Why Can’t I Help My Husband Lead Us “Better?”

I recently wrote a post addressing the question of what to do when a wife wants more kids but her husband doesn’t.  Apparently, it’s a common thing for Christian women to look at their husbands’ faith or ability to trust in God, and decide it needs some work and that they’re the ones to “help him out here.”

I got an email after writing that post from a woman who disagreed with some of my answers, and agreed wholeheartedly with the other blogger’s advice, saying she reads her blog frequently.  I do like The Thinking Housewife’s blog 🙂 , it is possible for someone to give out very bad advice and yet still be a good person or have other good writings I think.  Her blog is a lot like mine in many ways in that we share many of the same stances against feminism.  One post she’s written recently, called Traditional Housewife – The New Hitler, is especially a great read about how the Leftists and feminists (but I repeat myself) view housewives.  It even focuses on our internet presence, which is very interesting.  But this reader’s issue with my post is she thought it’s right and even godly for a wife to point out her husband’s spiritual flaws, or to try to make him realize when he should be having more trust or faith in God.

I will admit that this topic can get very murky because in some respect a wife does have that privilege in her husband’s heart, to gently and humbly point out if she sees something is wrong or could be harmful in the future.  However, that is not the advice The Thinking Housewife gave out to women in that position.  The main point of her post (and the counterpoint of mine) was actually trying to get a husband to follow the wife’s lead for their marriage.  And in trying to get him on board with her decisions to lead them, The Thinking Housewife used a variety of unhealthy tactics.

Let’s look at what she suggested again:

If your husband is worried about money, that’s understandable but he should ask God for help and for the grace to handle whatever occurs. Why does he have so little confidence and trust? Insist with him that it is wrong for you to use contraception.

Continue to talk to your husband and don’t give up.

Let him know that your marital happiness is gravely threatened.  (from here)

Aside from the fact that she’s promoting using threats to get the husband to follow his wife’s convictions, this approach of “insisting with him,” and continuing to talk with him without giving up, are not productive with men.

When it comes to using the threat of a wife’s happiness (which is not the point of marriage at all, even if it is a wonderful byproduct), making it seem like she will be forever miserable if he doesn’t follow suit – and then her misery will of course affect everyone in the entire family, is not psychologically healthy for a woman.  If a mother decides that she’s not getting her way, so she’s going to be miserable (their marital happiness will be “gravely threatened”), then she’s basically trying to control her husband (Eve’s curse), and not seeking to live peacefully and by faith and trust in God.

It’s important that we realize that all of this advice is coming from a position of self-righteousness or a feeling of superiority in the heart of the wife toward her husband.  I’ve noticed that this is something Catholic women tend to have toward their husbands (and also toward non-Catholics), because their church has decided authority on issues like these, and therefore doesn’t allow husbands to make their own decisions regarding how many children he wants to have. **Instead of debating this point in the comments, we should probably just focus on how Catholic people can encourage their wives to submit to, and obey, their husbands like commanded in the Bible, while still following all the rules and restrictions of their faith.**

It’s also the most ironic thing to me, that while The Thinking Housewife is encouraging Christian women to view their husbands as not having enough faith in God, she’s actually endorsing these women’s own lack of faith in their husband’s decisions, promoting psychologically unhealthy manipulation tactics (using threats of her being miserable and affecting their family negatively!), and consequentially, encouraging a Christian woman’s lack of faith in her husband’s leadership – which is (especially if he’s Christian) ordained by God.

For the Catholic women out there, let’s look again at what God says about this in the Bible:

22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord.

23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior.

24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.

Ephesians 5:22-23

It’s important for Catholic women or any woman in this position, to truly understand how much faith this takes for wives to submit to their husbands “in everything.”

I really do believe it’s crucial to start teaching Christian women that instead of always looking for where our husbands may be “wrong” on something – or doubting his intentions in his leadership of our family, or his faith, etc., that instead, she needs to learn to have faith in him, and to trust him enough to follow his imperfect leadership.  In doing this, it’s a beautiful chance to reveal how much faith she has in God herself.

See what I did there?  Instead of putting all the blame on the husband in cases like this – or worse, trying to make him feel like he’s a bad Christian and doesn’t have enough faith – instead of choosing that route (which is a very negative and unproductive route) she can instead focus on her own faith (something she has control over) in being able to trust God even though she may not agree with the direction her husband is leading them in.

No husband’s leadership is going to be perfect, just like no marriage is going to be perfectly perfect 🙂 .

But I’ve seen that the best marriages

are where the wife learns to trust her husband with her life,

and also to ultimately trust God that He can and will lead them

even when they may take paths she doesn’t feel are right.

That is where the real growth of marriage begins, when the wife can fully trust her husband (which is a reflection of her own trust and faith in God), even when they’re going through stormy waters or rough patches.

When she decides to stop doubting his leadership, and to follow him like Sarah followed and obeyed Abraham, she has the chance to grow a beautiful faith like we are told in the New Testament.

In case anyone wants to go back and read the post I did which details submission even in the hardest circumstances, here is a link to the Sarah post.

“Let your beauty not be external – the braiding of hair and wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes – but the inner person of the heart, the lasting beauty of a gentle and tranquil spirit, which is precious in God’s sight.

For in the same way the holy women who hoped in God long ago adorned themselves by being subject to their husbands, like Sarah who obeyed Abraham, calling him lord.

You become her children when you do what is good and have no fear in doing so.”

1 Peter 3:3-6

Watching couples where you can tell the wife truly trusts and follows her husband’s leadership makes women everywhere swoon, because not only is it beautiful, it’s actually romantic to be able to trust like that in your man!  And feminists hate that!  They hate that there are good men out there who cherish their wives so much, and wives who love them so much in return, that they’re actually willing to follow them and trust their leadership.  Because these feminists women don’t have that, they don’t want us women who know what it’s like to exist because it’s a reminder of how much they’ve failed.

No one else is telling you to have faith in your husband like this, but I am.  Husbands need their wives to believe in them and to trust their decisions for their family.

And I’m telling you to put your trust in God – that He can and will work things out for good for all those who are called according to Him (Romans 8:28).

________________________________________________________________________________

Aside from the faith or spiritual position, even from a practical perspective, there are clear reasons why a wife trying to get her husband to be “better” just doesn’t work.

Here is a quote from the author my mom had me reading as a young, pre-teen girl (and the main reason I am the woman I am today):

There are some Christian Women who have been taught “to provoke their husbands to righteousness.”  But the word provoke does not mean what is commonly implied.  The true meaning of the word is to incite, to inspire, or to arouse.  It does not mean to nettle or to push.

Women are Self Righteous

Why do women try to change men?  Because they have a self righteous attitude.  they feel that they put forth more effort into doing what is right, try more diligently to make marriage successful, are more active in church, and are better persons than are their husbands.  They look down on men, and therefore feel that the men, not themselves, need to improve.

The Sadduccees and the Pharisees in Biblical times had this same self-righteous attitude.  They were faithful to attend church, paid tithes, prayed, read the scriptures, fasted, observed any number of rituals, but the Savior called them “hypocrites”, not because of their faithfulness, but because of their self-righteousness.

The Christian Attitude

The very heart of Christian doctrine is: It is ourselves we must change.  We have been told to cast out the beam from our own eye first, and then we will more clearly see the mote which is in our brother’s.  Women who try to change their men trample on their freedom, and violate righteous principles.

From Fascinating Womanhood by Helen B. Andelin

This doesn’t mean that the things your husband decides to do will always work out.  Sometimes your husband’s leadership may result in some kind of failure.  If he got married young, chances are a few things worked themselves out through trial and error.  Or maybe your husband was a bachelor for a long time and wasn’t used to suddenly having to live with a woman in his house.  Maybe he had to adjust to the change through trial and error.  There’s nothing wrong with men having to take time to learn how to be a husband or how to lead in the way he feels comfortable in leading.  It’s the same with being a wife – it’s not something that just happens over night and POOF!!… you’re suddenly the perfectly trusting, adoring wife.

The first step is faith – having faith in your husband. 

And then the second mountain is usually figuring out how to deal with setbacks or failures, and still be able to keep your faith in him, as well as in God.

In other words, many things about your husband’s leadership will probably work themselves out through trial and error.  If a wife tries to keep that in mind, while also working on her ability to trust, and doesn’t nit-pick, or harp on his failures, or become a critical Christian toward her husband, then they’ll move beyond it.

I’ll probably post more about this at another time because it could be a rather longish post.  But knowing you both will fail each other at some point, and having a forgiving attitude puts a lot of failures in perspective, which again, allows for marriage growth and becoming more in love ❤ and closer.

Related Reading —

Advertisements

35 thoughts on “Why Can’t I Help My Husband Lead Us “Better?”

  1. so what she is suggesting, is emotional manipulation to get what she wants.

    and how come there is no mention that the mans concern about finances, might actually be a sign?

  2. The concept of wives directing their husbands in their spiritual growth or “pointing out flaws in their spiritual lives” seems like something very modern and feminist. I mean, imagine walking up to your boss at your job and respectfully asking him if his decision is good for the company as opposed to flat out telling him he is running the place into the ground. One would be somewhat acceptable while the other is flat out disrespectful and insubordinate. This is the method most modern Christian women are taught because they are fed the concept that they are spiritually superior to their husbands and, thus, have the authority to try and forcefully redirect their husbands in spiritual things.

    I see nothing wrong with a wife respectfully questioning a decision by her husband, but the idea of being extra vocal and pushy about it, as you have pointed out, goes completely against scripture! Ladies, DO NOT BE SURPRISED IF THIS METHOD ENDS UP IN A CATASTROPHIC FAILURE! There’s a reason God said that men cleanse their wives by the water of the word but that wives win over their husbands through their silent submission. Modern Christians think that a mans resistance to being badgered and nagged means they are Neanderthals and that they must be trained to understand “talking things out”, but God knows that man is resistant to such ministrations and is swayed more by action. A wife trying to take the reigns, especially by being disrespectful or insulting toward her husband, is a sure fire disaster.

    It is sad that we are straying so far from the word of God in our modernized and “cultured” society. I just finished reading through 2 Timothy last night, actually 2 nights ago, but I was shocked at the accuracy of some of its verses and how well they apply today and read through it a couple more times to soak it all in (emphasis mine):

    “3 But know this, that in the last days perilous times will come: 2 For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, 3 unloving, unforgiving, slanderers, without self-control, brutal, despisers of good, 4 traitors, headstrong, haughty, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, 5 having a form of godliness but denying its power. And from such people turn away! 6 For of this sort are those who creep into households and make captives of gullible women loaded down with sins, led away by various lusts, 7 always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. 8 Now as Jannes and Jambres resisted Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, disapproved concerning the faith; 9 but they will progress no further, for their folly will be manifest to all, as theirs also was.”

    Follow God’s design! It may not always be easy, but it will always be right and beneficial to you in the end! Even if things don’t pan out how YOU want, to be obedient, to hear the words “Well done, good and faithful servant”, those should be our goal! The advice of pushy Christian women is not the path to these things, but is the polar opposite!

  3. @FML I think it’s a popular Christian theme to trust God with your finances so that they just “work themselves out.” Sometimes I’ve seen that plan work when they are reasonably mature and responsible people, but it can also be too fairytale-like where they expect God to drop money in their lap when they’re being **irresponsible.**

  4. “It is sad that we are straying so far from the word of God in our modernized and “cultured” society. ”

    @Snapper, yes 😦 It’s sad to me that we’ve come so far that Christians give advice for wives to use psychological manipulation and threats (a super unhealthy way of relating) to get their husbands to get on board with the wife’s plans for their family. No where in all of clinical psychology would that ever be acceptable in any other relationship, but apparently for Christian women, it’s “ok” to do this to your husband. 😦

  5. A reader pointed out via email that Desiring God just did an article that brushes on this topic:

    Titled “Happy Wife, Happy Life” it seems to have more red pill truths than normal Christian articles like this paragraph:

    “And one could say it from an eternal perspective: Happy wife (in the Lord), happy life. But what is most often meant by this phrase cannot be missed: a man’s life is less miserable when his woman gets her way.

    Such deferment is tempting: no conflict, no unhappy bride, no blame. Just letting her have her way is much more comfortable than making unpopular decisions on weighty matters, that you think (and pray) are spiritually best for her and your family: Whether they be where your children go to school, what church you join, where you live next, when to have children, or countless difficult choices that require spiritual energy, courage, and faith.”

    Yea I can see where this fits in with The Thinking Housewife basically promoting a kind of “happy wife, happy life” approach to getting the husband to have more children than he feels convicted to or is right for their family.

  6. “Wives, in the same way submit yourselves to your own husbands so that, if any of them do not believe the word, they may be won over without words by the behavior of their wives.”

    I believe that this applies to everyday Godly living as well. Yet once you get into it, this topic is so broad. Honestly, when I feel like berating my husband, whether my stance on a topic is right or wrong, my attitude toward him IS wrong and God will not bless that. It’s at that point I need to meet God on my knees and ask for forgiveness and a change of heart.

    And do you know what I have seen happen when God changes my heart? The people around me change as well.
    My husband and I are really blessed with a good relationship. I’m able to respectfully tell him what I think, and we can have a conversation about it, even when we don’t agree. He knows I will respect his decision. We also know one another’s spiritual gifts and so there are times we seek each other’s counsel. We have both changed our minds at different times.
    More then anything, it’s important for couples to communicate with one another clearly and with loving respect, while giving it all to God and seeking his plan and his will. I can’t stress enough the importance of praying together.

  7. What really stuck out to me was: “..always learning and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

    If that doesn’t sound like a lot of modern day teachers and so called church leaders I don’t know what does. They continually talk about and modify the understanding of scripture that is pretty plain and clear. They muddle the waters so that no one really has a solid understanding, but can pick and choose which understanding best fits their needs. Wives submit to your husbands? A little. A lot. In one situation but not another. Take your pick. Whatever works at the moment.

  8. The term is meant to interpret avoiding conflict through being lax in ones leadership. What it fails to convey is the fact that, without leadership, the direction of the marriage goes haywire. Women don’t really want to lead their marriages, most just want what they want, when they want it. When the refuse hits the fan, though, they don’t want to be responsible and can easily lay blame on their husbands.

    I recall a time where my wife and I went through some bad stuff, throughout which she insisted I was not only a horrible husband (but a good dad, of course) but also that she didn’t need me because she was an adult and capable of making her own decisions. Some time afterward we were watching a movie, “The Grey”, about a group of rig hands stranded after a plane crash and being hunted by wolves. Every other word out of their mouths was “F–k”, which isn’t too far off from the truth about the speech of rig hands. At one point I asked my wife if she was good with watching the movie or if the constant use of the word bothered her, to which she replied she was fine. Midway through the film she goes off on a tirade about how I should have turned the movie off and protected her from the excessive foul language. When I asked her why she didn’t say something when I asked her about it she responded that I “should have known without having to ask”.

    That was a long time ago, but proves my point. Doesn’t want instruction, but doesn’t want responsibility either. Is an adult who doesn’t need help, but is a child who needs protecting. This is why God placed men squarely in charge of their daughters and later their wives. Many of them seem to lack good sense, some from time to time and some all of the time, but nearly all require some form of direction and instruction at some point because at critical times their emotions can control their decisions, which can lead to very devastating results. I dont meant this to be an insult, but God did what He did for a reason, and its plain to see part of that reason if we dont look through rose colored glasses.

    Dollars to donuts that using The Thinking Housewife’s method the wife would lay into her husband for lack of funds should the undertaking of another baby, without good planning, lead to living paycheck to paycheck, but that is something we good Christians must never speak of.

  9. Linda that is SO GOOD!!! That is very true that when we allow God to deal with our hearts that it has an impact on other people as well. Thank you for always adding such amazing insight ❤ I'm so glad I've met you online, your wisdom is very valuable.

  10. “because at critical times their emotions can control their decisions, which can lead to very devastating results. I dont meant this to be an insult, but God did what He did for a reason, and its plain to see part of that reason if we dont look through rose colored glasses.”

    ^Snapper, no offense taken at all! This part I quoted from you is actually something I’m working on in draft form – about emotions and even taking it a step further to include hormones and how those effect women’s decision making and feelings.

    I don’t know if you’ve read anything on it, but menopause sounds horrifically terrifying when it comes to hormones getting women to blow up their marriages and treat their children like dirt! Not that they are an excuse, but it is something women should be aware of.

  11. Good stuff.

    Lately, I’ve been having the opposite observation.

    I see so many men just abdicating their responsibilities to their wives because they are too busy at work or just have too much on their plate, leaving their wives feeling overwhelmed.

    So a husband who actually wants to take the reigns and be in charge is a blessing, even when it can be a hit and miss. At least he’s TRYING to lead.

    I know two women who have their foot out the door because their husbands aren’t present and all, but they feel that asking their husband for more direction would make them disrespectful wives.

    I mean…exact quote:

    “Isn’t that right, Pedat? Isn’t that what red pill Christians teach that a woman should wait on her man to lead and not be disrespectful? I’d hate to come under fire by those people for actually wanting my husband to cover me and lead my household. You guys seem to go very hard on women who expect too much from their husbands.”

    Personally, I think that if a woman says, “just please make a decision!” I don’t have an issue with that though I know a lot of RP Christians would consider that to be borderline.

    But I just can’t relate to weak men though.

  12. When I hear people talking about how absent men are in their marriages due to work and responsibilities I like to refer back to the film “In the Heart of the Sea” which recalls the tale of the story that inspired the book Moby Dick. Early in the film the main character is speaking to his wife, his pregnant wife, telling her that work calls (he is a whaler) and he must go and he loves her and will see her later: Two years later. He specifically tells her he will be gone for two years, when she is on the verge of giving birth to their first child.

    I dont buy the whole “my husband isn’t present” business anymore, or that women need so much help. Machines do the majority of work around the house, so whats the complaint truly centered around? When my wife leaves for extended trips to visit her mother I keep house just fine. Laundry gets done, floors get mopped and vacuumed, counters get wiped. The only thing that causes me to get behind is my own laziness! Not malicious laziness, just lack of a desire to do what needs to be done.

    Men being close to their wives on a daily basis while continuing to work is a modern convenience and not something that would have been so common in older times, maybe not even a century ago. Doing something as simple for us as travelling to another town a mere two hours away would easily take twice as long or longer on horseback or wagon. Men leaving their wives and children for extended periods of time, with no little or no contact, but any contact would have to have been by letter or, if lucky, phone, would describe most of human history.

    A mans wife should be the keeper of his home, she shouldn’t need direction for every little detail unless he insists on providing it. That women are “one foot out the door” because their husbands work hard to provide them with what they have and provide little hands on support says more about them than their husbands. If you follow the captain/first mate comparison for husbands and wives you realize that the captain DOES abdicate a lot of responsibilities to his first mate because he is busy piloting the ship! If the first mate cant handle it then what good is he? What good is it if, for every tiny thing the first mate has to run to the captain and ask for instruction on how to get it done? Or what kind of first mate complains that the captain is always so busy steering the ship when he could be down in the boat helping mop floors and put away dishes. Silliness. No wonder Christian men are avoiding Christian women.

  13. @Snapper

    “Men being close to their wives on a daily basis while continuing to work is a modern convenience and not something that would have been so common in older times, maybe not even a century ago. Doing something as simple for us as travelling to another town a mere two hours away would easily take twice as long or longer on horseback or wagon. Men leaving their wives and children for extended periods of time, with no little or no contact, but any contact would have to have been by letter or, if lucky, phone, would describe most of human history.”

    I totally agree with that. When reading historical journals and such and stories of what life was like back then for women who married and had children, it was more the norm that their husbands were **very** involved with their own work lives (making money however they could). It was also different for different classes of people.

    I like how you brought up the Captain/First Mate model, and how the Captain has to delegate some of his duties so that he’s not micromanaging and unable to be proficient at what he’s supposed to be taking care of.

    I don’t know… to me the complaint that a woman’s husband is “just abdicating his responsibilities” to his wife because he’s 1) too busy at work or 2) has too much on his plate rings very hollow – to me that’s how a lot of marriages have worked across time, including my own (and my husband is a wonderful leader but he expects me to do what needs to be done even when he’s not here)! What wives in that position can do is learn how to help *your own husband* in the best way that you can – in the exact ways he needs you to. This will probably look different for different marriages. Some men have careers where they will be gone a lot more often than a man with a typical 9-5 job. Think about men who are deployed… of course life will be like a single mom at those times, but that is what is required of you as a wife, due to the life you took on when you married a man with that kind of mission.

    Farmers’ wives also have it especially hard during planting season or harvest… they rarely see their husbands and they live so far away from normal communities that it’s extremely lonely, isolating, and emotionally painful at times for them. But being married to a farmer, this is what is called of them in fulfilling their beautiful role of being their husband’s helper. So while I feel for them, and to some degree I’m in that same boat, I don’t at all think of it as some kind of excuse to rag on your husband’s leadership style, or blame him for you feeling overwhelmed when others have had it much harder.

  14. I agree with everything you wrote.

    My post was out of place, and my mind is in a different place entirely.

  15. Pedat… I’m trying to think of a good response to your comment, but I just had a minor surgery and am recovering with strong pain meds LOL so I’m having trouble pin-pointing what exactly is off about it, but something sounds very off with your comment.

    No personal attack here, you know I respect you! But there’s something about how you’re saying these are “weak men” because they seem to need their wives to take on more responsibility than their wives feel comfortable with, that just doesn’t sit right with me.

    First… why on Heaven’s green earth are these women complaining about their husbands to you?! To me, that is a huge red flag, and you shouldn’t (in my opinion) be their emotional tampon or sounding board for their complaints against their husband! It’s not productive for them and I see no benefit to you emotionally or spiritually in letting them “vent” their frustrations in their marriage. It could quickly become a foot in the door for Satan also… just really dangerous for a woman to be going to some man (even a family member in some cases) to complain about her husband. Not good 😦

    Second… for women who sound so “in tune” with red pill ideas, they are very quick to disrespect their husbands by talking to you about their issues with their husbands’ leadership styles. They’d do better to ask the ladies in the red pill reddit forums (I’ve only been there maybe 3 times to see what they’re saying but it did seem good from the little that I read). These ladies would probably tell them they need to be the “first mate” to their “captain” and to do what he needs done. If that means taking on more than they feel comfortable with, well maybe it’s a chance for them to grow in their faith or spiritual maturity. They need to find older female mentors who are trustworthy and who will help them keep their marriage together and strong – not a single man who is going to be an inevitable **wedge** in their marriage causing more harm than good.

    Third…. it’s my view that husbands should have that right to ask their wives to handle any responsibilities that need handling so that he can focus on his mission. The job or role of a Christian wife, should be to figure out how best to help support her husband in his mission. I wrote about that here https://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2018/04/24/support-your-husband-in-his-mission/
    and here https://girlwithadragonflytattoo.com/2018/04/09/dont-ruin-your-husbands-love-toward-you-by-failing-to-support-his-mission/

    Fourth… these wives are acting strange in claiming they can’t just ask him what he needs or wants to be done (to take a lead on something in advising her what needs to be done) because it would be “anti-red pill.” 😦 honestly that sounds almost disingenuous on their part!!! I find it very hard to believe that they actually think it’s disrespectful to communicate with their husbands on decision-making issues. If you want to send them to me, my email is angelpixiedust86 (at) live.com – just replace with the @ symbol.

  16. Stephanie,

    Actually, I talk to both the husbands and the wives at the same time. These are younger couples that I know and work with.

    I’m not one to sit and listen to women complain about their husbands for they will get a tongue lashing. The “concerns” raised were done in mixed company.

    I concur with your other sentiments.

    Going into details would not be wise.

  17. The issue lies with societies false elevation of women to sainthood. “Being a mom is the hardest job in the world”, Really? Tell that to the rig hand working in 120 degree heat in full fire resistant gear for 12 hours a day while covered in dirt, oil, blood and sweat? We should most certainly admire mothers, we all have had one, but to make the job of maintaining a house and children seem “difficult” is far-fetched considering the work involved has gotten easier with the advent of technology. At least when held up against work like firefighting, or being a soldier, or even just programming.

    The apostle Peter gives a long section about how servants should behave towards their masters in one of his letters (1 Peter) and, immediately after finishing the discussion he tells wives to act in the same manner towards their husbands. Why? Because the husband/wife relationship is, at its core, a master/servant relationship! I mean, naturally you can see that the two end up radically different, but the master/servant relationship is the base. In the same way we are servants to Christ! Its not intended to be an insult, simply an observation of fact. We are His servants, yet we are so much more! But just try telling a woman that she is her husbands servant and watch her howl! Even despite the fact that her husband is given biblical instruction to love and care for her and not to mistreat her, it won’t matter one bit! The curse of the garden is in full effect!

    Just the other day I came across a post from my cousin on Facebook. I love my cousin but she is a wellspring of examples of what not to do as a woman. The post was of a woman in work attire and had the caption (paraphrasing here): “I would rather work for the rest of my life than give any man the ability to say to me ‘You wouldn’t have that if I didn’t give it to you’. Her FB feed is full of junk like that, but its also full of “where are all the good men?” memes and junk, too! Society has taught her to never rely on a man but her innate nature as a female rages inside and still tells her otherwise! Her GOD GIVEN nature!

    As I stated before, its little wonder now that Christian men, or ALL men, in fact, are turning away from women and opting to stay unmarried. Who wants to put their hand in THAT bear trap? Who want’s to yoke themselves to someone who, in one moment tells you she doesn’t need you and that she is actually BETTER than you, then the next moment won’t let go of you because she can’t get a grip!

    Why can Christian women just obey the bible?

  18. “Why can’t Christian women just obey the bible?”

    That is a really good question, Snapper. I’m reading a book called “Ungodly Rage – The Hidden Face of Catholic Feminism” suggested to me by Earl, and it is REALLY really scary how much the occult (and so much about “goddess worship”) has infiltrated the church. I’ll hopefully write some posts about it, but it is VERY scary to me how these feminists point blank decided to infiltrate the churches and change doctrine and literally obliterate a male God patriarchal figure.

    As to your question again, why can’t Christian women just obey the Bible? I don’t know why it seems so opposed for us women to just trust and rely on God and on our husbands, to take care of us. Why are women so rebellious? I don’t know, but I do know it’s true that we are almost by nature (sin nature?). I think when women start looking to feminism to “save” them from men or “male dominance in the church,” it is the outpouring of what is in their hearts toward God Himself.

    Beth Moore just recently (kind of recently) wrote an article describing how oppressed she’s been all her life at the hands of male dominated Christianity, and that it’s time to end it. It’s ironically exactly what these Wiccan Feminists were talking about in the 1980’s – that they wanted to get out from the male-dominated Christianity and find the goddess within and view God as more mother-like. But their goal was to stay inside the Church, so that they could change it from the inside out into a more feminist, goddess-worshipping, religion that completely obliterates patriarchy.

  19. Would love to see some posts on that. I really feel like the feminist mindset of Christian women is evil and from satan himself. And it crept in so subtley! I mean, who really see the harm in telling young girls how great they are and how accomplished they can be? That they should have self esteem and be capable? All garbage! It was a trojan horse! It made its way into the church and all the self centered pride poured out. Sad.

  20. “because their church has decided authority on issues like these, and therefore doesn’t allow husbands to make their own decisions regarding how many children he wants to have.”

    Can you point to where this teaching exists in official Catholic teaching? Seriously. Please point me to where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an encyclical, or a papal bull where this is official teaching. Because you are making a claim that the Catholic Church’s “decided authority” on the issue is one of the “rules and restrictions” of the faith. I’d like you to point out where, in official Catholic Church teaching, this is one of our “rules and restrictions”.

    It always fascinates me how little non-Catholics truly understand about Catholicism and what it teaches, yet how quick they are to jump all over the Catholic Church for what they THINK it teaches. Even worse, non-Catholics base their understanding of the Catholic faith on people they know who are Catholics and how they practice the faith. Let me tell you something: with 1.285 BILLION Catholics in the world, there are a lot of people in our tent, and not everyone is “doing it right”. For years, I was someone who wasn’t a good representation of a Catholic. I see people every Sunday who “aren’t doing it right”. But because there are people who aren’t good examples of what the faith teaches it doesn’t mean that what the faith teaches is incorrect.

    Oh, and I love the call to not debate this point in the comments. Classic. “I’m throwing a hand grenade but please, don’t pay any attention to the fact I’m throwing a hand grenade.”

  21. “Can you point to where this teaching exists in official Catholic teaching? Seriously. Please point me to where in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, an encyclical, or a papal bull where this is official teaching. Because you are making a claim that the Catholic Church’s “decided authority” on the issue is one of the “rules and restrictions” of the faith. I’d like you to point out where, in official Catholic Church teaching, this is one of our “rules and restrictions”.”

    ^The official Catholic teaching on use of birth control (controlling in any way, the ability to conceive) is well known. I’ll have to look up the various places I’m sure it’s spelled out for you (although you, as a good Catholic, should already KNOW where your own faith teaches you this). Honestly, you should be telling me where your church forbids preventing conception during sex.

    After that, you can explain to me how this affects the husband’s authority in being able to consciously decide how many children he wants to have and financially support.

    “Oh, and I love the call to not debate this point in the comments. Classic. “I’m throwing a hand grenade but please, don’t pay any attention to the fact I’m throwing a hand grenade.””

    ^To debate it kind of reveals what a bind you Catholics are in. And I’m sure that’s really hard for you to accept. Your Church has ultimate authority on this issue, as well as MANY other issues where other churches decide to be silent so that the husband has more authority over his family. If you disobey this very well known teaching in your Church, or don’t agree with your own faith’s teachings and rules against preventing conception every possible time you have sex, then you aren’t a real Catholic at all.

    Debating it is sad because it points out how your own Church has authority over the husband (instead of God/Jesus having authority over the husband in the Christian faith). You, if you really are a Catholic man, have to first obey your Church, if you are to remain a true Catholic and member of your Church. You are not free to decide to prevent conception each time you have sex, and therefore, you are not free to exercise authority in that manner over your wife and over your family.

  22. “The Church also says that artificial contraception is morally wrong, because each and every sex act can occur only between husband and wife and must be directed toward two ends: love and life, that is, the intimate unity between the man and woman (love) and possibly procreating another human being (life).

    Conception and pregnancy don’t have to occur each time, but no man-made barriers should prevent what God may intend to happen.

    When love and life — unity and procreation — are separated, then sex becomes an end in itself rather than a means to an end. Birth control makes sex recreational, and removing what may be perceived as the “danger” of pregnancy means that couples no longer need to communicate about when and when not to have sex and whether they want or can afford another child.”

    ^That was just from one site. I’ll have to find more, but as per your faith rules and restrictions, sex can only be for “love (unity between the man and wife) and life (procreation.” Those two cannot be separated during sex. There must be that chance that (according to your faith) you could conceive. You are not allowed to control this. Recreational sex is considered by the Catholic faith to be immoral (sin).

    I know recently your church has added in the possibility of Natural Family Planning, but that is separating the “love and life” purpose of sex. And NFP is relatively very modern in the life of the Church (2 thousand years old church/faith) so NFP is not truly Catholic.

  23. This site explains it well and *seems* to be arguing for NFP to be a “good” and not evil, but it contradicts itself all the way through, and especially at the end here:

    “NFP is not an evil, or sinful. It is God’s gift to these times for parents who need a morally good means to help them plan their family responsibly. NFP can be misused, abused, if there are no compelling reasons for delaying the next pregnancy. But the fault there lies, not with NFP, but with the wrong intentions of the couple.”

    Who judges whether or not the husband has “wrong intentions” in responsibly planning his family? If his wife is healthy, and he makes good money, of course adding another child when they already have 3 or 4 + will always be another sacrifice or even could be seen as a burden by that particular husband. So who gets to decide whether or not it’s a legitimate reason to even use NFP? Certainly the husband does not have authority over that, even if his wife disagrees with him (but should follow him anyway), but the Church does. So again, we’re to the same point, that even if he tries to use NFP, there’s a good chance he’s using it “wrong” or amorally because his reason has to be approved by the ultimate authority (not him or God), but the Church.

  24. So I stopped back to see if you had replied to my comment. Not my first comment, but the one I left in reply to your last.

    I was hoping to have a conversation. I was also hoping that I could educate you and correct your misunderstandings about the Catholic Church and prevent these misunderstandings from being perpetuated. To your comments of “you should be telling me” and “you can explain to me”, I did exactly that. I quoted scripture and cited the Catholic Catechism as requested.

    And instead of having a conversation, instead of admitting “wow, I was off base here” or “I didn’t know that”, you moderated out my comment and proceeded on.

    Now, it’s your blog. You run it how you want. But let me tell you: In so doing, visitors to your blog will assume that YOU are correct and that YOU are the final authority because “that Catholic can’t defend his position, so she must be right.” This is quite disingenuous for a woman who proudly wears her Christianity on her sleeve.

    What in my comment was factually wrong? I wasn’t rude, mean-spirited, or callous. I laid the truth bare, and even criticized people who call themselves Catholics but who then fail to follow the true teachings of the faith. And rather than have a conversation, rather than open yourself to truth even if it means challenging your own long-held beliefs about Catholicism, you preferred to shut down that conversation.

    I admit, I was surprised that a woman who has all these posts about living in the Word would do that. Color me disappointed.

  25. @redpillcatholic, I never saw another reply, I’ll have to look through spam and trash folders and see if it somehow went in there! I was sad to realize that no Catholics came to actually give solutions to other people of faith who have these rules and regulations surrounded sex and procreation – to help them navigate that when a husband wants to limit the number of kids they have.

    Nothing was wrong in the comment since I didn’t even see it, I’ll have to fish it out. WordPress does weird things, I’ve had it eat comments I made and never saw them published.

  26. Fair enough. It’s one of the reason I save lengthy replies until they’re posted. Here is my original reply:

    First, please dont change the argument. I am taking issue with the fact that you stated that the Church, as the “decided authority”, “doesn’t allow husbands to make their own decisions regarding how many children he wants to have”. You cannot show me anywhere that this is Church teaching, because it simply is not Church teaching.

    Second, you are falling victim to the common misunderstanding held by separated brothers and sisters in Christ about about the relationship and role of the Church. The Church is not the final authority which Catholics must follow. You are placing the Church above God, which it is NOT nor claims to be. God is the final authority. The Church’s role is, and has always been, to serve as the repository of the faith. This means that the Church’s job is to interpret the teachings of scripture and, through the Holy Spirit, guide the faithful into a more perfect relationship with God through His Son, Jesus Christ. Matters of faith such as NFP are not “created new” so much as they are revealed. In some matters, such as euthanasia, new movements in society that did not exist in society at the time of the writing of scripture must be interpreted through the lens of scripture and while still adhering to the existing moral teachings of the Church. (Why must they still adhere to the moral teachings of the Church? Because what was already revealed by the Holy Spirit in scripture and in Chuch dogma is truth and cannot be changed; by its very nature, truth cannot change or it would not be truth.)

    So, on to your comments:

    “Honestly, you should be telling me where your church forbids preventing conception during sex.”

    The Catechism of the Catholic Church paragraph 2399 states: “The regulation of births represents one of the aspects of responsible fatherhood and motherhood. Legitimate intentions on the part of the spouses do not justify recourse to morally unacceptable means (for example, direct sterilization or contraception).” In rebuttal to your initial argument that Catholic “rules and regulations” prevent the husband from deciding how many children they are to have, you should hit that link and read the whole section on “The fecundity of marriage” and “The gift of a child” (paragraphs 2366 – 2379).

    “After that, you can explain to me how this affects the husband’s authority in being able to consciously decide how many children he wants to have and financially support.”

    Who decides how many children a couple will have? The husband? Or God? To have sex but not be open to life (which ultimately is God’s will, not our own) is to reject the will of God in our lives. If a couple decides mutually for good and moral reasons that they do not want to conceive a child at the current time in their lives, then NFP is a moral solution for them since it follows scripture (I Corinthians 7:5). (And if a man is unable to control himself through his wife’s fertile period and “just needs a release”, then I personally contend that he’s not a man at all since he has no control over the desires of his flesh.) Your argument is that the Church decides what is a good and moral reason to limit family size. This is incorrect. The Church guides couples in this regard, but is not the final authority. There is no board or committee or tribunal that hears cases and tells a couple “that is not moral!” There are too many scenarios for the Church to outline every one, therefore they give general guideance for what is and is not a moral act by giving the framework for individuals to come to their own conclusion and deal with the consequences of their decision when they are judged by our maker.

    Contrary to your statement, NFP is truly Catholic because it provides guidance based upon scripture and upon the eduring teachings of the Church. For example, if the husband is going to med school and the wife is the singular source of income, choosing NFP to plan when they will have children is good and moral because they choosing to not do something (not have sex “by mutual agreement for a specified time”). By not using contraception and timing when they will have sex, they are still open to the will of God. On the other hand, having sex but contracepting is not good and moral, because in this case they are choosing to do something (have sex) but are also choosing to prevent the will of God (by preventing the creation of life via contraception).

    And it’s not just contraception that’s considered a sin: someone who denies thier spouse their marital right is also committing a sin because there was no mutual agreement.

    “You, if you really are a Catholic man, have to first obey your Church, if you are to remain a true Catholic and member of your Church.”

    I really am a Catholic man. And I obey God by following the teachings of the Catholic Church. It is a teaching since the time of Moses that “thou shall not steal”. It is a teaching that “thou shall not commit adultery”. It is a teaching that the merciful will be shown mercy, and that those who do not forgive will not be forgiven. It is a teaching that faith without works is dead. And it is a teaching that contraception is a grave sin.

    The problem people have with “Catholic rules and restrictions” (and why so many self-identifying Catholics pick-and-choose what things they want to follow and what they don’t) is that to be a good and righteous person means it takes two things that are lacking in all people to varying degrees: discipline (to follow God’s rules) and faith (to trust in His will). Recreational sex (meaning you’re wanting the fun but are not open to the will of God) means you are lacking discipline (to wait a few days) and are lacking faith (to trust that God knows what’s best for you and will take care of you.)

    When people recognize the fact that they’re weak and they’re sinful and they need God’s grace and forgiveness to help change their hearts so they can “go forth and sin no more” and do it God’s way, it’s hard. It’s hard to have that conversation with yourself and then to walk into a confessional and admit your sins and plea for God’s forgiveness and His help in changing your sinful ways. It’s one of the reasons confession isn’t the well-attended Sacrament it used to be even 50 years ago. It’s so much easier — and popular — to say “the Catholic Church is wrong”. And as a result, there are billions of people in Hell, all singing that Frank Sinatra classic: “I did it myyyyyyyy wayyyyyyy.”

  27. “I am taking issue with the fact that you stated that the Church, as the “decided authority”, “doesn’t allow husbands to make their own decisions regarding how many children he wants to have”. You cannot show me anywhere that this is Church teaching, because it simply is not Church teaching.”

    I think, for the sake of not fighting over doctrine, we’ll just have to disagree here. Your Church firmly believes contraception is a sin, whereas most Protestants firmly believe that the basis of that doctrine in your Church is wildly disfiguring God’s Word and taking one verse out of context. I see it as very close to what the Pharisees did to the Jewish people and what Jesus called them out on – tying burdens on the people’s backs that they themselves can’t even carry (hence the ginormous population of Catholics who use birth control, as well as the problem with Priests abusing children for sex). In the Old Testament, Priests were always allowed to marry virgins and have families, because God knew sex was natural and usually needed even for men of God. God never had rules to deprive all their Levite Priests of sex like Catholics do. God never, in the Old or New Testament, commanded that Priests had to be celibate. It is something that deviated from the Bible, and that’s why I mention “Catholic rules and restrictions,” because these rules are anti-biblical, and bordering on the demonic (depriving thousands of good priests sex so that they start using children and corrupting the entire faith).

    And the NFP thing is still VERY recent in light of how old the church is. And I’m sorry, but it doesn’t add up with much earlier (hence more reliable) Catholic teachings. I don’t think it’s wrong personally, but many Catholics still view it as a basic form of trying to control how many children God gives you (and it does). So we’ll just have to disagree.

  28. Your Church firmly believes contraception is a sin, whereas most Protestants firmly believe that the basis of that doctrine in your Church is wildly disfiguring God’s Word and taking one verse out of context.

    Here let me fix that for you: “…whereas most modern Protestants firmly believe that …”

    Or wait, did you not know that contraception was held as a sin by Protestants up until the Anglican Church’s 1930 Lambeth Conference?

    And did you not know that Martin Luther himself placed special emphasis on Genesis 1:28, saying that it is “a divine ordinance which it is not our prerogative to hinder or ignore”?

    Sounds to me like you were unaware.

    As for the “wildly disfiguring God’s Word and taking one verse out of context”, there’s so much more to it that “one verse” that I don’t even know which verse you’re referring to being taken out of context. Which one of these are we “disfiguring”?

    Gen 1:28 “And God blessed them, and he said, “Increase and multiply, and fill the earth […]'”
    Gen 38:9-10 the story Onan spilling his seed (cf. Deut 25:5-10)
    Psalms 127:3-5 “Yes, sons are a gift from the LORD” … ” How blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them!”
    I Chronicles 26:4-5 Obed-Edom was blessed with 8 sons
    Matt 21:19-22 Jesus curses the barren fig tree and told His disciples to have faith and do not doubt and their every prayer will be answered

    So God blesses Adam and Eve’s union and gives them a commandment: have babies. Choosing to not have sex for a certain period of time while still being open to God’s Divine Will is far different from having sex and not being open to God’s Divine Will. To do so is to place a barrier (quite literally) between you and God’s Divine Will because you do not trust Him to provide for you.

    And here’s some context for you: Greek. In particular, the word “pharmakeia” as used by St. Paul in Gal 5:19–21 and echoed by St. John in Rev 9:20–21. The common English translation you’ll find in most Bibles is “sorcery” or “witchcraft” and Strong’s Greek has the additional definition of “medication”, but let’s look at the context and the audience, shall we? St. Paul’s list was talking about the sins of the time, part of which were pagan orgies where women would use “pharmakeia” to prevent getting pregnant to a stranger, or to abort a pregnancy after one. Sounds like contraception to me.

    Also, St. Paul was talking about sins of the flesh, and if you are having sex for the sake of having sex and you are not open to God’s will, are you not therefore giving into the sins of “fornication, lust, homosexuality, self-indulgence”? Are you not also guilty of the sin of using “pharmakeia”?

    I see it as very close to what the Pharisees did to the Jewish people and what Jesus called them out on – tying burdens on the people’s backs that they themselves can’t even carry

    Jesus seemed to carry it well. So did St. Paul. So did others throughout the Bible. I’ll come back to that in a minute…

    as well as the problem with Priests abusing children for sex

    Oh here we go, trotting out the scandal du jour.

    First, Catholic priests commit no more sexual abuses than other males, despite the public perception. See: https://www.newsweek.com/priests-commit-no-more-abuse-other-males-70625 Doesn’t make it right, doesn’t excuse it away, but it makes your argument disappear in a puff of logic.

    Just being married and having a wife doesn’t mean a person is not a sexual predator. Don’t believe me? Just take a look for yourself.

    In the Old Testament, Priests were always allowed to marry virgins and have families, because God knew sex was natural and usually needed even for men of God. God never had rules to deprive all their Levite Priests of sex like Catholics do.

    It is something that deviated from the Bible

    Oh really?

    Let me direct you to 1 Samuel 21:3-6: [David speaking] “Now what do you have on hand? Give me five loaves of bread or whatever can be found.” The priest told him, “There is no ordinary bread on hand. However, there is consecrated bread, but the young men may eat it only if they have kept themselves from women.” David answered him, “I swear that women are being kept from us, as always when I go out to battle. The young men’s bodies are consecrated even on an ordinary mission, so of course their bodies are consecrated today.” So the priest gave him the consecrated bread, for there was no bread there except the bread of the Presence that had been removed from the presence of the Lord.

    And Isaiah prophesying about a new priesthood here in Isaiah 56:1,3-7: This is what the Lord says: […] No foreigner who has joined himself to the Lord should say, “The Lord will exclude me from His people”; and the eunuch should not say, “Look, I am a dried-up tree.” For the Lord says this: “For the eunuchs who keep My Sabbaths, and choose what pleases Me, and hold firmly to My covenant, I will give them, in My house and within My walls, a memorial and a name better than sons and daughters. I will give each of them an everlasting name that will never be cut off. And the foreigners who join themselves to the Lord minister to Him, love the name of Yahweh and become His servants, all who keep the Sabbath without desecrating it and who hold firmly to My covenant— I will bring them to My holy mountain and let them rejoice in My house of prayer. Their burnt offerings and sacrifices will be acceptable on My altar, for My house will be called a house of prayer
    for all nations.”

    And now Jesus’ call to celibacy in Matthew 19:12: “For there are eunuchs who were born that way from their mother’s womb, there are eunuchs who were made by men, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.”

    And St. Paul here in 1 Cor 7:1–7: “Now in response to the matters you wrote about: ‘It is good for a man not to have relations with a woman.’ But because sexual immorality is so common, each man should have his own wife, and each woman should have her own husband. A husband should fulfill his marital responsibility to his wife, and likewise a wife to her husband. A wife does not have the right over her own body, but her husband does. In the same way, a husband does not have the right over his own body, but his wife does. Do not deprive one another sexually—except when you agree for a time, to devote yourselves to prayer. Then come together again; otherwise, Satan may tempt you because of your lack of self-control. I say the following as a concession, not as a command. I wish that all people were just like me. But each has his own gift from God, one person in this way and another in that way.”

    And again in 1 Cor 7:32–34: “The unmarried man is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to please the Lord; but the married man is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please his wife, and his interests are divided. And the unmarried woman or girl is anxious about the affairs of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit; but the married woman is anxious about worldly affairs, how to please her husband.”

    And once more in 1 Cor. 7:38: “So that he who marries his betrothed does well; and he who refrains from marriage will do better.”

    And finally St. John says in Revelation 14:1-4: Then I looked, and there on Mount Zion stood the Lamb, and with Him were 144,000 who had His name and His Father’s name written on their foreheads. I heard a sound from heaven like the sound of cascading waters and like the rumbling of loud thunder. The sound I heard was also like harpists playing on their harps. They sang a new song before the throne and before the four living creatures and the elders, but no one could learn the song except the 144,000 who had been redeemed from the earth. These are the ones not defiled with women, for they have kept their virginity. These are the ones who follow the Lamb wherever He goes. They were redeemed from the human race as the firstfruits for God and the Lamb.

    The Catholic Church has always held that the Sacrament of Holy Orders — devoting one’s life to God’s work as a consecrated religious — is a higher calling than marriage. But it has also held that it is not for everyone and only for those who are specifically called by God. Unlike Protestants where anyone can start their own denomination in a mobile home if they want to call themself a “pastor” and get a handfull of people to show up every Sunday, someone who wants to enter into religious life as a Catholic has to go through years of training and then apply. It’s not an automatic.

    these rules are anti-biblical, and bordering on the demonic (depriving thousands of good priests sex so that they start using children and corrupting the entire faith)

    WOW. “Demonic” eh? There’s a hand grenade! Hate the Catholic Church much, do you? Y’know, I disagree with my Protestant friends. We’ve had heated debates on theological matters. Never in all these years have any of them said that anything in the Church “borders on the demonic”.

    And the NFP thing is still VERY recent in light of how old the church is. And I’m sorry, but it doesn’t add up with much earlier (hence more reliable) Catholic teachings.

    You would do well to educate yourself with facts before attempting to speak with authority here. Maybe use Google more. Anyway.

    As I said previously, Catholics see NFP as “truth revealed”. Since there was no real contraception outside of the already-established sinfulness of “pharmakea”, and since birth control wasn’t even really a huge issue until the 1930’s, there was no need to respond to something that wasn’t a problem to begin with. It was pretty simple: avoid Onanism and have babies. The end. But the Malthusian “overpopulation” movement of the early 1800’s started to raise questions of morals and ethics. This started the need for the Church to look into the matter and establish guidelines for what was good and moral behavior. That is, by the way, the Church’s job and its authority. There’s a good article on the history of NFP over here.

    So we’ll just have to disagree.

    Throw hand grenade. Run away. Nice.

    What hand grenade you want to throw next? Call us “idoloters” and “Mary worhippers”? Bring up “selling inulgences” perhaps?

  29. Well we’ll definitely never agree, but yes I was talking about only the “sin of Onan” verse. All the other verses *aren’t* taking the passage out of context, but simply explaining that children are gifts and that it’s a blessing for married couples to be able to have them. But it doesn’t mean that infertile couples are supposed to have children (when they can’t) just like Onan’s sin was not the act of spilling his seed, but a heart issue of refusing to give her a son in his brother’s name. I know I’ll never persuade you, and it is nice to know facts about the birth control issues from history so thank you for bringing that up, but clearly there are zero direct commands of “do not use birth control methods of any kind” in the Bible. God allows differences of conscience, something legalism doesn’t allow. It is interesting to me that the most legalistic people who try to push these rules of no birth control, are usually ones who didn’t live it out their entire marriage, or I’ve seen they tend to be new converts who boast about living this way, but they don’t have the 20+ years of experience having 18 children and all those years of pregnancies, which when they have had that experience, it gives them a more humble presentation of it.

    “There’s a hand grenade! Hate the Catholic Church much, do you? Y’know, I disagree with my Protestant friends. We’ve had heated debates on theological matters. Never in all these years have any of them said that anything in the Church “borders on the demonic”.”

    Well, it’s not hatred of Catholic people, I view the people different from the actual faith/rules/regulations. We are called to hate and expose what is evil, but I have no problem with Catholic people.

    When I was 15 I had an amazing Bible teacher at our Christian school who had studied Greek for 8 years, actually read his Bible in the original texts, and just gave us the best understanding of God’s Word I’ve ever had. Well, he actually did a whole semester focusing on how the Catholic Church is a cult and full of evil. I’m sorry 😦 there are many more false teachings in the Catholic faith that I won’t touch on here. It’s more sad to me than anything. I don’t write posts on those things because I see no reason to. On the “teachings of demons” it refers to people of faith who decide to forbid marriage (sex) based on religious reasons found in 1 Timothy 4:1-3

    Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, 2 through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, 3 who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth.”

    So according to Paul, forbidding marriage (the only virtuous way to have sex for Christians) for religious reasons was clearly “the teachings of demons.” I’m surprised no one else has brought this up to you, as I thought it was a well known demonic flaw in the Catholic faith (and the main reason for all the sex abuse). We’re explicitly commanded to NOT teach the forbidding of marriage for religious reasons. When you’re directly going against God’s Word, directly against what Paul warns about, there is going to be severe consequences for the people in your faith. I believe a severe chastising of the church is going to occur due to the evil hiding in the Catholic church, and the sad thing is that so many innocent people will be destroyed with it. The children, the families who don’t read their Bible and therefore don’t know that Paul explicitly warns against living that way, as well as the thousands of Priests falling to demonic strongholds each year around the world. It’s very serious.

    From here:

    “Paul pulls no punches in calling the commands to abstain from certain foods and marriage for theological reasons “the teachings of demons” (v. 1). But why does he use such harsh language? Well, if indeed the false teachers forbade the eating of meat, they likely did so because they were attempting to promote the idea that true holiness comes through avoiding marriage and certain foods. But this kind of holiness is not that which is required of those who would see the Lord (Heb. 12:14); purity of heart, however, is (Ps. 24:3–4). The disciples of these heretics, therefore, were thinking themselves holy while the Enemy was leading them straight to hell. “

    Overall if you believe NFP was needed, then ok. I thought overpopulation was a farce or a secular (evil) myth to try to get families to have less children and diminish God’s affect on the culture overall by producing less godly adults. I do think that choosing not to have sex when a wife can get pregnant is messing with God’s plan. I don’t believe it’s wrong, but the couple is deliberately trying to avoid God giving them extra children. Again, I’m ok with NFP because if anything at least it makes that burden of following Catholic rules a little lighter for those whose consciences are not violated, but I’ve known some Catholics who still didn’t feel comfortable using it and couldn’t do it. I personally agree with them, as it just doesn’t line up with “not meddling with God’s plans.” I don’t know. If I were Catholic, I’d lean more on the “NFP is just Catholic birth control” tribe (and then have to figure out conscience issues with following my husband – which was what my original post was asking). I would feel that not having sex when I knew I was fertile, IS choosing to avoid God giving me children :/ albeit in a more covert rebellious way.

  30. Well we’ll definitely never agree, but yes I was talking about only the “sin of Onan” verse. All the other verses *aren’t* taking the passage out of context, but simply explaining that children are gifts and that it’s a blessing for married couples to be able to have them. But it doesn’t mean that infertile couples are supposed to have children (when they can’t) just like Onan’s sin was not the act of spilling his seed, but a heart issue of refusing to give her a son in his brother’s name.

    From here:

    The difficulty with this argument is that violation of the Levirate law was not a capital offense. If a man didn’t fulfill his obligations to his deceased brother’s wife, she was to take the matter to the elders, who would counsel him and try to persuade him to change his mind. If he persisted, the widow was to “go up to him and strip his sandal from his foot and spit in his face, saying publicly, ‘This is how one should be treated who will not build up his brother’s family!'” (Deut. 25:9).

    While such a punishment might be embarrassing, it falls short of the death sentence Onan received for his act. This suggests he sinned not only by violating the Levirate law, but also by the way in which he did so. The kind of act he committed was so despicable that, in the Old Testament context, it was punishable by death.

    but clearly there are zero direct commands of “do not use birth control methods of any kind” in the Bible.

    Soooooo you’re just flat-out ignoring all the references to “pharmakeia” that St. Paul and St. John made that I referenced? Ignorance must indeed be bliss.

    It is interesting to me that the most legalistic people who try to push these rules of no birth control, are usually ones who didn’t live it out their entire marriage, or I’ve seen they tend to be new converts who boast about living this way

    So in your view, the enthusiasm of people who have a change of heart are is be dismissed because they haven’t always been that way? And would you apply this mindset equally to, say, an atheist who suddenly comes to Christ and begins to enthusiastically evangelize? “Well, he wasn’t always a Christian, so we should take his evangelism with a grain of salt.”

    When I was 15 I had an amazing Bible teacher at our Christian school who had studied Greek for 8 years, actually read his Bible in the original texts, and just gave us the best understanding of God’s Word I’ve ever had. Well, he actually did a whole semester focusing on how the Catholic Church is a cult and full of evil. I’m sorry there are many more false teachings in the Catholic faith that I won’t touch on here.

    I’ll see your Bible teacher and raise you Dr. Scott Hahn, who was raised a Catholic hating Calvinist:

    I figured that if the wafer they’re worshipping up on that altar is not God, then they’re idolaters, they’re pagans, they are to be pitied and opposed. If the Pope in Rome is not the infallible vicar of Christ who can bind hundreds of millions of Catholics in their beliefs and practices, then he’s a tyrant. He’s a spiritual dictator pure and simple. And because I didn’t think he was the infallible vicar, I thought it was very reasonable for me to help Catholics to see the same thing in order to get them to leave the Church.

    That sounds similar to your current position, does it not?

    Anyway…

    Dr. Hahn went to Gordon–Conwell Theological Seminary where he had be be able to translate original texts between Greek and Hebrew on demand, was a pastor at Trinity Presbyterian Church, was a Professor of Theology, and was on the fast track to becoming the youngest dean at his Presbyterian seminary at the age of only 26. Until… during a conversation with his wife on contraception of all things, he started to question things he had been taught to believe his whole life. Today he is a prominent Catholic theologian, author, speaker, and teacher. His whole conversion story is worth a read: https://www.catholiceducation.org/en/religion-and-philosophy/apologetics/the-scott-hahn-conversion-story.html

    So according to Paul, forbidding marriage (the only virtuous way to have sex for Christians) for religious reasons was clearly “the teachings of demons.” I’m surprised no one else has brought this up to you, as I thought it was a well known demonic flaw in the Catholic faith

    I think as Christians we can agree that every word in the Bible is Truth, yes? If every word is Truth, then there can be no contradictions in scripture anywhere in the 73 books of the Bible (or in the 66 books of your abridged version.) On this we can agree, can we not?

    On the surface, however, I Timothy 4:3 seems to present a contradiction to what Paul himself wrote in I Corinthians 7:7, :32-34, :38. It also seems to present a contradiction to Isaiah 56:4-5 and what Jesus Himself said in Matthew 19:12. (You might recognize these verses because I already quoted them above and you seemingly ignored them in order to throw out I Timothy 4:3.)

    This apparent contradiction one of the arguments used by atheists who try to point out that the Bible is “full of contradictions and if it has contradictions then it cannot be Truth.”

    So if the Bible is Truth (and it is), and as such I Timothy 4:3 cannot represent a contradiction to the other passages that encourage and promote celibacy for the sake of God, then what exactly does I Timothy 4:3 mean?

    Well, for that you have to look into the context of the day and to whom St. Paul was writing. The opponents referred to in I Timothy are not “Judaizers” as in Galatians, but Gnostics. Do you know about the Gnostics and their influence on the early Church? It doesn’t seem so, or you would’ve known better than to use the I Timothy 4:3 reference.

    Let me give you a crash course.

    The Gnostics believed that only things in the spirit realm are good, and that all matter is evil because all matter was created by a lower spirit-being called the “demiurge”. Gnostics believed that the only way to reach salvation was to abandon all things of the physical world in order to join yourself to the spirit world. So-called “Christian Gnostics” in the time of St. Paul were ordering their followers that to reach salvation they shouldn’t marry, shouldn’t have sex, and should abstain from all sorts of different foods because they were all creations of the demiurge.

    I Timothy 4:3 was written to address these false teachings that were happening in the time that the letter was written. Don’t believe me? I’ll pull from John Gill’s Expositor for you: “The design of Timothy’s continuance [at Miletus] was to check growing errors and heresies, and to take care of, and preserve the discipline of God’s house.” (In case you’re not aware, and I’m guessing by your other comments that you’re not, John Gill was a papacy-hating Calvinist.)

    The Catholic position on marriage is far from what you’re insinuating. No Catholic is forbidden by the Church to marry. And the practice of celibate, unmarried priests is far from a command. No one is commanding people to become consecrated religious. It is a choice made in line with Jesus’ instruction in Matthew 19:12: “there are eunuchs who have made themselves that way because of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.

    and the main reason for all the sex abuse

    I’ve already destroyed your stereotypical and fallacious argument on this with facts. Or did you not read what I wrote in my last comment?

    And I should point out that the vast majority of the sex abuse is not heterosexual but homosexual in nature? Allowing priests to marry would not solve the problem. The problem is not “Catholic rules and restrictions” but a failure on the part of the sinner to follow the word of God: homosexuality is a sin.

    In my opinion, it is simply Satan’s latest attempt to tear down the Church which Jesus built upon the rock of St. Peter. And he is using sins of the flesh to do it.

    When you’re directly going against God’s Word, directly against what Paul warns about, there is going to be severe consequences for the people in your faith.

    Isn’t that exactlywhat you’re doing when you contracept? In fact, it is!

    I do think that choosing not to have sex when a wife can get pregnant is messing with God’s plan.

    I don’t believe it’s wrong, but the couple is deliberately trying to avoid God giving them extra children.

    The fact is NFP is still open to the possibility of creating life. Love and life are two things that were never intended by God to be separated. What contraception does is force love and life apart. Contraception is an intentional act to separate that which God never intended to be separated.

    There is a difference between doing something and doing nothing!

    When you contracept you want the sex without being open to life. In doing this you are committing a sin of the flesh. You are wanting to do whatever you want, are you not? You are having sex for the sake of sex, which is lust and self-indulgence, is it not?

    Galatians 5:17 -19: For the flesh desires against the spirit, and the spirit against the flesh. And since these are against one another, you may not do whatever you want. But if you are led by the Spirit, you are not under the law. Now the works of the flesh are manifest; they are: fornication, lust, homosexuality, self-indulgence

    Is it any coincidence that contraception was a sin for all Christian religions until the 1930’s, about the same time that homosexual predators began entering Catholic seminary? Could it be that the last 80 or so years is all just the latest attack by Satan against all of Christianity?

    I would feel that not having sex when I knew I was fertile, IS choosing to avoid God giving me children albeit in a more covert rebellious way.

    All this hatred and passive-aggressiveness too? Wow.

    The bottom line is that you don’t truly understand Catholicsm and what the Catholic Church teaches, yet you go around calling the Church and its adherents “demonic”, “rebellious”, “a cult”, “full of evil”, and full of “false teachings”.

    Before you continue, maybe you should read a list of things we don’t believe and compare it to what you’ve been brainwashed indoctrinated taught to believe about Catholics: http://www.ewtn.com/library/ANSWERS/dontbelieve.HTM

  31. That was a wall of text but it still doesn’t provide truth. If you want to believe in your faith, it’s fine, but my husband has rejected Catholicism over a decade ago, and we’re just simply not Catholic here. He’s not allowing you to comment further on this, so these are the final refutes to your claims.

    1) The sin of Onan site you posted says the aruegment is based on his sin not being punishable by death. There were countless times God killed someone on the spot for something that usually was not a death sentence. God curses and allows others to curse, and kills who He pleases. Like Ananias & Sapphira who were killed on the spot. So the “Catholic Answers” failed.

    2) Yes, I’m sorry. But people who are holding others to extreme legalistic rules like zero birth-control, but have just converted to Orthodoxy or Catholicsm and started living that way, do not have the humility and experience to be preaching the burden they are preaching. That is wholly different from an Atheist converting and evangelizing. The new converts often have an attitude of superiority due to their strict adherence to their legalism. A proud attitude like that is one of the things God despises, so your comparison doesn’t hold water. One is acting a Pharisee since they didn’t live under the burden they’re telling others to live under for all those years, whereas the Atheist convert is helping people gain freedom in Christ. It’s the difference of slavery to the law (and self-righteousness through works of the law), and freedom in Christ. Another Catholic argument failure for you 😦 and I am sorry.

    3) I know about the Gnostics, but that was 2,000 years ago. This is now, and your Church’s rules against priests having wives and families is violating Paul’s command of the teachings of demons. I’m sorry. Just because the Gnostics were a little more extreme than Catholics does not mean this verse still doesn’t apply to today’s religions. Another argument is closed then.

    4) Just because a lot of the sex abuse is male to male, doesn’t prove it’s not stemming from allowing these demonic teachings in your Church.

    5) A lot of the sex abuse is also directed toward children, the most evil act a person can commit on earth is to corrupt an innocent (as Jesus says). Pedophilia and homosexuality both stem from demonic strongholds, which from reading testimonies, it seems demonic spirits can successfully tempt even good men to go down that route.

    6) I remember years ago stumbling upon a corner of the internet where 100’s of priests talked about their secret female “wives” and lovers they had on the side – all heterosexual – because they just couldn’t take the burden of not being allowed sex and a family. You may be unaware of these secret communities, but it looks like a burden God never intended godly men to carry unless they really had that gift of remaining celibate like Paul had. Even Peter, your supposed first Pope of the Catholic Church, had a wife… along with all the Levite Priests I pointed out in the Old Testament. When you cut off 1,000’s of men from being able to marry, and open them up to demonic spirits you’ve allowed in your Church due to these restrictions (teachings of demons), things like this will happen and will continue to happen until it is destroyed.

    7) Look, even your own Pope looks like a pedophile, and has covered for sexual abusers in the past. I’ve long expected that Truth to come out about him.

    8) And in that line of thought, just something to ponder…
    How can Satan be trying to “tear down your Church,” when he’s clearly very much in control of it? Why would he tear it down when he’s having such a fun and easy time using it to destroy God’s people and turn so many children away from your faith after they’ve been raped? Clearly God will step in, but the Catholic Church turned away from God’s Word and willingly gave itself over to these demonic spirits, sins, and abominations by it’s own accord. Not that God can’t redeem the Catholic church, but that would require it’s leaders and followers feeling remorse for the false teachings and repentance, something most Catholics don’t seem capable of seeing 😦 .

  32. LOL you were allowed more than enough comments and arguments, considering I didn’t want the post to be derailed with Catholic-Protestant debating. It’s amazing you’re not even grateful for getting to have your say, but are accusing me of “moderating you out!”

    My blog is not for these kinds of debates and I don’t believe they’re beneficial to anyone, so go find another place to debate, instead of lying that I moderated you out (when you had your full share of time to make your arguments), and derailing my post when I specifically asked for it not to be.

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 )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ 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 )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.