Have you ever felt like your life was ran by a bunch of sociopaths?
If not, you should.
Courtesy of a commentor on the Heartiste:
According to Martha Stout, the author of “The Sociopath Next Door”, the most reliable sign of a sociopath is their appeal to a normal’s person sympathy, despite their abusive, destructive, manipulative, and mendacious behavior.
“If, instead, you find yourself often pitying someone who consistently hurts you or other people, and who actively campaigns for your sympathy, the chances are close to 100 percent that you are dealing with a sociopath.”
Hmm… this sounds strangely familiar. Can you think of any institution that constantly appeal’s to men’s sympathy while continuing to abuse and manipulate them into submission?
Now the spirit is saying explicitly, that in subsequent eras some will be withdrawing from the faith, giving heed to deceiving spirits and the teachings of demons, in the hypocrisy of false expressions, their own conscience having been cauterized… (1 Tim 4:1-2)
As best I can tell, the manipulation and abuse of men at the hands of these religious sociopaths can be summed up by these 4 lines of rhetoric
- “Servant leader”
- “Every man’s battle”
- “God hates divorce” *
- “One woman man”
Each of these lines to appeal to a man’s noble sympathies. But the real message is this:
- Put away your “selfish” dreams. A servant leader compromises his priorities for the real master, the wife.
- Your wife is your only sanctified source for releasing your semen… so don’t you dare offend her
- You can never walk away from this woman for any reason. You are trapped. Best to learn to cope with her drama. Lower your standard of happiness if necessary.
- This is the only woman you will ever have. Don’t bother improving yourself as a man in order to be attractive to women. Making her jealous is evil. Instead, shower her with confessions of your unyielding love for her. Then come to us for marriage counseling when you’re having “bedroom problems.”
Choose for yourself whom you will follow: the word of God, or the religion of man.
—
* The scriptures do not say that God hates divorce. Malachi 2:16 says God hates when wives are “sent away” treacherously. This was a common practice in ancient Israel where a man would decide he no longer liked his wife, marry another woman, kick his first wife out while still claiming her as his own (i.e. no other man could legally touch her.) It was treacherous because the man was deliberately abusing the woman by cutting off her food and sexual rights but not allowing her to be free to marry another man.
Apparently, the modern abusive man is much less subtle than the ancient Jew… preferring to just bash her head in the wall or slap her around instead of devising such an elaborate passive scheme of abuse.
Needless to say, this is not the same concept that we call “divorce.” Check the terms. Divorce was God’s gracious allowance for wives who needed to be released from abusive husbands (Deut 24:1-4). But modern religion has twisted the concept to shame ordinary men into believing he has no escape plan from a rebellious woman.
God himself sent Israel away many times without treachery. He even divorced her in the end. An exit is rarely needed, but it gives a man power to know he has the option.
I, along with many others, do not agree with your statement that “the scriptures do not say that God hates divorce”. In fact, the BibleHub link you provide to Malachi 2:16 transliterates the text as “Yahweh says divorce that He hates”. And, if you follow the link it has to Strongs Hebrew 7971 shalach, its reference to Malachi 2:16 states that the sending away, shalach, in that instance is equal to divorce.
As to the concept that divorce was “for wives”, I find that impossible to reconcile with the fact that the Mosaic Law only allowed men to divorce their wives, not the other way around. Nor do I see any suggestion that Deut. 24:1-4 is primarily to prevent women from being abused.
Just for good measure, I will point out that it is very common for Christian women to maintain that they are shamed into remaining in abusive marriages by “modern religion” when they would much rather divorce.
While I am generally in agreement with the rest of your post, I disagree strongly with your footnote (asterisk).