The Goat Pen

Can't believe y'all are engaging IB. It's a parody account. I believe it's set up by Hedge to make Christians look bad (wish I had thought of it first).

Professor Tiger wrote:

Don't you agree that a wife should do whatever her husband tells her to do? And if not, why not?

No. That's because husbands, including (perhaps especially) the "good Christian ones," use this total authority you want to give them and use it for their own pure evil pleasure and at the total expense of their wife (and often their own children).

Here is the ultimate difference. I do not have the same self-loathing-hatred of my own gender the way you do. You have been so immersed in the feminist imperative that men are evil, that you just assume the worst and proceed from that standpoint. Because men who think the way you do are in power, it should come as no surprise as to why we are all headed to Hell in a hand basket.

What you have said is unbiblical. You fail. I certainly hope you are merely a secular professor and not a spiritual one.

Professor Tiger wrote:If a husband says he wants to practice wife-swapping, should the wife meekly comply? If a husband wants to take nude photos of his wife and post them on he internet, should she comply? If a husband has other women on the side, and he demands that his wife accept that situation, should she accept it? If a husband decides he doesn't want to work anymore because it's too hard, and he orders his wife to support the family all by herself, and she must also do all the cooking, cleaning and child-care all by herself while he sits on the couch, gets high and watches porn all day, should she meekly agree? If the wife objects, and he physically throws his wife and small children out of the house on a cold winter night, should the wife sit demurely? If the husband secretly sells all the family assets (99% of which were earned by the wife before she ever met him) and puts it into an account to which he only has access, hits the beach with his girlfriend, and orders his wife not defend herself legally, and she goes to the elders of their church, and they provide the same lunatic counsel to the wife that you do: "Sweetheart, he's your husband, you must do what he says, no matter what. It's biblical!"

Well see that is just it, what you have done is NOT Biblical. You fail. This man is not a good Christian.

But you fail twice because you are assuming the worst about her. You are assuming that she is NOT a good enough judge of character to know (beforehand) if her husband was truly Christian or not. All you have done is given real Christian counselors (like myself) MORE justification for us to do what we do to sniff out lousy me like this and nip that marriage in the bud before it happens.

Professor Tiger wrote:That's exactly what happened to a woman I know very well, who married to a "good Christian man." BTW, he - like you - was assigned by his church elders to provide "Christian marriage counseling" in his church. A high school diploma from Selma Alabama and his firm belief if wifely submission was his only qualification for the job.

You, and the elders of that church who did that to this poor Christian mother of small children, who teach that blind total wifely obedience stuff, are all idiots.

You are no position to challenge my expertise. I am not the one who is operating from the feminist narrative that men are scum. YOU ARE. There is ZERO RECONCILATION between feminism and Christianity. You can not have one and the other at the same time, they are at a total impasse. More to the point, if you can't figure out how valuable true Christian marital counseling is (not the horrible crap you get from Focus on the Family or Pastor Driscoll) then there is really no point in you offering ANY critique of anything I have said. I notice you didn't answer my question on why God has so many laws around a woman's virginity prior to marriage. Why is that?

AlabamAlum wrote:Can't believe y'all are engaging IB. It's a parody account. I believe it's set up by Hedge to make Christians look bad (wish I had thought of it first).

I'm just trying to do my part to prevent one spouse (or the other) from invoking threat point in a bad un-Christian marriage. Threat point is the work of the devil.

So, I assume you would side with the elders of that church that said that this woman should have complied with her husband's demands for wife swapping, internet porn exhibition, dereliction of duty as a fatherly provider, accepting his adultery, accepting his selling and squandering all the assets that she earned, etc.?

I already knew you are an outright loon. But now I just want to calculate the depth of your looniness...

And yes, I absolutely challenge the depth of your expertise. Anybody who seriously says women shouldn't be allowed to vote is automatically unqualified to be considered serious at anything, much less guiding others.

And AA, that story is no parody. It really happened to a real person I know and am close to. The destruction done to real human beings by "wives must do everything their husbands say" as expressed by IB's latest manifestation of looniness on this subject, really pisses me off.

You are assuming that she is NOT a good enough judge of character to know (beforehand) if her husband was truly Christian or not.

She was conned. She took all his pious God-talk seriously before they were married. His true nature did not come out until after they were married. He had all the elders of his church fooled too until the wife reported him. They stripped him of his counseling role, but but they held to the wifely submission clause after being informed of his monstrous behavior. Just like I assume IB would.

Pure insanity.

Professor Tiger wrote:So, I assume you would side with the elders of that church that said that this woman should have complied with her husband's demands for wife swapping, internet porn exhibition, dereliction of duty as a fatherly provider, accepting his adultery, accepting his selling and squandering all the assets that she earned, etc.?

No Tiger. The man is NOT following God's Law. Its real simple to follow the Law, so simple even a professor such as yourself can figure it out....

God => Christ => Man => Wife => Children

That is where the law comes from. The elders of "that church" could not possibly understand that the man you are describing could want his wife to do such un-Christian things. He wasn't following God's law so he was in no position of authority in a Christian marriage.

Professor Tiger wrote:I already knew you are an outright loon. But now I just want to calculate the depth of your looniness...

My looniness stipulates that God is perfect. Follow His law. He has revealed Himself to us and what He expects of us very clearly. Refer to your KJB if you need further instruction.

Your position is the feminist position, the one where you assume that God fucked up. You think God got it all wrong and now we need to change His rules because His rules are bad. Sorry, it is YOU who is the loon.

You STILL have not commented on why it is so vital that woman be virgin before her wedding day (and why so many of God's Laws are about that.) Why is that? Why did God have so many laws about ensuring and protecting that?

Professor Tiger wrote:And yes, I absolutely challenge the depth of your expertise. Anybody who seriously says women shouldn't be allowed to vote is automatically unqualified to be considered serious at anything, much less guiding others.

Women have the sin of The Fall. They do not understand basic cause and effect the way men do. They vote with their lady parts and their emotions instead of their brains. No I do not want them voting.

No, no, prof...the story isn't a parody, Innocentbystander is...that is the only explanation...

Anyhoo...


I love me some Levitican Laws: unkempt hair? Sin. Cloth made of two threads? Sin. Eating fat? Sin. Eating fruit from a tree less than four years old? No-no. Two different crops in one field? Sin. Trimming your beard? Forbidden. Going to church soon after you've given birth? Sin! Touching a lizard? SIN!!!

I'm sure I'm leaving some out. Gold, Jerry. Pure gold!

People like IB and the child raping priests will go a long way towards ending religion in this country. They are both infuriating in the short term but will do all of us a favor in the long term.

We're not all loony like IB.

He's not loony, he's a genius. He is no doubt a very clever and vindictive atheist, hellbent (heh) on making people turn away from the imaginary light.

AlabamAlum wrote:He's not loony, he's a genius. He is no doubt a very clever and vindictive atheist, hellbent (heh) on making people turn away from the imaginary light.

Our society is already turned away from the light. That is why so many people (like our professor) are perfectly content with threat point laws (which undermine God and His law.)

Thank god...

AlabamAlum wrote:Thank god...

I don't think Rat, or Wizard, or Hedge would agree (given what happened in their own lives with their own former wives) now that they know how are laws are no longer bound by God's law...

...we have threat point for a reason and it isn't good.

Somebody married hedge?

hedge was once married to a lovely lady named "threat point."

Yeah, she tried to vote, and balked at the orgy.

She should never have balked at the orgy if hedge, as her husband, had ordered her to participate. Maybe that's how she got the name "Threat point."

Threat Point would be a decent band name.

InnocentBystander: Pushing people away from religion and toward atheism since 1995. TM

innocentbystander wrote:Don't you agree that a wife should do whatever her husband tells her to do? And if not, why not? Remember the man is still compelled to follow God's Law and if he does so then he is in perfect position of headship/authority over his wife.

יח וַיֹּאמֶר יְהוָה אֱלֹהִים, לֹא-טוֹב הֱיוֹת הָאָדָם לְבַדּוֹ; אֶעֱשֶׂה-לּוֹ עֵזֶר,
כְּנֶגְדּוֹ.

That's Genesis 2:18 (in Hebrew).

According to that, God made the woman "ezer kenegdo" - the equal opposite the man. A full partner, not an XO to his CO.

The "complimentarian" view of wives is ancient - but it's not spiritual nor is it Christian/Jewish. It's pretty much the view of every Bronze Age society.

As for the New Testament . . . it's difficult for me to say this as a Christian pastor, but Jesus and Paul are - at best - ambivalent about marriage and the notion of marriage as being sacramental and a reflection of Christ's "marriage" to the Church appears to be one of those things that the early Bishops pushed as a response to public pressure (as they did in celebrating Jesus' birthday during the Saturnalia - the birthday of the Unconquerable Sun).

Ditto monogamous marriage. That was a Roman custom that the early church pushed to fit in. Jews were still polygamists during the time of Jesus and at the time of the writing of 1 Timothy (about 100+ years after the resurrection), the Romans were just starting to crack down on Jewish/Christian polygamy.