Everyone A Bastard


Over on Dalrock’s toilet of a comment box, we see our Brother Earl declare:

screen shot 2019-01-10 at 17.39.20

One problem in such discussions is the lexical range of words like ‘marriage’. Not only can that word denote a number of different scenarios, but the difference between such scenarios is so punctuated that the word is nearly a floating signifier.

To Johnathan, the word implies the blessings of the state, upon your union. It implies a marriage license, or at least some sort of notarized statement-of-intent, filed at a courthouse someplace.

The problem with this is that people have been coupling up, monogamously, since prehistory. Natural selection required us to pair-bond and raise children together, as it was the only way for us to reproduce, given the helplessness of the modern human baby. Certainly these unions are more in line with the traditional use of the word ‘marriage,’ than a modern anal marriage between two fags, or a lezbo-feminist “self marriage,” or any of the other examples of perversity and diversity we see regularly on display in this decadent society.

Thus the term ‘marriage,’ properly used, denotes a naturally occurring state of affairs, that surely existed millions of years before anyone dreamt up the Jesus story, and millions of years before The State of California built its first county courthouse and started solemnizing this human trait on the steps. The church and the state can claim the authority to define this term, but only a fool would believe either of them. Human beings will marry, long after the last Christian dies out, and certainly after “The United States” ceases to be.

In a world where so many wimminz have decided to pursue an un-natural and anti-human ideology, like feminism, and where the state has reflected these wimminz choices in new legislation, we might rationally say that the word ‘marriage’ no longer reliably signifies the natural process of coupling.

Author: Boxer

Sinister All-Male Dancer. Secret King of all Gamma Males. Member of Frankfurt School. Your Fave Contrarian!

63 thoughts on “Everyone A Bastard”

  1. Haha! Dalrock’s toilet in the comment section. …love it!
    That about sums it up perfectly my friend

    Look I would take what Earl says about “marriage” as much as I would use a wet towel to dry myself. …both of them are useless

    I don’t have time to make a proper comment but suffice it to say you are a billion % right in what constitutes “marriage”
    Christians wouldn’t know what marriage is if they staid up all night with a 10,000 watt bulb because they can only define it as a state institution that requires a license /certificate
    I have literally offered a 1,000 dollar reward if any Christian can show me by using scriptures/bible verses that to be married needs a license or a formal ceremony in order to be legit….so far no one has claimed the prize

  2. Dear Necro:

    I have literally offered a 1,000 dollar reward if any Christian can show me by using scriptures/bible verses that to be married needs a license or a formal ceremony in order to be legit….so far no one has claimed the prize

    I don’t agree with this guy on everything. His stance on vaccinations is dangerous. You’d better get your kids their shots in this society and stay current. Our borders are totally open to all manner of poor lepers from the third-world. That doesn’t even begin to address all these faggots and lezbos working in schools, spreading their filthy diseases everywhere.

    But, his advice on marriage is spot on.

    Listen to a few of his videos when you get the time, and let me know what you think. Really amazed that he is able to keep his youtube channel open with all the truth he tells.

  3. Happy new year gentlemen
    One thing I liked about toad with her that will nation of had to protect you self as a man in marriage You need a covenant to be married not A license. A covenant is a legal contract with spiritual implications. Or a spiritual contract with legal implications. I’m not smart enough to know which way you go. Remember as a man looking for a wife you’re looking for an employee. As a woman looking for a husband you’re looking to fill a position in the company of his life
    Wifely duties include housework supporting him emotionally s committing to him submitting to him-raising his children and being His lover. Dating to be the interview process. You need to have an employment contract A covenant marital agreementand a disillusionment of employment options A prenup on your terms.
    In my opinion, state want to get rid of helping marriages because they hate the poor peasant that live among them. They created feminism because I knew that a woman is better at calling her family a man would be. There in bowl is the class with people being served by the person that they allowed to live

  4. @Renee Harris

    HI Renee, I ask this respectfully but is English your second language?
    I truly don’t mean to offend you and you don’t have to answer me if you don’t want to
    What you said in your comment I agree with you 😊

  5. @Boxer

    “But, his advice on marriage is spot on”

    Ummm who are we talking about? Lol

  6. No English is my first language. However, I do you have problems with spelling and writing so I started dictating my comment. Like most millennials I am a terrible speller
    I have a phone that allow be me to do that.
    Thank you for the

  7. I have literally offered a 1,000 dollar reward if any Christian can show me by using scriptures/bible verses that to be married needs a license or a formal ceremony in order to be legit….so far no one has claimed the prize

    The Wedding at Cana is a formal ceremony that Jesus attended. In fact His first public miracle was at a wedding ceremony.

    If you want to argue the legitimacy of a state license of marriage I’m probably on your side…but God created marriage and God declares what a marriage is.

  8. @Earl

    But does the Wedding at Cana story dictate that a license or formal ceremony is necessary? I would argue no, and I think your church would agree with me. If I remember correctly, a sacramental marriage doesn’t even need a clergyman to be conferred.

    In all fairness to you, I don’t think eschewing a marriage license because of the financial implications of divorce is necessarily a good idea either. Practicality aside, I am not sure how the decision could be spun as anything but evidence of an invalid marriage, should it ever go to a tribunal.

  9. @Earl

    You will find that there was no “wedding ” at Cana. ..the Bible mentions it was a marriage at Cana. ….this slight distinction makes all the difference because a wedding is what pronounces a couple TO BE married whereas a “marriage” is a celebration of a couple who have already had sexual Intercourse
    In Jewish custom a couple is married by the act of sex THEN the celebrate the marriage afterwards in a formal ceremony
    in the west it is the actual wedding which makes a couple married which is completely backwards to the biblical model

  10. @Anon

    If I may be so bold to speak on Boxer’s behalf…..it wouldn’t have been a case of him leaving Dalrock’s, it would be more of a case of that cowardly, cucked faggot banning and blocking Boxer because of something he said Dalrock is vehemently against free speech and extremely sensitive to anyone who has a different opinion than him so it’s only a matter of time before that faggot bans anyone

  11. If I may be so bold to speak on Boxer’s behalf…..it wouldn’t have been a case of him leaving Dalrock’s, it would be more of a case of that cowardly, cucked faggot banning and blocking Boxer because of something he said Dalrock is vehemently against free speech and extremely sensitive to anyone who has a different opinion than him so it’s only a matter of time before that faggot bans anyone

    For the record: Dalrock didn’t make a big issue out of it, and I don’t consider it a big issue. As I remember, I suddenly started being moderated after I asked a question of Dalrock’s favorite slurp-boy, Cane Caldo: specifically “where would I find that commandment in the New Testament, Cane?”

    Thereafter, when he did let a comment through, he got on himself to accuse me of “trolling” his blog (apparently, being interested in the text of the New Testament is disruptive, when it embarrasses his favorite asslicker.)

    I generally respect private hosts who ask me to leave (that respect does not extend to corporate scum, like Twitter or Facebook, mind you).

    I am still able to read Dalrock, and do, though not with any regularity. A couple of people popped in here, weeks ago, to suggest that Dalrock is greycycling my content without giving me credit. Whether this is true or not, I don’t know, and don’t care. As we are all good communists on this site, it follows that all the content here is the collective property of men everywhere, and any man (or antifeminist female) is welcome to lift it, with or without attribution.

  12. Dear Renee:

    No English is my first language. However, I do you have problems with spelling and writing so I started dictating my comment. Like most millennials I am a terrible speller
    I have a phone that allow be me to do that.

    I’m a poor writer also, but I’ve become more proficient largely by writing on this blog. Keep honing your skills.

  13. And I know in modern times sex certainly wouldn’t equal a marriage because there’d be a lot of broads trying to get alimony from cads.

    How many wives would you have now in this scenario, Boxer? Would it put Joe Smith to shame?

  14. She continued, “So, my new husband and his children, my children, my ex-husband, our best family friends [all went]. It was a very modern honeymoon.”

    I wonder if the current husband and the ex-husband managed to indulge any private conversations… Ex could tell current what a raging bitch she is due to be to current…

    “oh, any time now she’ll start breaking shit and screaming in public… she might give you about a week of normal behavior around the holidays, if you’re especially lucky…”

  15. Boxer .. I doubt the husbands talked about anything other than the conscious uncoupling of reality they suffer from .. hehehe

  16. Does being in Hollyweird or the music industry just suck all the T out of the men?

  17. @Boxer

    (apparently, being interested in the text of the New Testament is disruptive, when it embarrasses his favourite asslicker. )

    Say no more, your comment is a truth bomb right there
    Quoting bible texts to Dalrock is akin to throwing holy water on Regan in The Exorcist, yet the man claims to be a Christian
    Yeah whatever, I’ve spent too much time exposing that piece of shit, Dalrock is the head of a cult, plain and simple and Cane Caldo is his arch sycophant

  18. @Earl

    I don’t read from false translations of the Bible like the new American bible which uses a corrupted Greek Text as its base (Nestles Greek text, based on Westcott and Horts corrupt Akexandrian Greek texts, Vaticanus and Siniaticus B )

    Read the only bible God approves of, the King James Bible and you will get the truth

    In John 2 at the marriage in Cana the Greek word is “marriage ” not wedding. ..go use Strongs concordance or an interlinear to see the veracity of my claims

  19. @Earl

    I don’t care what the modern definitions of marriage is, I’m only interested in what God says marriage is
    1st Corinthians 6:16 cross referencing Genesis 2 shows that sexual Intercourse makes you married in God’s eyes whether you like it or not

    I believe Artisanal Toad has extensively written on this topic also and destroyed Dalrock’s and others ridiculous modern version of marriage

  20. @Earl

    Yes I have , multiple times in fact. I was a serial whore monger and I’m not proud of my former lifestyle. ….once the Lord started to convince me of how immoral it was, he showed me that I was married to each and every woman I “fucked” and when it didn’t work out I would move on to the next woman
    I know most of my fellow Christians would accuse me of “fornication ” but based on my understanding of the different words and terms used in the bible, and my knowledge of what constitutes “marriage ” it appears that I was more guilty of being a serial divorce/remarriage/divorce /remarriage type of thing rather than fornicating because fornication as defined in the bible seems to be sexual sins against what is legit or legal in the law…..for e.g the law states that you can’t have sex with your mother/mother in law as well as your wife. ..to do so is to be labeled a fornicator because it’s sex that the law actually forbids
    So if it’s not against the law then the sexual sin must be a case of adultery as opposed to actual fornication which is what christians accuse us of

    This is a real brief summary of my extensive knowledge on this subject…..I hope it answered your question?

  21. @Boxer

    “I suddenly started being moderated after I asked a question of Dalrock’s favorite slurp-boy, Cane Caldo…apparently, being interested in the text of the New Testament is disruptive”

    Ah, no wonder. Considering that the main reason I comment at Dalrock is to cite the Bible (in a way that he does not like) and that it often involves disagreeing with Cane Caldo, that must explain why I’ve been in moderation from the beginning. Congrats on finally joining the club.

  22. .I hope it answered your question?

    All it answered is that you didn’t even follow your own ethos. You just made up something after the fact to justify fornication.

    Otherwise all those women are your wives and therefore entitled to you as a husbandly protection and provision. Hope you have a large enough roof for them.

    You know it’s fornication. By your definition there’s no such thing as fornication…but it’s certainly in the Bible.

  23. Even the definition of fornication in the dictionary is ‘sexual intercourse between people not married to each other’. Well if sex automatically equals a marriage…then there should be no such thing as fornication.

  24. @Earl

    I see your sex starved existence has so adled your brain you can’t even make a coherent argument against the facts I presented but that’s ok I expect such mindless automaton drivel from sex hating celibates such as yourself

    Later on today I will answer your lunacy on fornication

  25. And there it is.

    Unchaste behavior I guess somehow makes you create whatever world you want…even one where fornication doesn’t exist. Even the dictionary and Bible both have the term.

  26. Don’t bother necron…you’ve pretty much told me what your worldview is. I don’t need you to rationalize it for me.

  27. @earl

    Go Fuck yourself earl……I already fucking told you I repented of my past whoredom lifestyle and that I don’t do it any more

    Of course, your adherance to what the bible describes as a doctrine of devils (being celibate) only allows you to see what you want to see and to continue to judge all forms of sex and sexuality through the lens of your guilt laden, repressed hatred

    Oh and believe me I WILL prepare a rebuttal to your garbage later on if only to make sure that you don’t feel that you’ve won this debate

  28. AT’s sex = marriage no matter what, up to and including collecting a polygamous band of ass-kicking wives he’s obligated to provide for was good. It was absurd, of course, but his total commitment and logical consistency made him a top-notch troll.

    Sex = marriage and cessation of sex = divorce and more casual sex = remarriage just doesn’t have the underpinnings required to be propped up with even a twisted reading of scripture.

  29. ‘I repented of my past whoredom lifestyle and that I don’t do it any more’

    Yeah but you have wives out there that you aren’t taking care of…by your definition. So what are you a fornicator or an abandoner of your wife/wives?

    In any case you can go on with your ‘doctrine of devils’ retort…however so that you aren’t deceived, I’ll leave this here and in the translation you prefer.

  30. Besides I don’t forbid you to marry I just don’t understand why you don’t have all your wives under your roof. Considering by your definition sex = marriage.

  31. @Earl

    Hey dickhead why didn’t you finish quoting the rest of the passage:

    (1 Corinthians 6:11 KJV) “And such were some of you: but ye are washed, but ye are sanctified, but ye are justified in the name of the Lord Jesus, and by the Spirit of our God”

    Moralistic pieces of shit like you Earl not only fail to quote things in context but you constantly try to guilt people with your legalistic garbage

    You see , the Corinthian Christians were guilty of both adultery and fornication WHILE NAMING THE NAME OF CHRIST, yet the holy Spirit assured them that they were forgiven and have been washed in the blood of Christ and their sins were no longer held against them
    Only pharisees such as YOURSELF point the finger and accuse them of wrong doing

    By the way faggot, I don’t have to have my ex “wives” under my roof and look after them because they were divorced by me when it didn’t work out and I had moved on with the next slut I was banging. I am no longer responsible to an ex as I am no longer 1 flesh with them by my act of “divorcing them”

    All of that is irrelevant anyway…..who the Fuck are YOU to judge me faggot? I already told you I had repented of my whore monging and i no longer practice that wicked lifestyle
    My sins are forgiven and the Lord no longer holds me to account so I’m going to tell you for the last time politely…..FUCK OFF YOU JUDGMENTAL, SELF RIGHTEOUS, SANCTIMONIOUS PRICK

    When I get home I will deal with your nonsense accordingly with the scriptures, but first I needed to address your judgemental finger pointing and get that out of the way

  32. @Earl

    Now that I’ve dealt with your moralistic, finger pointing, sanctimonious garbage, I will now dismantle your fallacious nonsense:

    John 2:1 “τῇ τρίτῃ γάμος ἐγένετο ἐν” If you see here , the word (γάμος) is correctly translated “marriage” in the KJV, and NOT wedding as most of the false translations do

    Hebrews 13:4 “Τίμιος ὁ γάμος ἐν πᾶσιν” If you see here, the EXACT same word, (γάμος) is translated “marriage” again, showing the rightness of the KJV. It would be absolutely nonsense to substitute the word “wedding” here, as the marriage bed is describing a past established event, NOT the uniting together of a couple. Not even the false translations bungle that verse, it is marriage and always should be

    Revelation 19:7 “ἦλθεν ὁ γάμος τοῦ ἀρνίου” Once again the EXACT same word gamos (γάμος) shows up to describe the “marriage feast” of the Lamb to describe the CELEBRATION of believers in Christ who have already PAST TENSE been made 1 flesh with HIM through the baptism of the Holy Spirit, no one in heaven is celebrating the becoming 1 flesh with Christ as in a wedding, we will be celebrating our MARRIAGE to Christ as a past event that happened at salvation

    Apostate, Catholic celibate nut jobs like @Earl, would have you believe that believers are going to a wedding and joining spiritually with Christ to “marry him” instead of what the bible teaches, which is a marriage feast to celebrate an already established unity that happened decades or thousands of years beforehand

    Why does @Earl and others believe this garbage? It’s because they erroneously believe that NO ONE can get married unless a priest or a marriage celebrant can pronounce a man husband and wife in a wedding spoken with formal vows to each other, and needing a marriage certificate…….That’s why they condemn ALL forms of cohabitation, and accuse them of committing fornication……in the words of Jesus “Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God” Matthew 22:29

    Earl is ignorant of such passages as Genesis 24:67 where Isaac took Rebekah into his mother’s tent and banged her, and they were married just like that….It was only afterwards that they made it “official” with the family, but notice in that passage that it was the act of Isaac’s dick penetrating Rebekah’s vagina that made them married in God’s eyes

    @Earl says and I quote: “Besides I don’t forbid you to marry”

    This is used by celibate apologists to justify their celibacy doctrine to other believers, not knowing that in this dispensation of grace, it is now considered a doctrine of Devils, according to the word of God….If that is so, why didn’t Paul use the word “forbid others from having sex”? instead of the words”forbid to marry”? it is because forbidding others to marry is a synonym for sex, as they are the same thing, and in our modern vernacular, we have so far gotten from the biblical definition of marriage, that we’ve put a 21st century spin on it, to mean a formal ceremony where people go in order to “GET MARRIED”, so obviously Paul is not telling us that those who teach that you can’t go and get “married” is a doctrine of Devils because EVERYONE got married in Paul’s days…it was expected of Jews to find a wife etc, what Paul instead, was driving at, is there will come a time when the very act of sexual intercourse would be taught as a forbidden thing and that you can’t have sex

    Now come on peeps, who and what is the largest organization on earth that teaches “celibacy” as an established doctrine? you got it, it is the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH……..God is smart, he was speaking prophetically that their will come a time when preachers, and teachers will actively teach that sex is a sin and that you should remain celibate and not do it. i.e “forbid to marry”

    You just have to see the flood of perverse filth that is rampant in the Catholic Church as it’s priests sexually molesting young boys to see the fruit of enforced celibacy…..Like Paul said, it is a doctrine of DEVILS conceived in the pit of hell

    Now on to the topic of fornication:

    All self righteous, moralistic, legalistic, finger pointing “believers” teach that FORNICATION is sex before marriage, that’s what they believe and there is NO other definition….every committed couple living together by cohabitation, even if they children together, and been faithful to each other for 40 years, are FORNICATORS according to deceived liars like @Earl
    But they are ignorant in what the bible defines fornication to be

    We know for a fact that there is at least 3 proven times where the scriptures refer to fornication where it CANNOT be referring to sex before marriage, by any stretch of the imagination or any lexical magic involved…….So why do moralists like to pretend that fornication ALWAYS refer to it as an act that occurs before marriage??
    1: they are either LIARS or
    2: they are ignorant of the bible….take your pick

    Now the 3 passages where fornication cannot possibly be referring to an at that occurs before marriage are
    1: Mat 19:9 where it says “And I say unto you, Whosoever shall put away his wife, except it be for fornication”
    How is it possible for a married couple who are already having sex, to go out and commit an act that occurs before marriage? answer: YOU CAN’T , because these pieces of shit moralists ALWAYS define fornication as an act that can only occur before a man and a wife get married in a formal ceremony i.e marriage….yet the bible clearly states here in Matthew 19:9 that a wife (defined as someone in a MARRIAGE STATE) can go and have sex right now whilst married and be accused of fornication. That is simply not possible, because they are already married present tense
    Once again, the bible laughs at moralists and their futile attempt to define words by modern definitions….God defines HIS words HIS way, not our way
    2: Jude 1:7 defines the practice of SODOMY as fornication….How on earth is the filthy, depraved, disgusting act of anal sex between 2 men fit with the modern definition of fornication being an act that ONLY occurs between un married people? THEY CAN’T!
    Once again the bible laughs at moralists and their attempts to define bible word’s by current definitions
    Yet here again we see a clear example where fornication CANNOT be referring to an act between un married people, despite these disgusting moralists attempts to twist the bible to suit their sanctimonious agenda
    3: 1st Corinthians 6:13-18 is perhaps the clearest e.g that fornication is NOT what the moralists say it is….the bible here defines fornication as sex with HARLOTS, or whores/prostitutes in our modern vernacular. Paul is very specific here, he did not broaden his definition to include just any type of sex, but ONLY sex where a PROSTITUTE is involved

    When you couple all those verses with 1st Corinthians 5 with the believer who had sex with his mother in law as well as his wife, you begin to see, that FORNICATION is defined by scripture, as NOT necessarily as sex outside marriage, but any sex which is forbidden by the LAW….if it ain’t forbidden, then it’s not a sin
    This is why, ALL modern versions of the bible substitute the word fornication for the term “sexual immorality” which means sexual activity which is actually immoral, the corollary to that position/interpretation is that if it ain’t immoral, then it’s not a sin, hence the term “sexually IMMORAL”……This might be 1 of those very few cases where the modern bibles have made that term actually easier to understand than the archaic word fornication
    Which by the way, it comes from the word “fornix” or arch which was symbolic of the prostitutes residence which leads credence to the view that what fornication really means is just sex with whores….but I won’t get into that here

    Anyway this should be sufficient proof to shut @Earl’s mouth once and for on this topic

    Honestly Earl, suck on this and choke on it….I’m truly done debating you celibate freaks
    Dalrock’s blog is infested with you guys, you seem to be attracted to these sites where you can vent your extreme frustration of not being able to have sex, with a constant stream of anti woman diatribes or sentiment

    Honestly Earl, just get the fuck off of here, and go and get laid……you will feel so much better emptying your balls deep in some hot babes pussy

  33. Well I couldn’t make out a retort amongst all the cursing and insults so it looks like you have none.

  34. Jewish law would appear not to equate sex with marriage in quite the same way as is being argued. From Deuteronomy 22: 23If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24you must take both of them out to the gate of that city and stone them to death—the young woman because she did not cry out in the city, and the man because he has violated his neighbor’s wife. You must purge the evil from among you. 24Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

    So the betrothed virgin is also called a “wife.”

  35. @Heidi

    I was waiting for that straw man to show up….It’s the moralists favorite verse, and they mistakenly think that it militates against ALL the previous verses I gave which prove my point…..*sigh*

    Here we go again:

    Jewish betrothal customs are completely opposite and different to our modern day version of “marriage”
    In Jewish custom a betrothed woman is a wife already, PRESENT TENSE….she won’t become his wife at a particular point of time, because they are technically married already, and this “waiting” period has NOTHING to do with needing a priest or celebrant in order to pronounce them man and wife in a formal ceremony
    This waiting period could last a day, a week, or whatever….it was solely determined by the woman’s father and the man to work out dowry arrangements before he gives her to the man involved. A woman is her father’s POSSESSION until she becomes her husband’s possession, that is why she is stoned to death if she has sex with another man during this period, because she has just committed ADULTERY
    Her being killed is proof that they are actually married whilst in that betrothed period, as the punishment for adultery is death

    Modern Christians think betrothal= engagement, and that is where their error lies

  36. @Heidi and Necron

    I’d also like to add that the Greek and Hebrew words for ‘wife’ are also the words for ‘woman’. The use of the English word ‘wife’ is not equivalent to the Hebrew word for ‘wife’.

    Hebrew is a heavily context sensitive language. What Necron has done is interpret the passage according to the context, not according to a strict interpretation of a single word.

  37. I agree that Jewish betrothal is not equivalent to engagement–I was just disagreeing that it was necessarily sex that made the marriage.

    Certainly what constitutes a “marriage” has varied according to culture–I believe that in some Roman times cohabitation could be accepted as a legal marriage, and Scottish law used to allow for some pretty loose “wedding” ceremonies–but this variety does not preclude me from disagreeing that any old arrangement can be called a marriage. Two men cannot marry each other, even if they have a lovely “wedding” in a church and get a legal marriage certificate. And I would disagree that hooking up with a woman, even one previously virgin, constitutes marriage. At the very least, are the two parties declaring themselves to be married?

    Even in Biblical times we see some confusion, as when Samson thought he was married to his Philistine bride but her father gave her to another man. Today it is a bit of a mess as a result of perversion being celebrated.

  38. Has anybody prayed about this and ask God or The Holy Spirit?

  39. ‘Honestly Earl, just get the fuck off of here, and go and get laid……you will feel so much better emptying your balls deep in some hot babes pussy’

    Says the self titled whoremonger who said he repented from that lifestyle. And if that’s me being ‘judging’…well you gave it to me.

    Are you sure you repented? In fact what exactly did you repent from…I’m having a hard time trying to figure out just exactly what your definitions of anything are.

  40. “Has anybody prayed about this and ask God or The Holy Spirit?”

    An excellent question. I have not prayed, specifically, about this. I can’t speak for anyone else. If anyone finds my words convincing, they should pray about them and search the scriptures themselves to verify if what I say is correct.

    “Hebrew is a heavily context sensitive language.”

    I want to clarify what I meant by this.

    When the betrothed woman had consensual sex, her punishment was death. Context informs that the punishment for adultery is death, so this is either considered adultery or something equally severe. A man had the rights to that betrothed woman. Whether she was ‘his wife’ or ‘his woman’ doesn’t matter even slightly, nor does it matter if she was a virgin or deflowered. She was claimed and she committed adultery by having sex with someone who had no claim to her (nor she to him).

    Now let’s be especially careful.

    The woman committed adultery without having experienced either a marriage ceremony or a consummated marriage. So how could it be adultery? Because the biblical concept of adultery is broader than the modern concept, just as betrothal is broader than engagement.

    Is it adultery if the father of a betrothed woman changes his mind and gives the woman to another man prior to consummation? No. For example, David and Merab. The only thing that triggers adultery is illicit consensual sex, just as the only thing that triggers marriage is consensual sex. Nearly every society in history, including the Hebrews, considers an unconsummated marriage to be incomplete or invalid, grounds for annulment.

    It isn’t adultery is two people agree to have sex, but don’t go through with it. It isn’t adultery if two people have a wedding ceremony even though they are married to other people. Only if they have sex is it adultery. How odd it is to say that adultery can only happen if a couple has sex, but a marriage isn’t built on sex and requires a certificate or ceremony.

    Necron has gotten very hot, with insults and anger. It was nice of our host to allow the discussion to continue. I’m pleased there was no censorship. The scriptures cited remain unchallenged, but support what I have said.

  41. @Derek Ramsey

    Boxer doesn’t censor comments like that faggot Dalrock does, so there was never any doubt my comments would be deleted, and I appreciate Boxer’s position on this matter
    To censor is to to be a coward, and Boxer ain’t no coward

    Anyway, I wish to follow up on something you said:

    “The only thing that triggers adultery is illicit consensual sex”

    I don’t wish to accuse you of being a liar just yet, until I have all the facts, but you are DEAD WRONG in what YOU think constitutes adultery
    The bible defines it’s own terms, NOT US:

    To commit adultery is to take/steal another man’s property PERIOD.
    see Lev 20:10  “And the man that committeth adultery with another man’s wife, even he that committeth adultery with his neighbour’s wife”

    Adultery is NEVER used of a married man taking another woman UNLESS she belongs to someone else, this is how a man could have multiple wives at the same time and not be accused of adultery, because adultery from God’s standpoint is NOT consensual sex, as YOU define it, it is the taking another man’s property

    see also Eze 16:32  “But as a wife that committeth adultery, which taketh strangers instead of her husband! ”

    see also Eze_16:38  “And I will judge thee, as women that break wedlock”

    Also, a single man cannot commit adultery with a woman UNLESS he takes a man’s wife and sleeps with her, because she belongs to her husband and adultery is THEFT of HIS property

    I don’t give 2 shits what and how the world defines adultery, I define it how God sees it, and if that offends people then I truly don’t care

    Adultery is all about property rights, and women belong to men as their possession, and if that offends modern day sensibilities, I truly don’t care because that’s the facts, and that is how GOD sees it

  42. @Earl

    You truly are a pitiful little maggot aren’t you Earl
    You can’t refute anything I say with the scriptures, so you immediately go with the 1 thing you can do, which is to carry on your finger pointing accusation crusade against me

    I actually feel sorry for you

  43. @Necron

    “I don’t wish to accuse you of being a liar just yet”

    There is no need. You merely misunderstand my argument. Consider again what I wrote:

    “The only thing that triggers adultery is illicit consensual sex”

    These are the consequences of this statement:
    (1) You cannot commit adultery if you do not have sex.
    (2) You are not committing adultery if you are raped when married or betrothed. Being raped is not illicit consensual sex. The person raping is committing adultery.
    (3) Kidnapping another man’s wife is not adultery, it is plain theft.

    This applies whether or not a wife is a man’s property.

    Consensual sex is when two parties agree to have sex, that is, it isn’t rape. Consensual sex can be illicit or licit, just as sex can be consensual or non-consensual.

    If you want complete clarity on my position, consider the following logical proposition:

    A is “valid marriage”
    B is “had sex”

    The claim “A implies B” is true, but “B implies A” is not true. Similarly, “not A implies not B” is equally false. The contrapositive “not B implies not A” is truth among nearly every society in history.

  44. Boxer’s claim related to mine: every society recognizes that two people living together and raising a family are married, whether they ever made a formal choice or not. That marriage is just as binding as if they had made it formal.

    If every society recognizes that an unconsummated marriage is invalid (“not B implies not A”), then by logical necessity every society recognizes that every valid marriage is consummated. (“B implies A”). This is what you see in Genesis 2, the sexual consummation of the marriage produces the binding. Without that, there is no marriage.

    The insertion of a ceremony or certification is curious and unnecessary. The citations that Necron gave make this quite clear. It’s fine, even normal, if it exists, but throughout human civilization it has not been a requirement. The basic requirement is coming out of the tent with a bloody cloth.

    Notice also that I am not claiming that all sex is marriage. Clearly it is not. Sex is a requirement for marriage, but not all sex produces a marriage (“B implies A”).

  45. Typo: In the sentence …every valid marriage is consummated. (“B implies A”), it should read “A implies B”, not “B implies A”. Sloppy of me.

  46. @Earl

    I already answered your question, ……more than once actually.
    But since you obviously have a masochistic need to be humiliated agan, I will indulge you:

    You asked for a specific sin I repented of?
    I repented of my whoremonging lifestyle, nearly a decade ago. Whoremongering is not what Christ wishes for me, and it is sinful behavior

    To repent means to have a change of mind (μετανοέω) Metanoi in the Greek. This normally results in a change of behavior as well, as the Holy Spirit transforms the born again believer into being more “Christ like”..this process is called sanctification and is a life time process

    I have not committed “whoremonging” in over 9 years, therefore this is conclusive proof that I have indeed repented of that sin

    It behooves you at this point to find definitive proof that I have committed whoremonging within the last 9 years, which would prove to the reader here that I’ve lied

    You need to find the date, the day, the year and physical evidence that I have committed whoremonging within the last 9 years……This would prove that you are correct in your accusations against me
    I want specific physical evidence of THE SIN mentioned, no going off on a tangent and naming other sins, you need to offer proof of my whoremongering behavior continuing to this day, as THAT is the sin that I claimed to have repented of

    If you can’t find proof , shut your damn mouth faggot, you’ve already embarrassed yourself in here

    You Pharisees ALL think alike, you point the finger and stand in judgment over others, but the Lord is my judge and I’m accountable to him, not some self righteous, sex starved, celibate freak who is so biblically illiterate you can’t even refute the biblical evidence I’ve been presenting…..all you can do and all you will do is accuse me of some sin

    Give up Earl….you’ve completely outed yourself in here….I might be crass and indulge in harsh name calling, and I own that, but all YOU are is a self righteous Pharisee who hates women because you want to have have sex so badly, yet you’re trapped in your retarded celibate prison you have made for yourself….you have no peace and joy Earl, all you have is longing and resentment towards women and men who can enjoy the pleasures of sex, and you will never have that

    Like I said, I actually feel sorry for you

  47. @Derek Ramsey

    You quote: …………”every society recognizes that two people living together and raising a family are married, whether they ever made a formal choice or not. That marriage is just as binding as if they had made it formal”

    I couldn’t have said it any better my friend

    There’s only 1 thing wrong though……Earl does not accept that definition of marriage, and nor does 99% of fundamentalist Christians, who thunder from the pulpit that cohabitation= fornication and sin

    They are 100% wrong of course and they don’t know their bibles, but it doesn’t stop them from their accusatory attacks on genuine couples who live together, though they haven’t made a formal declaration with the State, or a priest/celebrant
    In fanatical, self righteous Christian’s eyes, nothing makes a couple “married” unless you walk down an aisle, make vows to each other and sign a marriage certificate *facepalm*

  48. So it was fornication…having sex outside of marriage. I rest my case.

  49. “99% of fundamentalist Christians”

    I grew up Church of the Brethren and Mennonite. As teenagers we debated[1] Christian communism. We debated spiritually joining (becoming one flesh) through sex with someone to whom you were not married. We debated marriage in God’s eyes without a ceremony or witnesses. We debated not kissing before your wedding day. All these positions had significant (even majority) assent.

    One of the things we had was high Bible readership. It’s my understanding that only 20-40% of Christians actually read their Bible more than once a month. Only one in ten have ever read the whole thing even once. If this is true, it is no wonder people don’t know what the Bible teaches. It baffles me how anyone can read 1 Corinthians 6, Genesis 2, and Mark 10 and come to the conclusion that a ceremony has anything to do with the process.

    Marriage is before God. At most a church or state can acknowledge reality. They do not make reality. This is a common mistake.

    Consider this. The future perfect periphrastic tense (future indicative copula and perfect passive participle) in Matthew 16:19, Matthew 18:18, and John 20:23 is typically mistranslated (possibly intentionally). The Christian does not have the authority to decide to forgive or not to forgive, and Peter could not bind or loose according to his own authority. In both cases, the declaration will be what must have already been true (in heaven).[2] Marriage, like forgiveness and the “keys to the kingdom” binding/loosing, are all based on the same authority: God’s authority. God decides what is, and our authority is limited to declaring what has already been established. We have zero authority on our own.[3] Similarly, God grants no authority to mankind for divorce (Mark 10:9).[4]

    There should be no need at all for a deep-dive into grammatical analysis of Bible passages. The conclusion follows naturally, logically, and easily from what we already know universally. It’s so obvious that atheists come to the same conclusion.

    [1] Rather than dancing, drinking, or having sex, we had “deep thought” parties where a dozen of us would go to someone’s house and have an informal debate in their living room on topics of faith and politics.

    [2] The Latin Vulgate translates Matthew 16:19 as “will have been bound” and “will have been loosed.”

    [3] The RCC is mistaken in all of these areas: forgiveness, binding and loosing, and marriage. None of these require a church or clergy. The RCC claims “authority” to mete out forgiveness, to form marriage, and to enforce church hierarchy. These are all inextricably intertwined around the same core false teaching. It’s a house of cards.

    Earl must hold these views—to do otherwise is to completely abandon Roman Catholicism. Thus, it doesn’t actually matter what the Bible says on the topic. This is why Necron accuses him of being a Pharisee and refusing to debate with scripture. Ironically, 99% of fundamentalist Christians just go along with it, effectively self-refuting by legitimizing the RCC. It’s truly mind-boggling.

    [4] If two people had sex and were married, it is because God made them married. If those same two people became divorced, it is because God divorced them. Mankind has zero say in the matter one way or the other. Thus, as a Christian, I can acknowledge that Necron participated in the marital act with many women, but is not currently married to them. I also acknowledge how horribly wrong this is in God’s eyes. And I can say that he is forgiven because he has repented. None of this is by my own authority, but is merely an acknowledgment of the Word of God. It’s also brutally logical.

  50. [Ephesians 5:5 KJV]

    This is beneath you and not becoming of a priestly man of God. Want to call each other names and hurl insults? Go nuts. But it is the privilege of every Christian to declare forgiveness, not to condemn in the face of genuine repentance.

    The passage you quoted is correct: no whoremonger has any part in the kingdom. Ephesians 5 speaks of those who are currently engaging in a sin. Repentance is thus required.

    “…the Corinthian Christians were guilty of both adultery and fornication WHILE NAMING THE NAME OF CHRIST, yet the holy Spirit assured them that they were forgiven and have been washed in the blood of Christ and their sins were no longer held against them”


  51. @Derek Ramsey

    This is what has perplexed me the most
    Even AFTER acknowledging my repentance in plain view for Earl to see, he absolutely refuses to grant “forgiveness” and condemns me to an eternity of hell fire, on his mistranslation of that verse in EPHESIANS 5:5!!

    To be honest, Earl’s behavior sickens and disgusts me, but it is typical of those who don’t know their bible and who are seeking NOT reconciliation, but rather condemnation of others

    Earl is like the Pharisees of old who sought to trap Jesus with their cleverly laden traps in the Law, but it didn’t work on me
    Why did Earl do this?……..who knows, I think me after having so thoroughly best him in this debate, he resorted to cheap shots like he did lol

  52. @Earl

    ______”So it was fornication…having sex outside of marriage. I rest my case”

    Really Earl?, I mean, really?? Is that your best shot in this entire debate?
    I honestly don’t know whether to laugh or cry at your ineptitude

    Let’s proceed to dismantle your garbage eisegesis:
    So based on your woefully and total ignorance of what the bible teaches, you honestly believe that God condemns believers to hell EVEN AFTER repentance is shown? wow!! It appears that salvation is conditional on my behavior rather than on Christ’s death on the cross for my sins!! I better not sin Earl, or I’m going to get it!!

    You see, based on your retarded, legalistic interpretation of Ephesians 5:5, that all one has to do to disqualify himself from heaven is to commit 1 of the sins mentioned in Ephesians 5…..you did see being an “idolator” as 1 of the sins right?, I wonder how that bodes with your disgusting Roman Catholic’s penchant for the sin of idolatry in worshipping relics, statues and praying to Mary, or does your Church get a “special pass”……maybe like the “pussy pass” we give women today!

    You did see that “covetousness” is on that list as well…….You want to tell me that if someone covets something 1 time AFTER they believe in Christ, that they will forfeit their salvation? I guess Paul was in danger of losing his salvation then, Romans 7:7-8!!

    You are a disgusting, pathetic excuse for a human being Earl….even AFTER acknowledging my sincere repentance for all the world to see, you STILL couldn’t resist judging me, and you threw a totally out of context verse to somehow “prove” that I’m forever damned…….It’s like, what? do you even read?

    This was because you not only lost this debate, but you were humiliated as I exposed your ineptitude in handling the scriptures

    Even now, AFTER I showed you clear scriptural proof that fornication refers to things other than sex before marriage, you think you’ve won with your petty “I rest my case” quip
    Not only did you DELIBERATELY avoid the scriptures I gave you, you twisted my confession as repentance from whoremongering, to one of “fornication” and insisted that I hadn’t repented!!

  53. About Dalrock….. I was blocked and banned by Dalrock this week because two of the Beta commenters there complained about my posts. 🙄 Dalrock agreed, moderated me, and then decided it was too much work to read my replies (moderate them), so I got blocked permanently. I had no idea how Beta Dalrock was. he DOES a good job exposing false pastors/preachers and he does a good job compiling data on marriage, divorce, etc. But that is it. He and many of his commenters are Blue Pilled all the way. Dalrock exposes Marriage 2.0 as a fraud but demands men still get into it. Just asinine. 🙄

    Here is what got me in trouble:

    Do you folks ever wonder, “why do Biblical Christians always lose?” when it comes to cultural and societal issues and disputes?

    Seriously, do you all ever wonder? :-/ Chivalry has a major part to play, sure. But besides that, do you ever wonder why things never get better and why Christians always lose such battles?

    Maybe… just maybe it is because they capitulate to their enemies. Christians fight fair and our enemies fight dirty because they want to win. The Democrats won every single “close election” even after the Reps won these elections on Election Night 2018. Do you ever wonder… huh, how did that happen?

    Maybe it is because, unlike us, foolish Christian Conservatives, they will do ANYTHING to win, including fraud. They will lie, they will steal, they will defraud. They will say and do anything to win. I know this may be shocking to some, but yeah, they want to win and therefore, they win. They will use their power to crush us, and they will continue to win until we begin to fight for real.

    I am not saying we become our enemies. I am saying we fight to win because ultimately, unless we begin winning again, we will be outlawed as a religion and crushed using govt power.

    You all complain that “lying is wrong” when it comes to fighting against our enemies and yet our enemies pour out lies against us to destroy us.
    (Perfect example: false accusations of “sexual harassment” by women against men in workplace. The Betas here riled against me for immunizing myself from such accusations and living to fight another day… but you all prefer to be destroyed for sake of your own principles and then lose ground to the enemy again. This is the type of mentality in which people like the future king David, the ancestral relative of Jesus’ earthly father, would have been destroyed under. And what for??)

    You all complain about female voters (a Constitutional Amendment would be required to repeal this, which requires 3/4 of States and 2/3 of Congress; translation = almost impossible to repeal) and yet fail to accept this reality and then fail to even try to persuade female voters towards Conservative positions. Accept this reality and work to try to change such voters.

    You complain about unfair laws, like marital rape and yet you are in a jury and like every other cuck out there, believe whatever women’s testimony is.

    You demonize men who want to fight to win and actually destroy our enemies, no matter what. You say things like you would “never hire a cutthroat future lawyer like me” because I have the will and determination to do what it takes to win and defeat my enemies.

    You mock and demonize men who have been unfairly accused (looking at you, @Ray) because maybe these men had past positions and behaviors that were Beta, as they lived in societal ignorance about such matters.

    And WORST OF ALL: you all complain about no-fault divorce and divorce-rapes and yet you all demand men go out and marry into this exact system – unchanged, as is. 🙄 You are all signing into a system that was designed to imprison, enslave, and destroy men. This is not a “secret” anymore…. everyone knows the whole thing is a huge scam, so why continue to sign on the dotted line? -_-

    And then you all wonder why nothing ever changes for the better?!? 😮 Really? Why should the Marriage 2.0 system change at all when millions of Beta Christian men continue to sign up for this blatantly, openly, and clearly unfair system anyway? 🙄

    Why should price of a product go down or quality improve when everyone continues to buy it at that price? Demand is still the same, so why should prices from supplies go down or improve product quality? It is so illogical, I cannot even begin to comprehend it.

    I am using these analogies about the Marriage 2.0 scam, because it will never improve unless demand for Marriage 2.0 collapses. It will only change when men opt out. Why would women opt out of the Marriage 2.0 system when they get 100% of the benefits and hold almost all the cards in such a system?

    Yeah… it is insane and illogical. It defies common sense or the basic “economics of life”. No wonder why we always lose. Just sayin’.

  54. Here is how I responded to Dalrock’s ban (via secondary account):


    Just want to make this one point I would like to make: this is your blog, want to block me, fine. Whatever. My life goes on fine.

    But if this is the type of attitude you guys have with a Christian brother who happens to have a different point of view on some issues than some of you have, then you are ZERO CHANCE to actually convince someone who is a non-Believer. Zero.

    Your goal should be to discuss and reason with others, just as The Apostle Paul did throughout the ancient world. Banning or blocking someone with even a slightly different option will not (repeat NOT) going to win anyone over.

    If you cannot overcome even the most basic disagreements with a Christian with a slightly different opinion on Marriage 2.0… good luck convincing any non-Believer(s) who will likely ask real, difficult, and challenging questions about Christianity, The Bible, etc.

    Saying “The Bible says so” will not win most non-Believers over. Just wait until a non-Believer ask you about the “problem of evil” question and see how that goes for you. Kaput. -_-

    Oh yes…. and to the couple of guys who disagreed with me who complained to have me banned…. very Alpha of you all. 🙄 lol Take a good look in the mirror when blaming others for your problems/failures. As it says in Proverbs 27:19 ” As water reflects the face, so one’s life reflects the heart.”. Your weakness shows when you have to run to someone else to stop someone who disagrees with you. Man up… That is one of the essences of the proverbial Red Pill.

    And if you wonder why some of you guys got divorced senselessly by your women, fail to convince others of your point of view, fail to meet any new quality women, or actually convince any non-believer of your personal views of Christianity…. there is a reason why. Instead of standing up to the challenge, you run and complain to have someone moderated/banned.

    As I said, no hard feelings. 🙂 Honestly none. But I think this should be said.

    Not even sure if this will ever be posted, but whatever. It needed to be said nonetheless. If not posted… then well, thanks for confirming what I already knew.

    *Take this whole thing for what’s it is worth and understand what Dalrock’s mindset is really all about.

  55. @ChristianCool

    Of course that cowardly faggot Dalrock won’t publish your comment. …you do know that right
    I’ve been exposing Dalrock for years now…..you couldn’t possibly find a more feminized, cucked, beta mangina than Dalrock if you looked all day with a 15,000 watt bulb
    By the way even though Dalrock pretends to be a Christian, he ain’t. …at best I’ve pinged him as being a Catholic Jesuit in disguise who infiltrated the manosphere with his blog here in WordPress
    Long story short the cuck is a cry baby coward who won’t allow you to comment because you used bible verses and you proved him wrong and that’s the worse thing you can do to Dalrock is to expose his errors , he runs and ducks for cover like the simpering coward he is

  56. Nah……Dalrock is okay…………..and I do believe he is a Christian, and strives to be a better one. Never met the man, nor have I had any personal correspondance with him.

    His comment section is the problem for the most part. I’m surprised that most of the men there have not fed 5000, parted the seas, and cleared out cancer wards in their local hospitals, that is how amazing they portray themselves……..from they way they post, behave and act….you would think they are the ones who are “turning the world upside down”

    I’ve noticed it “depends” on who is commenting. For example, everyone there knows I really, really dislike Game. Darlock has agreed about its effectiveness, and many of its not-too-Christian aspects. Will some of his posters who live, drink, and talk Game ever dare stand up to him and argue this? No. They all direct their vileness on me.

    One man who claims to be an “encourager of men” I asked some questions about Orthodoxy after I attended a church service……..slappy blow off with “oh sweeet Jesus” and flippant remarks that tell me that I don’t belong there, and giving the aire of “quit wasting my time, when I push Orthodoxy, I mean men who I deem are manly enough to go”

    The usual suspects who have all the problems to the world solved and know everything thats wrong with Christianity and modern evangelical culture can’t even be bothered to dare “stand up” to the established orders in their own church (that would upset their wife, children, and people may notlike them). Then the usual foul language, double entadres of “don’t do what I do, just do what I say”

    The case for Christ is out in the streets. In the section 8 properties, across the railroad tracks in the trailer park next to the county dump, in the alleys of their town filled with broken and ruined men succumbed to alcohol, drugs, and failure…..to the men who walk in silence, lonely, and painfully hurt who are not as “smart” or “good looking” as they in the Dalrock chat forum. To the teenagers angry, messed-up wanting someone to not just say “I care” but to actually “do something” to help them.

    The Dalrock peanut gallery are a bunch of self-righteous men that were allowed to: have premaritial sex, date, get divorced, have children out of wedlock, remarry, AMOG about their penis size, how many women they banged in Poland, lecture anyone who can’t “quote scripture with the best of them” and at the same time effect zero change in their church, their town, their city, and their nation.

    Yes, they love talking about high-flateous points about cortly love, chivalry, calling out a bunch of pastors…..but their own lives are free from blame.

    Dalrock isn’t a bad blog. It actually is pretty good. Very good. His commenters are the ones that will stifle the faith and case for Christ in the end……and he doesn’t even see it. When I came back albeit briefly (a day) it started up immediately and the phrase “Lord, save us from your followers” comes to mind from the Dalrock comments section.

    I will conceede Christian Cool with you one point…..they could never witness to a man. Their advice would be a very complex theory about Rollo, Cane Caldo, Game, the whole alphabet soup of Greek terms to classify a man and big words and concepts that most don’t understand (this is done on purpose btw to make the new-comer feel and look stupid) instead of a true heart to help a fellow man.

    They don’t do that unless you have a 15″ penis, and are deemed as smart as they all are…..and that crew decides that within a minutes or two of you first posting. They are just like women…….deciding if you are worth “their” time in about two minutes….


Comments are closed.