Prof Tiger & Sardis "All Things Considered" Theology Hut

[sardis]

What Prof just did to IB is also outlawed in the BIble...

[Professor Tiger]

IB, I've noticed you routinely use profanity in your posts. Lots of f-bombs, and most recently, "alphamcstudlyunemployedharleyridingrockbanddrummer's cock."

The Bible says, "Do not let filthy language come out of your mouth" (Col. 3:8). Why don't you believe the Bible? Or do you think this biblical commandment applies only to women, not to men?

Also, IB, do you believe "Faith without works is dead"? Do you believe that "baptism now saves you" and is "for the remission of sins"? Do you believe when Jesus said, "This is my body... this is my blood..." He was being literal?

[innocentbystander]

Yes.

I ask you why it is important that a wife (who is not a widow) be a virgin on her wedding night, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Yes, the perfect situation is for both men and women save themselves until they are married. That is indeed the ideal, although I notice you only hold women to that standard, not men. The modern world is much like the Roman Empire where men and women commonly both have sex before marriage. But even in biblical times, the Church absorbed tens of thousands of former pagans that were far from virgins, since virginity wasn't respected by pagans. Those former pagans who became Christians were not banned from marriage within the Church. Forgiveness is always available through repentance. Even Jews and Christians who violated God's rules could repent of their past misdeeds. And they were also forgiven. See the woman who had five husbands.

You are moving the goal posts. I didn't say, ban all non-virgin women who weren't married from the church. I asked you why God stipulates that it is important for a woman (who is not a widow) be virgin on her wedding night. And specifically, a woman, not a man. And why? Here is a little helpful guide on the success of marriage escaping divorce in the United States:

• Both he and she are virgins on their wedding night, this is the best. This is really the only way a couple can "pair bond." 98% of these marriages last until death
• She is virgin and he is not. This is the second best scenario. She can still pair bond even if he can't. Within Christian marriages we are looking at about a 70+% success rate of lasting until death
• Neither are virgin on their wedding night. Success rate is not good at all. We are looking at divorce in most cases unless there are some major factors where society holds the two of them together (having kids together, working together, close family ties on both sides, common friends). Even in Christian marriages, its less than 40% and still, only the most educated hang in until death
• He's a virgin and she isn't. This is THE WORST! The entire power dynamic of dominant and submissive within the marriage, is gone. I would say the only way this marriage lasts until death is she is a widow and a very submissive one at that. Then there is a chance, but that is about it.

God created a woman's hymen for "proof" to the husband of a woman's virginity prior to their first night together. There is no male hymen. There is a valid purpose for the hymen, something that God knew was important even if you don't.

I ask you why it is important that a wife obey her husband in all things, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

I agree with wives submitting to husbands, as long as the husband also loves his wife as Christ loved the Church, i.e. total self sacrifice. I've noticed that you fixate on the former, but hardly ever mention the latter. Without the latter, the former makes a sham of any marriage and reduces it to mere slavery.

Slavery is part of the Bible. The wife must submit to the husband in all things. Full stop. If you want to call this slavery, that is on you. But she is the one who wanted to be his wife, the one who is signing up to be a "slave to her one master." Her body is not hers anymore, it belongs to her husband. That is why the father "gives her away" to her husband on her wedding day. And I'd argue that the first marriage, Eve had no choice in the matter (that marriage was arranged.) This submission of the wife to the husband is not "earned" by the husband constantly being a great guy. He earned it when he married her. And by the sweat of his brow, now he must keep her. He is responsible. But it is much easier to keep a wife if he knows that she will submit to do whatever he needs her to do. He needs a "helpmeet." That is Biblical. He don't typically get these kind of wives in the United States.

I'll pose another question to you Tiger, if a woman is not willing to do whatever her husband tells her to do (for the rest of her life) then WHY would she want to marry him?

I ask you why it is important that you instruct women never to preach to men about anything spiritual, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

In my church, only clergy can preach. And all our clergy are male. I agree with that.

Good.

I ask you why it is important to remind wives to submit to their husbands as much sex as their husbands desire, why God has instructed that to refuse your husband is committing sin, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Where does the Bible say, "Wives must give their husbands as much sex as their husbands want"? Because of the submission clause? Submission does not automatically equal sexual access. The Bible uses the submission clause in a lot of places. Christians are supposed to "submit to one another" in Ephesians 5:21, and to their elders in 1 Pet. 5:5. Does that mean that if a man in your church, or an elder in your church, wants your wife to submit to him sexually, she should "submit" like the Bible says she should? Christians are supposed to "submit" to civil authorities in 1 Pet. 2:13. So if the mayor wants to have sex with you, should you submit?

What do mean, where does it say it? It's all over the Bible. Her body is not hers anymore. It belongs to him. His body is not his. It belongs to her. That is what God commanded of us. Are you kidding me? Yes, if you married the mayor, and he wants sex, he gets it, or you are in sin!

http://www.bible.ca/marriage/sex-on-demand.htm

3."Sex when desired" by either partner: 1 Cor 7:3-4.

If your husband wants sex, it is a sin to refuse him. If your wife wants sex, it is a sin to refuse her. Bible sex is always consensual... your spouse asks, and you always say yes. Many a marriage can be saved by implementing this one rule alone. When you get married, you lose control of your body to your spouse. Studies have shown that about an equal amount of married women want more sex than their husbands, as married men who want more sex than their wives desire. It would be nice to match men and women up as marriage partners based upon their sex drive it would be great. But unfortunately this is often not the case. One partner wants sex more often than the other. In these situations, the partner that doesn't desire sex must immediately consent to their spouse. Scripture is very clear about this although most Christians have missed this.

4.1 Cor 7:3-4 also means that your spouse has control over you the way you dress, your hair cut and the way you physically look.

There is no such thing as marital rape, never-ever. Our secular laws regarding marital rape, are wrong. Until they are changed, that is a law rooted in feminism. Marital rape law, is just listening to Satan.

I ask you why it is important to tell young men that if they marry a divorced woman that they are committing adultery, and you don't have an answer for me. But its right there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

Generally, I agree, as long as you agree that if a woman marries a divorced man, they are both committing adultery. It goes both ways. But, according to the Bible, there are two cases where that does not apply. Here's the first:

Matthew 5:32 "But I say to you that whoever divorces his wife for any reason except sexual immorality causes her to commit adultery; and whoever marries a woman who is divorced commits adultery."

Matthew 19:9 "And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another, commits adultery; and whoever marries her who is divorced commits adultery.”

So, according to the Bible, divorce because of sexual immorality and remarriage is acceptable to Jesus, and is to me also.

The other case is abandonment:

1 Cor. 7:14-15 "For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband; otherwise your children would be unclean, but now they are holy. But if the unbeliever departs, let him depart; a brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases. But God has called us to peace.

I believe that. I don't think you do, even though it's in the Bible.

There is no mistake. Luke 16:18, is clear.

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Luke+16:18

Anyone who divorces his wife and marries another woman commits adultery, and the man who marries a divorced woman commits adultery.

The almighty knows in His infinite wisdom, that the only way to clamp down on secular, at-will divorce, is the concept that a wife knows that there will never-ever be another husband for her. She gets one shot. She can have another husband ONLY if the one she has.... dies. That is it. If women knew that going in, and they actually feared being alone without any provisioning, then our divorce rate would drop to near zero I assure you.

I ask you to show me anywhere in the Bible anywhere where God says a woman can divorce her husband, and you don't have an answer for me. That is because it is NOT there in the Bible. You just refuse to dignify the Bible.

I suspect you will say that the above are cases where husbands can legitimately divorce their wives, but wives cannot. I will say that is an interpretation that is not shared by 99.9999% of any Christian authorities I know of for the past 2,000 years. I think I'll go with the 99.99999%. What you believe is what the Bible calls "private interpretation" (2 Pet 1:20) and worthless.

That is just feminism trumping God's law.

I don't give a damn what 99.9999% of any "Christian" authorities say about women having the right to divorce their husbands. I know they don't have that right. God never gave that to them, never-ever. I care what God says. I care what the Bible says, you do not.

I hope that answers your questions. I'm sure it won't.

Not necessarily. I'm actually quite pleased with some of your answers. You are still a feminist on the other stuff.

I just have one question for you: what training/education have you completed that qualifies you to be a Christian counselor?

Years and years of Bible study and teaching/counseling both children and young adults. It's amazing how many marriages you can save when people have genuine fear of loneliness of ex-communication. You fix a lot of marital problems by deferring to the KJ Bible. Unfortunately, I am having zero luck creating many Christian marriages lately. That is because of man's law regarding at-will divorce and the accompanying cash and prizes awarded to the welsher. Men who have taken the "red pill" are not empowered by secular government to "man up." Satan has a very strong hold on secular divorce law in the United States.

[innocentbystander]

IB, I've noticed you routinely use profanity in your posts. Lots of f-bombs, and most recently, "alphamcstudlyunemployedharleyridingrockbanddrummer's cock."

The Bible says, "Do not let filthy language come out of your mouth" (Col. 3:8). Why don't you believe the Bible? Or do you think this biblical commandment applies only to women, not to men?

Also, IB, do you believe "Faith without works is dead"? Do you believe that "baptism now saves you" and is "for the remission of sins"? Do you believe when Jesus said, "This is my body... this is my blood..." He was being literal?

I'll try to use a better choice of words when chatting with you.

Jesus saves, for all who believeth in Him shall not die but have everlasting life. If you believe that Jesus died to save you from eternal damnation, then that is exactly what will happen. You will be saved. Now, go out and sin no more.

[Professor Tiger]

Don't stop using your customary profanity for my sake. Stop because that is a commandment of God in the Bible. You don't have to answer to me on Judgement Day.

Years and years of Bible study and teaching/counseling both children and young adults.

That doesn't answer my question what training or education you have to be a Christian counselor. I'll take that to mean you have no training or education in the field of counseling at all. That explains a lot.

I'll pose another question to you Tiger, if a woman is not willing whatever her husband tells her to do (for the rest of her life) then WHY would she want to marry him.

The wife must submit to the husband in all things. Full stop.

So if a husband demands that his wife have a threesome, she must do it "full stop"? If he demands that she share a bowl of crack with him, she must do it "full stop"? If he orders her to hold their daughter down while he rapes her, she must do it, "full stop"?

That, plus when you wandered off into hymens, slavery is okay in marriage, and especially when you said you don't care if 99.9999% of Christians interpret it one way, and you interpret it another, then your way is right and all the others are wrong (i.e. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, Jim Jones), just reminded my of my original position: that it is impossible to take you seriously enough to have a reasonable theological discussion.

[hedge]

Thank you both for confirming my already strong belief in the utter stupidity of this nonsense and even more so of the people who engage in it to this extent...

[hedge]

" a reasonable theological discussion"

That's an oxymoron, as you two morons have amply demonstrated...

[innocentbystander]

Don't stop using your customary profanity for my sake. Stop because that is a commandment of God in the Bible. You don't have to answer to me on Judgement Day.

Years and years of Bible study and teaching/counseling both children and young adults.

That doesn't answer my question what training or education you have to be a Christian counselor. I'll take that to mean you have no training or education in the field of counseling at all. That explains a lot.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

I'll pose another question to you Tiger, if a woman is not willing whatever her husband tells her to do (for the rest of her life) then WHY would she want to marry him.

The wife must submit to the husband in all things. Full stop.

So if a husband demands that his wife have a threesome, she must do it "full stop"? If he demands that she share a bowl of crack with him, she must do it "full stop"? If he orders her to hold their daughter down while he rapes her, she must do it, "full stop"?

That, plus when you wandered off into hymens, slavery is okay in marriage, and especially when you said you don't care if 99.9999% of Christians interpret it one way, and you interpret it another, then your way is right and all the others are wrong (i.e. Joseph Smith, Mary Baker Eddie, Jim Jones), just reminded my of my original position: that it is impossible to take you seriously enough to have a reasonable theological discussion.

Joe Smith was a treasure seeker and a very horny con man. Jim Jones was a murderer. They were not followers of Christ, not unless you think David Koresh followed Christ. For the record, no Christian father or husband that married a virgin on his wedding day would ever even think to have a three-some or molesting his daughter. The first true believer of God who thought it was good idea to bring a 3rd party into his marriage did so by sinning against God by listening to his wife when she encouraged him to sleep with her handmaid Hagar. God gives us free will to listen to our wives, even though that is sin. And in this case, Abraham's free will brought Ishmael into the world and founded that heresy called Islam. And we all have Sarah to thank for that Hell on earth that we must all now deal with.

I can't believe you are talking about Christian men commanding their daughters to have sex with them. You are a sick man Tiger. Your mind is twisted by feminism. You must unlearn that which you have learned. Your "certifications" and your "seminary" counts for nothing. If you are counseling people, I encourage you to stop immediately.

[innocentbystander]

" a reasonable theological discussion"

That's an oxymoron, as you two morons have amply demonstrated...

You... go back to prison.

[hedge]

"You are a sick man Tiger. Your mind is twisted by feminism. "

I think it's pretty clear whose mind has been twisted by feminism here...

[hedge]

"Will Christendom ever reap the whirlwind it has sown? That it should try to pass, without the vulnerability of an interval, from a tyranny to a joke, is certainly understandable, but that its enemies should do nothing to obstruct its evasion is more puzzling. How can there be such indifference to the decline of our inquisitors? Is it that they succeed so exorbitantly in their project of domestication that we have been robbed of every impulse to bite back?"

[AlabamAlum]

There is nothing I like better than reading two people argue that their version of mythology is correct.

But in this, scoring from home, I give the bout to Prof Tiger. He answered IB's questions and IB essentially ignored the ones posted to him.

All-in-all, it's just hilarious.

MY VERSION OF WHAT THE IMAGINARY BEARDED SKY-DAD WANTS IS CORRECT!

[sardis]

Even fundamentalists shake their heads on IB's posts.

[innocentbystander]

Even fundamentalists shake their heads on IB's posts.

If you meant fundamentalist Christians nodding their heads in agreement, then you'd be right. I gave you straight Christian doctrine sardis. Tiger was at least partially preaching feminism.

[sardis]

Thank you both for confirming my already strong belief in the utter stupidity of this nonsense and even more so of the people who engage in it to this extent...

And thank you for confirming, daily, why it's so difficult to convince people to be pro-life.

[sardis]

Even fundamentalists shake their heads on IB's posts.

If you meant fundamentalist Christians nodding their heads in agreement, then you'd be right. I gave you straight Christian doctrine sardis. Tiger was at least partially preaching feminism.

The only fundamentalists that believe in marital rape are islamists and whatever Westport Baptist-like church you go to.

[Jungle Rat]

Jesus Fucking Christ IB. Shut the fuck up.

[innocentbystander]

Even fundamentalists shake their heads on IB's posts.

If you meant fundamentalist Christians nodding their heads in agreement, then you'd be right. I gave you straight Christian doctrine sardis. Tiger was at least partially preaching feminism.

The only fundamentalists that believe in marital rape are islamists and whatever Westport Baptist-like church you go to.

Its the BIBLE! This is Biblical sardis. That is God's law. Believing in marital rape is believing in unicorns. You are trying to reconcile feminism into Christianity. You can't do that. You really can't even reconcile feminism into Orthodox Judaism either, but you really can't do it with Christianity. If you are not willing to consent to sex with your spouse for (basically) the rest of your life.... DO NOT MARRY THAT PERSON.

I think you meant Westboro Baptist Church and not Westport. I've never been there and I'm not the least bit interested in what they have to say. I have my Bible and the laws are clear. I do not need any pastor to translate the meaning of the KJ Bible to me.

[innocentbystander]

Jesus Fucking Christ IB. Shut the fuck up.

rat, I am staying "on topic."

[The Gray Ghost]

In IB's b/w world one is either a misogynist or a feminist and the bible decrees you must be the former to be good with God, no room for Grace.