And the Winner Is…

Alcockell and Ras Al ghul had the right of it: We are Christians, and it has been revealed to us in Scripture that God hates divorce so we should not do it; no matter what rationalizations we might contrive, and no matter how successful we might become as a result of it. To quote Ras:

“Because divorce biblically is not morally neutral.”

Amen.

As far as I can tell there is exactly one circumstance where divorce with freedom of remarriage is permitted Biblically and unreservedly, and that is when an unbeliever chooses to divorce a believer. (We should be clear that this is Paul’s advice; not the Lord’s however.) 1 Corinthians 7

12 But to the rest speak I, not the Lord: If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. 13 And the woman which hath an husband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean; but now are they holy. 15 But if the unbelieving depart, let him depart. A brother or a sister is not under bondage in such cases: but God hath called us to peace. 16 For what knowest thou, O wife, whether thou shalt save thy husband? or how knowest thou, O man, whether thou shalt save thy wife?

What’s important here is that we’ve established that there are, in fact, tools which the Christian should be very and extremely careful about wielding. The safest bet is to shun them altogether once you learn to recognize them. In fact, it seems the only reason to study divorce is to learn to stay far away from it. This I have maintained from when I first started writing, but the fact is we don’t need to study it. We merely need to know what Alcockell and Ras Al ghul respectively said: “God hates divorce”, and “divorce biblically is not morally neutral.”

There are actually a good number of these tools that we need only to know about, and not actually practice to know they are evil; that we can just look at a picture of it and say, “Stay away from these”. One list is: fornication, idolatry, adultery, effeminism, homosexuality, theft, lust, drunkeness, reviling, extortion. For those that are interested, that particular list is in 1 Corinthians 6, just before the passage above. There are more, but these particular ones are repeatedly warned against; that if we practice them we are going to Hell. This should concern anyone who endorses a practice or applied psychology based on “irrational self-confidence” (idolatry and reviling), or pretending to participate in and win impromptu big dick contests (effeminism, homosexuality, and reviling.).[1]

There are material tools like the tool of divorce; most of them are instruments of torture or death. I, at least, cannot think of a morally good use of an iron maiden; except to say, “See that iron maiden? We don’t use those.” We don’t actually use them because they are morally evil tools. They are tools that can only rightfully be used by non-Christian people. Even then they will eventually bring condemnation.

Now, I know semantics bore many of you, but I also know (even if you yet do not) that they are important. Doublethink is taking place, and it is happening with Newspeak. Orwell was right! I’ve talked about how we doublethink various forms of entertainment to rationalize away our acceptance of lust. Briefly, I talked about how husbands literally cannot seduce their wives, but that did not seem to make sense to anyone who did not already agree with me.

The frequent counter-argument is something like “Cane, a hammer is a morally neutral tool. You can use it to build a house, or murder somebody.”, or, “A gun is a morally neutral tool. You can use it to rob a bank, or defend yourself.” Which just drives me crazy because all that shows me is that you don’t know what a tool is, and you don’t know what the word use means.

A tool is something that is fashioned for a particular use. For example: A claw hammer is a tool and not a mere material because it is made to be used for hammering and pulling nails. If you commit murder with a claw hammer, you’re not using it, but rather abusing it. Similarly, guns are made to be used for defense. If you abuse a gun to rob a bank, we can no longer trust you to not further abuse it to murder someone. Hammers are good. Guns are good. Use is good. Abuse is not.

You can see where it gets a bit trickier with guns, because guns are certainly tools with a legitimate use of ventilating bodies. That’s why we have a lot more rules about guns, and parents teach their children about guns. No sane parent should say, “Johnny, gun safety is an important topic. Let’s study and practice the tactics used by Adam Lanza and see if we can’t pick up some tips on self-defense.”, for the simple fact that Adam Lanza wasn’t practicing self-defense. He was abusing firearms to murder.

Likewise; In marriage, physical desire is not lust/abuse, it is anticipation/use, and wooing a wife in marriage is not seduction/abuse, but inspiration/use. The husband is putting his spirit into her…so he can put his spirit into her. Recall that I said the heart is in the lower abdomen-the loins. And you’re going to do it with your body; just like I described the armor of God as physical actions that make up the spiritual defense that I wrote about the other day. Sex within Christian marriage is using the whole human–actions of the body born of the will and emotions–to effect spiritual results. Of all the activities and tools of mankind, marriage of the bodies is one of the most revealing of why our bodies, minds, and hearts all matter. So, equating the sex between a boyfriend/player and a girlfriend/slut with what happens when a husband and wife have sex is just incredibly ignorant.

This is very important to understand, because the opposite of inspire is despair, and instilling despair is never loving, and opposite of the Gospel of Hope in Jesus Christ. It is also exactly the same problem (instilling her with despair) as being a nice-guy pushover, but merely feels better. That’s dangerous.

Furthermore, if you get this–really get this–then you can dismiss with all the trickery, and say, “C’mon, woman: I need you to feel my spirit.”; without false self-confidence, without pride, without seducing her into pretending you’re still boyfriend and girlfriend. That would be especially confusing to both of you if–while you were boyfriend and girlfriend–you pretended to be married by abusing each other with sex.[2]

[1] The inspiration for that post was Mackelmore and Lewis; recently famous for performing their pro-homosexual song “Same Love” at a fake mass-wedding of homosexual couples; along with Madonna, and various other fans of big dicks. To bring this back around: “Same Love” abuses words from 1 Corinthians 13 in support of gay marriage! See? My insistence on not calling abuse as use, and seduction as inspiration matter for the hedonists, too. How are they ever going to see the truth and be saved if we fail to stop Christians from doublethink? We can’t stop the doublethink if we don’t refuse to use Newspeak.

[2]That’s what the folks called Churchians advise: “Date your wife!” Even those of you who contend with me quickly see that dating your wife is foolish advice because the term date has a nice-guy connotation. (Semantics matter!) What’s irritating is that you can’t see that Game’s “Hook-up with your wife!” is an equally foolish answer for a Christian. I thought we were past hooking-up smart.

23 Responses to And the Winner Is…

  1. Red says:

    I’ll give you a different argument. The PUA’s primary goal with game is to have sex with loose women. As such learning game for a Christan results in that Christan man having sex with loose women. Which you claim is a sin. However a man having sex with a slut is one sexual act the bible never condemns as a sin:

    http://www.reclaimingthemind.org/blog/2012/12/is-fornication-really-a-sin/

    Yes the author of this artical tries to talk the subject around, but considering how much time the bible spends condemning all the rest of the sexual sins it seems unlikely men having sex with sluts wouldn’t have been covered if it was a sin.

  2. Cane Caldo says:

    @Red

    I’ll give you a different argument. The PUA’s primary goal with game is to have sex with loose women.

    Ok.

    As such learning game for a Christan results in that Christan man having sex with loose women.

    It follows.

    Which you claim is a sin.

    Yes, I do.

    However a man having sex with a slut is one sexual act the bible never condemns as a sin

    Did you actually read the link you posted? It ends with this sentence: “Fornication is really a sin.”

    More importantly, though: Having sex with loose women is not what marriage is for. If you want to do that, then practice Game. Marriage is about being one flesh with one woman. Game cannot teach you how to do that.

  3. Zippy says:

    The idea of calling Game a “toolbox” seems to be to assert that it is morally neutral. But, other than in a cartoon first-approximation sense, tools are not morally neutral.

  4. Cane Caldo says:

    Yes. I believe this is done because of the conflation of meanings in the words: moral, neutral, tools, use…Basically every word that is a verb or a noun.

    I also believe there have been efforts towards this end.

    Slumlord’s solution to this is to develop a whole new vocabulary. That strikes me as problematic, and unnecessary.

  5. Zippy says:

    Usually when people try to develop a new vocabulary for timeless moral concepts the purpose is to undermine those timeless moral concepts.

  6. deti says:

    “In marriage, physical desire is not lust/abuse, it is anticipation/use, and wooing a wife in marriage is not seduction/abuse, but inspiration/use”

    “Wooing a wife”? If the husband and wife are joined in marriage, then they are already one flesh. The “wooing” should have been done already. Husbands aren’t required to engage in perpetual courtship and wooing of their wives. If a husband needs to “woo” a wife so that physical desire can express itself within marriage, then you’re describing something other than Biblical marriage.

  7. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    I agree, but marriage is a lifelong process. You seem to be under the impression that the process is complete at the wedding. That’s like saying all that is required to be a Christian is to be baptized.

  8. deti says:

    Cane:

    But your response then raises the questions of what a husband must (or should, or can) do to “woo” his wife. Isn’t the purpose of wooing to cajole, persuade, coax and extract sex from her? Why must he do this if he’s married to her? Isn’t he entitled to sex from his wife, and isn’t she obligated to give it to him without “wooing”? If he’s not, then you’re following the perpetual courtship model, and you’re implicitly endorsing the notion that a husband has to jump through hoops once married to receive that to which he’s entitled simply by virtue of his office as husband.

    It also raises the questions of what “wooing” looks like; what is proper and improper wooing in light of the discussions here and elsewhere over the last few weeks; and how does a husband learn to woo his wife. Who will show him how to woo? And what “tools” (quotes intended) can he legitimately “use” to woo her?

    To say nothing of why he must even woo his wife in the first place.

  9. deti says:

    Further: The wedding is supposed to be a beginning, yes. A beginning of the marriage. But this does not mean a husband should then be required to take on the added burden of figuring out how to get his wife to have sex with her. SHouldn’t that question already be settled? The answer is: he’s entitled to it, and she has to give it to him. If she had reservations about that issue, she shouldn’t have said “yes” and then shouldn’t have said “I do”.

  10. deti says:

    “I agree, but marriage is a lifelong process.”

    1. Agree with what?

    2. The husband and wife’s life together is a lifelong process. The marriage is an event which solemnizes their decision to join together. The joining together includes the physical sexual bonding which the husband should not have to spend a lifetime trying to figure out how to extract from a woman who has stated before God, her husband, her family and his family that she owes it to him.

  11. Cane Caldo says:

    @Deti

    Further: The wedding is supposed to be a beginning, yes. A beginning of the marriage. But this does not mean a husband should then be required to take on the added burden of figuring out how to get his wife to have sex with her.

    A husband gives love to his wife because she is his wife; not on the basis of whether she either deserves or even wants it. That list includes: joy, peace, sex, discipline, and all the other things the Bible describes as love. A wife accepts joy, peace, sex, discipline, etc. from her husband because she loves him. The husband isn’t particularly trying to get anything from the wife except submission.

  12. deti says:

    Cane:

    I understand your response as far as it goes, but it doesn’t get to what I’m talking about.

    I’ll just wait for your further posts and/or responses.

  13. Johnny Caustic says:

    A wife accepts joy, peace, sex, discipline, etc. from her husband because she loves him.

    This is an aspiration, like universal equality, not a description of reality.

    If you’re lucky enough to marry one of these women who will do their biblical duty regardless of their own desire, congratulations on your lottery win. But it seems to me you’re dancing around the question about what the 80% of husbands whose wives do not desire them and won’t consent to sex very often (if at all) should do.

    Should these men physically force their wives to have sex? (Personally, I think the answer is “yes”, but secular society has made it illegal, and I’d like to know what you advocate.)

    The vast majority of women in long-term marriages are no longer attracted to their husbands. (Yes, there are surveys and statistics to back this up.)

    All this talk about “`C’mon, woman: I need you to feel my spirit’ without seducing her into pretending you’re still boyfriend and girlfriend” and “Marriage is about being one flesh with one woman” strikes me as avoiding the bottom-line fact: A man should go into marriage knowing that after two to eight years (sometimes much less), the likelihood is high he’ll be feeling very sexually hungry for the rest of his life. What do you propose men do about this?

  14. @Red: You decided to make your case that fornication isn’t a sin by linking to an article that concludes that fornication is a sin?

    You have an unorthodox debate style, I’ll give you that.

  15. Cane Caldo says:

    @Johnny Caustic

    See here.

  16. Bobbye says:

    A couple of days ago I watched a movie called “The Purchase Price” from 1932.http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0023362/ It is noteworthy that the ungodly people of 1932 understood the important basics of marriage that the ‘churched’ of today have no understanding of at all. Yes, you can learn something from that un-christian film. And you can get a real understanding of how far we have fallen.And yes, I believe that the the lessons of the film is consistent with the discussion going on here.

  17. GKChesteron says:

    @Zippy

    The idea of calling Game a “toolbox” seems to be to assert that it is morally neutral. But, other than in a cartoon first-approximation sense, tools are not morally neutral.

    Believe I’ve been saying that for…a long while…

    Usually when people try to develop a new vocabulary for timeless moral concepts the purpose is to undermine those timeless moral concepts.

    Or it is to Christianize. I think in this case the later is the thing that is true.

    @Jonnie,

    All this talk about “`C’mon, woman: I need you to feel my spirit’

    Which utterly misses the point. Cane is doing a bit of angels dancing on pin heads here so the blunt object types are missing the point. He never says in any of the above that you shouldn’t be attractive to your wife. He’s saying seduction is impossible and since seduction is key to game it is a morally flawed tool.

    Now he goes, what I believe, is a step too far, and suggests you can’t learn from it legitimately. I think this goes against Christ’s command to be observant of the World and make use of that Wisdom so that you don’t get self-sacrificed by your rubeness.

  18. Velvet says:

    This is very important to understand, because the opposite of inspire is despair, and instilling despair is never loving, and opposite of the Gospel of Hope in Jesus Christ. It is also exactly the same problem (instilling her with despair) as being a nice-guy pushover, but merely feels better. That’s dangerous.

    That.

  19. Pingback: Reclamation | Donal Graeme

  20. donalgraeme says:

    @ Zippy

    The idea of calling Game a “toolbox” seems to be to assert that it is morally neutral. But, other than in a cartoon first-approximation sense, tools are not morally neutral.

    Is it that that tools aren’t morally neutral… or that a tool can never be used in a morally neutral way? I think it is the later. Game isn’t merely a toolbox, but a set of instructions in how to use those tools. That is where the moral component, and the danger, is found. PUAs don’t merely teach you what Agree and Amplify is, they also teach you how to use it. Tool + instructions in how to use it.

  21. Cane Caldo says:

    @DG

    Is it that that tools aren’t morally neutral… or that a tool can never be used in a morally neutral way?

    Yes, it is that tools aren’t morally neutral. Tools are things that are good for something.

  22. k8 says:

    1 Corinthians 6:13 – Game is wrong because your body isn’t a tool for sexual immorality, but rather for God. Excellent post.

  23. Pingback: Lightning Round -2014/02/05 | Free Northerner

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 122 other followers

%d bloggers like this: