a teenage summer fling, then your obligation is to ask if she would like to restore the relationship. Your legal marriage to Pru is about to get interesting, in the sense of the Chinese curse.

[At this point, I suspect the reader is thinking, “A man can’t be married to more than one woman.” My answer is, “You’re mistaken.” Christian scripture does not prohibit marriage of a man to a woman even if he already has one wife. While it is true that scripture does exclude a man from church leadership except if he is a husband with one wife, it does not force a man to divorce a woman whom he has married – EVEN FOR HER ADULTERY – because that would violate the instructions of Jesus himself, make the woman an adulterer, and also make the man an adulterer, and – here’s the worst part – make the church itself an adulterer for severing a marriage.]

Moving on…

You may be married to Jill. Again, as with Meg, the question is “What has she done since, and would she want to be with you now?” If Jill is legally married to another man, then you’re probably (but not necessarily) free from obligation. Chances are she never thought much of you and moved along to the next guy. On the other hand, if she’s a righteous unmarried woman and never fucked another man since you, you’re married. In this degenerate era, the chance a college-bound girlfriend is chaste after leaving you behind is essentially zero, but you never know, so you’ll have to ask.

Another possibility with Jill is that she’s “unhappily married” to the very next guy who she settled for when she couldn’t find somebody better than you because when she finished college, you weren’t “available” (because you were fucking Janet, then Mary, then Sally, then Pru). This is where things get nasty. According to Christian scripture, you’re married, and YOU are the adulterer, not Jill. This means that Jill, who did the best she could, has the option to quit her “unhappy” marriage to the “next guy” so that she can return to her marriage with you… except there’s a technicality. I wrote that Jill “went to college and never came back” intentionally. Jill knew where you were. At any time, she could have come home and said, “I’m back. Can we pick up where we left off?” If, instead, she just married the next guy, then you’re off the hook – not white as snow, but off the hook.

Janet is totally your fault. If she’s not yet “moved on,” then you’re totally married. One way out is if she returned to a “boyfriend” preceding you after that boyfriend dumped her or after she cheated on him with you, and he then decided to take her back anyway. Another is if Janet left you after your ONS with Mary to fuck another man, then, technically, you’re off the hook (for reasons I’ll explain later).

Mary is also totally your fault. Let’s assume she’s a known “easy lay,” so that’s fornication for both of you, but if none of the other guys want her, you’re her “knight in shining armor” whether you want to be or not. That may be difficult to fathom, so I’ll explain. Let’s say Mary has fucked 5 guys before you and one since. A few were “good” men by modern estimates, but they weren’t looking for a “long-term” relationship, and she obliged anyway. At least once, she cheated first. None of these other men are interested in “marrying a hoe.” For the first guy, his obligation is to keep her, but he didn’t. Instead, he dumped her, or used her from the outset, just like you, and she moved along to the next guy, because that’s what American girls do in our culture. Every guy after that is, technically, adultery, but at some point, she becomes the Samaritan Woman at the Well, who has “had five husbands” and now lives with a man who “is not her husband.” In modern parlance, we call this “serial monogamy,” and “shacking up.” What Jesus acknowledges with the Samaritan woman he met at the well is that each sexual relationship (LTR, ONS, and FB) is a marriage, while also acknowledging that in her then-current relationship, her husband did not recognize her as his wife. [Scripture is silent regarding whether her then-current arrangement included fucking, but it’s safe to assume that after five husbands, no man wants to commit to her.] Now, if you’re the last in a string of men, then you’re “the man [she] is now living with [who] is not [her] husband.” You knew she was a hoe, but you fucked her anyway. Fucking is marrying. You’re married. If, by luck, you’re not the last guy in line, then the only question is whether the guy(s) following you rejected her. If she’s settled with the latest guy, then you’re not married, but if she hasn’t, and nobody else wants her, then you’re “it.”

You may reasonably ask, “Why must I wife the hoe?” If you went about fornicating, the best way to repent fornication is to oblige yourself to what you should have done: integrate sex with marriage. If Mary is a hot slut, and you wanted her, then why didn’t you just marry her in the first place? If she’s still available, then your obligation is to the marriage. If she isn’t interested, fine. But if she is (and, don’t forget, she’ll have to know about Pru, too), then congratulations, you have another wife!

Sally, your “fuck buddy,” is your worst mistake, even worse than Mary. As a rule, you never asked because you didn’t want to know. Just like with Mary, the pertinent question is, “If you want(ed) to fuck her, why won’t you recognize the marriage?” So, now your future hinges on what Sally wants now that you’ve fucked her.  If she never really wanted marriage, and still doesn’t want marriage, then you’re off the hook, assuming she’s fucking other men. But if she’s willing, you’re stuck, AND if she’s not fucking other men, even if she doesn’t want to be “married” you’re still stuck. See, if she’s not fucking other men, then she is, technically, chaste, even if she won’t recognize the marriage as such. You have your wife Pru (and maybe others), so you’ll have to balance priorities, but if Sally wants a fucking, then she gets a fucking. Obviously, or maybe not obviously, for Sally to be treated as a wife, then she must act the part of a wife, else you’re not obliged to act the part of a husband. If she isn’t submissive and deferential and obedient and so on, then you don’t have to jump when she says, “Frog,” but if she’s doing what she should, then until she quits the marriage (by fucking another man), then you’re stuck with her, even if you’re stuck in a holding pattern.

Finally, what about Pru? Well, Pru knew you had other women in your past, even if she didn’t fully understand the consequences. Any pretense at “forsaking all others” is nonsense. At best, you innocently promised something you couldn’t. Pru may have hoped to have you all to herself, but she didn’t select for her husband a man above reproach who never put a finger on another woman, she chose instead a pre-selected man whose sexual character had numerous references. She can reasonably demand that you don’t “add to the harem” further, but what’s done is done regarding your past. If she decides she can’t hack it, and wants a man entirely devoted to her, well, that’s chivalry for you. She can head off and find her knight in shining armor. If Pru fucks another man, you are not obliged to take her back.

I promised to explain why I wrote that if Janet fucks another guy after your one-night stand with Mary, you’re off the hook. In all the above cases, a man can divorce a woman (recognize the marriage has ended) for adultery, which is when a woman fucks a man who is not her husband, or, written differently, when a man fucks a woman who is another man’s wife. The popular definition of adultery is when a person (male or female) who is married consensually fucks a person (male of female) who is not his/her spouse, but such a definition or prohibition is not found anywhere in Christian scripture. In all Christian scripture, occasionally a man has more than one wife at once, but never does a woman have more than one husband at once. You may agree with a woman that the pair of you are sexually exclusive, but this is not required by Christian scripture. Further, if you break that promise and fuck another woman, then your wife, per Christian scripture, has no means by which to divorce you, because Christian scripture is sex-specific regarding rules for divorce. Also, if the woman you fuck is not obligated to another marriage, your decision to fuck her is your decision to marry her, and you will be obliged by Christian scripture to recognize your marriage to the “other woman,” as will your first wife. Nowhere in Christian scripture can you find instructions for how a woman is to divorce her husband. She’s locked-in for life (his or hers) unless her husband ends the marriage for her adultery [Edit 23 Jan 2019: …or for some unlawful reason]. The only plausible exception to that rule would be that a man may be obliged to take back an adulterous wife who wants to return to her husband if he ended the marriage by telling her to go away, because his decision to send her away BEFORE her adultery is the cause of the adultery. Every sexual relationship a woman has after a divorce initiated by her husband and not justified by her adultery during the marriage is an adultery on the part of the husband who divorced her, so long as she’s willing to reconcile the marriage.

Alright, so that’s the case-by-case approach. What’s the general rule? Each woman you fuck you marry. The only exception to this rule is the case where you fuck another man’s wife. In that case, you have sinned (adultery according to Christian scripture) and you may or may not be married. If her husband forgives the adultery, you’re off the hook, but you still sinned and must repent (turn back from fucking the wife of another man). If her husband does not forgive her, and justifiably divorces her, then you are not off the hook (you broke it, you bought it), you sinned (adultery), and now you’re married, too. Good luck with that, especially if you already have one wife (or more).

The marital status of a righteous man who fucks an unrighteous woman in our modern world is almost entirely dependent upon what that woman chooses once that man fucks her, and the temporal window during which she can make her choice is indefinite (assuming she is willing to sin). Per Christian scripture, the only termination of marriage is adultery or death. In modern America, adultery is easy.

While the entire preceding explanation makes polygyny entirely justified by Christian scripture, I’ll warn that the devil is in the details. Christian scripture is replete with caution for the ambitious harem-builder. In my opinion, the best warning is the reaction of Jesus’ disciples, upon being told divorce is only possible if a woman commits adultery: “It is better not to marry.” They knew, and Jesus knew, that the problem most men experience in marriage wasn’t female hypergamy, it was female intransigence. The Christian god is merciful, but firm: “I expect you to fuck, and when you fuck you marry, but you aren’t required to stay married to a hoe.” There’s mercy in those rules, but only enough to make them work, and not a drop more.

 

[Postscript 22 Jan 2019: Matthew’s gospel, chapter 5, verse 32, slightly adjusts the wording of the exception permitting divorce. In that passage, the exception is for fornication, not adultery. Such wording implies a man may divorce his wife for fucking BEFORE their marriage. This explains Joseph’s option to divorce his betrothed, Mary, the mother of Jesus, when he discovered she was pregnant before he had fucked her.

I suspect, but have not confirmed, that if a man KNOWS he’s marrying a woman who is not a virgin (ideally a widow or a rape victim, but also a known hoe), then this justification for divorce no longer applies, although I can imagine that a proper “jewing” of such an interpretation would require full disclosure of all previous sexual partners of the bride. Again, as with divorce, no equivalent requirement appears to apply for men, even if we might wish that there are limits to the deceit a woman is required to endure.

Another passage in Mark’s gospel, chapter 10, verse 12, states that a woman who divorces her husband also commits adultery. The phrasing (in Greek) is different than in verse 11 for when a man divorces his wife. Specifically, the words used are similar to passages elsewhere which mean, “the husband who divorces his wife causes her to be an adulterer (and thus brings the sin of adultery onto himself, not his wife),” whereas for the wife, “the wife who divorces her husband (directly) commits adultery (herself).” I have still not found any reference for how a woman divorces a husband, or for what cause it is permitted. This does not seem to be an oversight, since there is plenty of Christian scripture describing what to do with women and what women may do inside and outside of a marriage.]

[Postscript 23 Jan 2019: I found an opinion, here, by William Luck which argues that a woman may divorce for abandonment or physical abuse. There relevant portion follows (emphasis mine, annotation in brackets).

The Law of Moses contains several passages that relate to the question of when marriage ends. The first is Exodus 21. Comments on the propriety of using this passage in regard to “full” marriage (insofar as the passage speaks of servant girls) may be found in chapter 2. Our concern here is to note how the text relates to the ending of marriage.

Recall that the main focus of the chapter is on the rights of the woman. Two sorts of rights are discussed: the right to adequate physical provision (vv. 10 f.) and the right not to be seriously abused (vv. 26 f.). Breach of covenant in either case justified the nullifying of the legalities (written or unwritten) of the covenant. Where the passive abuse [abandonment] occurred, the text tells us that “she shall go out for nothing, without payment of money.” In the context (vv. 2-7) “go out” clearly entails a full release from contractual commitments. The one who has gone out (or at least her father, in this case) owes nothing to the former covenant partner. And where aggressive or active abuse of one partner by the other (vv. 26 f.) has occurred, the refrain continues: “go free.” Further, we note that whenever the covenant is nullified the aggrieved partner has the understood privilege to contract a new covenant with someone else.96 Put negatively, the aggrieved partner has no encumbrance from the former relationship that would inhibit a new covenant from being entered into.

The following conclusions can be drawn from these verses: First, when the husband, who owes provision to his mate, intentionally fails to produce that provision, his claims over his mate are thereby nullified. The fact of (moral) nullification precedes the legal recognition of it. Second, the legal release is the right of the offended partner. Third, the released offended party is free to establish a new covenant of the same sort with a new partner. (Or, put simply, the old marriage in no way precludes remarriage.)

The question may now arise as to why this passage was not more explicitly discussed as a divorce passage by the rabbis in the days of Jesus. Two suggestions present themselves. First, the text may well have been thought not to apply to marriage per se, insofar as it deals, prima facie, only with concubinage. Second, the chief concern in the day of Jesus was to find a passage giving the husband a right to divorce the wife; in this text [Exodus 21:10-11. 26], the right of the wife to force a divorce from her husband is the prime concern. In other words, this text did not lend itself to the social concerns of Jesus’ enemies.

I am convinced that the failure of the Church to integrate this passage from Exodus into the theology of divorce is the single most significant reason for our failure to present a harmonious and reasonable doctrine of marriage/divorce. As we shall see, the principles that arise from this text establish a basis for Paul’s teaching that “departure” is grounds for considering the marriage completely ended and for allowing the deserted partner the freedom to remarry (1 Cor. 7:15). In fact, understanding the Exodus passage enables us to understand the meaning of “free” in the Pauline teaching. A similar comment could be made with regard to the teachings of our Lord himself (cf. Matt. 5:32 f., et passim).

These arguments do not alter my conclusion that a woman may not divorce her husband.  William Luck presents two excuses for a woman to divorce: first, when she is abandoned, and second, when she is physically abused and harmed by that abuse, by the example of losing a tooth or an eye. As Luck acknowledges, these are specifically applicable to “servant girls,” but I will agree with him that the first case is applicable to marriage, specifically, and the first case and second case are applicable to any person subordinate to another. However, neither of these provides a woman a right to a divorce.  Rather, both define the conditions upon which a man has de facto (here meaning “unlawfully”) severed a relationship with his wife, and providing that wife de jure (lawful) recourse.

For modern consumption, the two cases may be examined according to the examples of all the women Scott hypothetically abandons during the course of his life, from the point-of-view of the women abandoned. Except for Janet, each abandoned woman may argue, “He left me for another woman, didn’t support me (or pursue me), and so we were de facto divorced.” Janet, in contrast, has no undeniable claim to a divorce of the marriage, since she abandoned Scott before Scott abandoned her, but she may have a reasonable claim since Scott moved to Mary, and then to Sally, and then to Pru, and never called Janet to restore that relationship.

There is another opinion floating around Luck’s argument and the arguments of others, which is, “Once a man divorces his wife, she may not return to him.” This is grounded in Deuteronomy 24-1-4 (KJV).

When a man hath taken a wife, and married her, and it come to pass that she find no favour in his eyes, because he hath found some uncleanness in her: then let him write her a bill of divorcement, and give it in her hand, and send her out of his house. And when she is departed out of his house, she may go and be another man’s wife. And if the latter husband hate her, and write her a bill of divorcement, and giveth it in her hand, and sendeth her out of his house; or if the latter husband die, which took her to be his wife; Her former husband, which sent her away, may not take her again to be his wife, after that she is defiled; for that is abomination before the LORD: and thou shalt not cause the land to sin, which the LORD thy God giveth thee foran inheritance.

Again, the condition described is a de facto (unlawful) divorce, for which a woman may claim a de jure (lawful) divorce. This is not alleged abandonment or abuse, for which a woman may assert that her husband divorced her, but instead a “hard-hearted” divorce initiated by a man against his wife. Since he has actively told his wife, “Go away,” he can’t have her back, ever. Jesus explains that this sin – the de facto divorce – is adultery on the part of a man, not his wife, because he forces her to find another husband.

William Luck published his entire book on the subject of marriage and divorce here. I would need to read his entire book to competently disagree, but from the portion I have read so far, I disagree with him regarding three assertions.

  1. Luck argues that monogamy is necessary for marriage in our current world to guard against sexually transmitted diseases (STD’s) and because monogamy is the law of most of the world, specifically, the USA. In the first case, just as the poor have always been with us, so have STD’s. The provision for polygyny is not for the benefit of men, but for the benefit of women. While monogamy is the ideal, polygyny is not prohibited and no Christian should imply otherwise. Second, the “law of the USA” also permits gay marriage, among other atrocities, and de facto custom not merely permits but encourages fornication of every imaginable configuration. It is my opinion that a rigorous sequence of reconciliations will eventually necessitate polygyny, at least until all the sins have been repented.
  2. The injured/innocent wife cannot divorce her husband (although I recognize it may be expedient to file for a divorce in a US court); she is seeking recognition that her husband has unlawfully divorced her by abandonment or harm. No Christian should tell a woman that she may divorce her husband for cause, only that she may seek recognition that he has divorced her.
  3. I may be quibbling, but Luck’s sentence is, “…the innocently divorced should not be treated as sinners but should have full respect as brothers and sisters in Christ, including in matters of church leadership.” To be precise, this should be written, “…the woman who is an innocent victim of her husband’s divorce should not be treated as a sinner but should have full respect as a sister in Christ; and the man who is an innocent victim of his wife’s adultery should not be treated as a sinner if he divorces her.” I am not aware of an exception to the rule that a man may not be a church leader if he is the husband of more than one wife, especially in the case of de facto divorce, unless Luck relies on the tense of the predicate, “…is married…” Reasonable people could disagree regarding the qualifications of a man who is the victim of a wife’s adultery, but I wouldn’t make an exception for a man who divorced his wife for any other reason.

Ultimately, we’re still back where we started, which is that Scott’s hypothetical predicament places him at the marital whim of several women who have not performed acts for which Scott may declare a de jure (lawful) divorce, but the women may make de jure (lawful) his de facto (unlawful) divorce.]

Dalrock: Call me unchivalrous.

Dalrock, thanks for another great post, and apologies for reblogging: I’ve learned it’s the best way to keep what I’ve written where I can find it.

I do object to the following. “…Christianity teaches that marriage makes sex and sexual desire moral…” I concur with your larger point: that Chivalry reverses the morality of Christianity. However, I think it is a grave error to imply that “sex and sexual desire” are made moral by marriage. Sex and sexual desire are moral per se, without any sanctification. I would argue that a man, upon sexually joining with a woman, thereby initiates the marriage, and by returning habitually to that union, confirms his choice.

The assumption of Christian scripture is that Christian men do not fornicate and do not divorce, therefore, when a Christian man chooses his sexual partner, he is de facto choosing his wife. If he divides sexuality from marriage he is fornicating (or he is an adulterer), and the sin thereby is not sex, per se, but sexual partnership without commitment to his sexual partner.

I anticipate my argument may seem too much like Chivalry, so I’ll flip the perspective. If a woman, likewise, is fornicating (or an adulteress), then she also divides sexuality from marriage, when Christian scripture describes these as one and the same thing. Worse, she cannot, per Christian scripture, give herself to more than a single man at one time without becoming a whore – a woman who quits one “marriage” after another by continually violating each “marriage” in turn.

This, as I see it, is the real danger of fornication and adultery: both rip apart what is a single entanglement, the sexual partnership called marriage, into romance and expedience.

The Christian model isn’t sex made moral by marriage; it is marriage as sex and sex as marriage, inextricably, integrally, inseparably wedded.

Dalrock

After due consideration I have decided to adopt the label unchivalrous Christian.  The label is more accurate than anti-feminist Christian, or traditional Christian, because antifeminist and traditional Christians almost always stress chivalry as their strategy for fighting against feminism.  Yet chivalry is at the core of the problem and is the crucial enabler of feminism.  It is chivalry far more than feminism that has corrupted modern conservative Christianity.   Worst of all nearly all conservative Christians mistakenly believe that unchivalrous Christian is a contradiction in terms, when the reality is that chivalry as we know it is and was created as the antithesis of Christianity.  Adopting this term both identifies where my stance radically differs from other conservatives, and invites a much needed discussion on the astounding differences between Christianity and chivalry.

What am I rejecting by rejecting chivalry?

In both Christianity and chivalry we are redeemed and…

View original post 1,533 more words

Trump’s Last Deal

Even assuming the absence of hyper-inflation, I wouldn’t endorse a 70% tax rate. The mistake is explained thus.

Say you make great money as a surgeon: about $400,000 per year. you could make more, even, but when you contemplate the 70% rate starts at $350,000, everything you do after that $350,000 is diminishing returns. Bobby’s brain tumor will just have to wait.

Same goes with every other business in America: once you his the point of diminishing returns, it’s time to quit and go the the summer house.

The Best Women Can Be.

I wandered over to Daily Stormer and read Anglin’s take on Gillette. Among other advice, he also countered Michael Foster’s lies.

“Making money, having a car, being kind, buying expensive shit… all of that is not needed to fuck women. What you need to fuck women is to fix your head and stop putting yourself below them.”

From my perspective as a man married with kids for almost 25 years, there is no practical difference between what a man needs to “fuck women”, generally, and fuck one woman, exclusively. Christians might use different words, such a headship, but I’m not aware of any scripture advising men to impress other men to get a woman.

If you seriously hope to get a girl and marry her, the Gospels include several examples where Jesus cold-opens a woman who would have married him if Jesus offered. I guarantee none of the Jewish churchmen would have recommended Jesus as a husband.

Dalrock

View original post

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

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.