Josh is a very thorough man who seeks only a godly wife

January 23, 2006 6:44 PM

Josh is a very thorough man. Josh seeks a godly wife.
posted by xmutex (185 comments total)

I think I worked with Josh last summer.
posted by fshgrl at 6:57 PM on January 23, 2006

Gotta scroll down to see Josh "relaxing on the couch".
posted by uncanny hengeman at 6:57 PM on January 23, 2006

No kidding, uncanny. I was about to say. He's a real dreamboat.
posted by brundlefly at 6:58 PM on January 23, 2006

He seems pretty reasonable except for little detours like:

I refused to see the last Star Wars movie (Episode 3) simply because I don’t think God wants me to fill my heard with Anakin’s fall to the dark side. I think that time could better be spent in God’s service doing anything else… I wrote an entire paper about the movie from what I feel is a Biblical perspective if anyone is interested.
posted by rdr at 7:00 PM on January 23, 2006

Actually God didn't want him to see Episode 3 because it sucked.
posted by doctor_negative at 7:03 PM on January 23, 2006

I see a myspace parody ripe for the pickin'.
posted by iamck at 7:05 PM on January 23, 2006

Budah is ok to.
posted by youarenothere at 7:06 PM on January 23, 2006

BullyFilter
posted by dgaicun at 7:06 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm betting Josh isn't a big fan of Desperate Housewives, so no, I don't think we have a future together.
(I know, I know. Fish in a barrel. But a bottle of wine, a rainy night, and Josh!)
posted by octobersurprise at 7:06 PM on January 23, 2006

I think he left out Luke 18:22... there is not even an allowance for wining & dining in this Christian courtship. If we're to use the bible so stringently, the date will involve sitting on the curb and eating some crackers.
posted by zek at 7:07 PM on January 23, 2006

Oy vey!
posted by R. Mutt at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2006

Sorry Josh, the mindless obedient to biblical authority lady you're looking for once existed, but hooked up with this Jones character and well... you know. Shame you missed out on all the fun. Sounds like you would have fit right in.
posted by skallas at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2006

Too soon?
posted by skallas at 7:08 PM on January 23, 2006

Clearly, it's too much, but if you're that picky (and it doesn't have to be religious-picky, but any kind of picky) I think that you really have to lay all your shit out on the table. Imagine if he was just like "Christian virgin male seeks Christian virgin female for pure chaste life together." She'd suggest going to see "Fun with Dick and Jane" and he'd launch into a diatribe about how there wasn't enough God in the movie. Gah. Better he admit how freaky he is, and save the moderately freaky from wasting the effort in contacting him.
posted by 23skidoo at 7:09 PM on January 23, 2006

if you believe any of the following we would likely be unequally yoked

I need to find a way to use "we would likely be unequally yoked" in conversation...
posted by JeffL at 7:09 PM on January 23, 2006

I’m a virgin and I’ve never really kissed a girl (assuming cheek, forehead, and grandma don’t count)... Obviously if my heart goes out to single moms I don’t require a girl who is a virgin, but I do want someone who places a high value on their purity. I’ve talked to some girls that are like “Well, once purity was important but then I gave it up and what does it matter now”... if that’s your attitude (or close) don’t look here.
posted by cell divide at 7:10 PM on January 23, 2006

Hey, it's complicated confusing trying to apply the bible strictly to the modern world.. sometimes it seems like it just...won't...work...
I just feel bad for the guy.
posted by mike_bling at 7:10 PM on January 23, 2006

I like his dress code for women
Here are things I feel personaly are inmodest and not appropriate for women:

1. A shirt that reveals cleavage or shows your breasts
2. Skin tight clothing (shirt or pants)
3. Low riding or low cut jeans meant to show your underwear or stomach
4. 2 piece bathing suits (way inmodest – how is this different than underwear?)
5. Tank top type shirts for women (a friend believes sleeveless is too much, but I think it’s fine)
6. Short shorts
7. Short skirts
8. Jewlery is ok, but not the point of being gaudy, distracting, or worn only to show your wealth/affluence

Apparently, Josh doesn't like his women to wear underwear...
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:11 PM on January 23, 2006

I felt bad that everyone was picking on the guy. He seemed nice enough. Just a little different. But then I read this:

It’s my current understanding that abuse is not Biblical grounds for divorce

You're on your own now, Josh. Good luck to you.
posted by jrossi4r at 7:13 PM on January 23, 2006

He says he can't stand lying, but then puts "Mentality: Intelligent" in his profile. There's a disconnect somewhere, I can't seem to put my finger on it...
posted by caution live frogs at 7:13 PM on January 23, 2006

There are other avenues he could have looked into, such as the Top 15 Biblical Ways to Find a Wife.
posted by deanc at 7:14 PM on January 23, 2006

At least he has standards.

posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2006

(a friend believes sleeveless is too much, but I think it’s fine)

That's a slippery slope my friend...
posted by R. Mutt at 7:15 PM on January 23, 2006

I know I'm not an authority around here, but this post should be removed. It disrespects a man, who may be a little strange or made-up, but is still a man.
posted by eli_d at 7:16 PM on January 23, 2006

I suppose Jenna Jameson wouldn't be a good fit for Josh?
posted by substrate at 7:17 PM on January 23, 2006

At least he doesn't believe in infant damnation. That's something.
posted by Slithy_Tove at 7:19 PM on January 23, 2006

Got to admit that it seems mean to pick on the religious guy, but when he starts out by saying that he believes in a literal 6 day creation and every word in the Bible is 100% true... I mean, I couldn't even talk to this guy in person. You have a brain, you're supposed to think with it.
posted by caution live frogs at 7:20 PM on January 23, 2006

Apparently, a woman who thinks for herself would be a Bad Thing (especially if she had thoughts on the Bible). I seriously wonder how he interacts with women who don't meet his exacting specifications.

R. Mutt, you made me laugh.
posted by fossil_human at 7:21 PM on January 23, 2006

Here are things I feel personaly are inmodest and not appropriate for women:

........

3. Low riding or low cut jeans meant to show your underwear or stomach

It would seem that Josh agrees with myself and Dan Savage on this point.
posted by Afroblanco at 7:23 PM on January 23, 2006

Eli, the guy put himself out there. On the internet. He should be cruising young singles groups at nondenominational churches near his home. And besides, I'm sure God gives him strength to cope with heathen such as we.
posted by Roger Dodger at 7:25 PM on January 23, 2006

This post is shameful. The whole, "this guy put himself out there on the Internet, so whatever happens to him is fair game" line is tired and ignores the central issue, which is whether the metafilter community deems such posts appropriate. I think it demeans us by stooping to making fun a non-public figure who has done little to seek broad attention. But, ultimately the consensus at metafilter should probably govern.
posted by Falconetti at 7:31 PM on January 23, 2006

I fail to see the point of this post. What's the object of discussion, if Josh's ideas are right or wrong? How do we get there, voting? Or is the post just a placeholder to pile upon a fundamentalist Christian seeking a wife? Because we have plenty of opportunity around here to pile upon fundamentalist Christians on real issues, so what's gained from picking one specific individual to laugh at? Some sort of fulfillment?
posted by nkyad at 7:31 PM on January 23, 2006

and this, my friends, is what happens when your semen backs up into your brain.
posted by Doorstop at 7:31 PM on January 23, 2006

Fuck Josh.
posted by c13 at 7:32 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm a straigh guy, and I want to date him just to mess with him and his famly...
posted by Elim at 7:33 PM on January 23, 2006

As jrossi4r quoted:
"It’s my current understanding that abuse is not Biblical grounds for divorce"

So I don't really feel too sorry for the guy, to be honest.
posted by poorlydrawnplato at 7:34 PM on January 23, 2006

So what's gained from picking one specific individual to laugh at?

The laughter.




I'm not laughing at him, I just sayin'.
posted by 23skidoo at 7:36 PM on January 23, 2006

I was going to be mature, and ignore this punching bag of a target, but then I read this:

I am open to discussion on this topic if based around scripture (not just personal opinion or what “feels” right or seems “fair”)

Ladies, don't say he didn't warn you when he sells your daughter. It's not about fairness, it's about the scripture.
posted by I Love Tacos at 7:37 PM on January 23, 2006

<sigh> You know that if he does hook up with some godly wife, they're going to spawn a literal flock of sheep kids.

I just hope that if he does have offspring, they'll rebel against his fundamentalism.
posted by PurplePorpoise at 7:38 PM on January 23, 2006

So, dating profiles are fair game on MeFi?
posted by mischief at 7:38 PM on January 23, 2006

Two weeks at camp I knew this one 6 year old girl that got attached to me… she’d run to me each morning when she saw me and jump into my arms and I’d talk to her for a bit then set her back down to play. My friend Edge saw us one day and said he though I was going to make a great Dad. I can’t wait.


Well, if Edge says so...
posted by cusack at 7:38 PM on January 23, 2006

I think I dated Josh once, but he had a girl name and a vagina at the time. Dumb bastard/bitch, uh whatever.
posted by snsranch at 7:39 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm sorry.

fshgrl, was he a nice man?
posted by uncanny hengeman at 7:40 PM on January 23, 2006

I think it demeans us by stooping to making fun a non-public figure who has done little to seek broad attention.

Oh, I see. Its a private web page...
posted by c13 at 7:41 PM on January 23, 2006

I guess I wasn't aware that everyone on Metafilter considers themself a heathen. I think that singling out any one individual for something they believe in and tagging it "funny" is wrong. Metafilter threads are supposed to be "unique, interesting, valuable links accompanied by commentary that starts an engaging conversation." I know this is debatable, but I don't find this thread to be valuable or engaging. Just plain disrespectful to a person who believes, perhaps a little too much?, in something. Now I will concede that the guy is definately "interesting" and "unique". But why single him out and tag him and his beliefs as "funny"? Who cares if he put a public profile on the internet. It doesn't mean we have to take turns bashing the guy on the front page of a usually incredible community blog. I think stuff like this bumps MeFi down a notch in class. Especially since most people on here (IMO) seem to be very strong, social conscious individuals.
posted by eli_d at 7:42 PM on January 23, 2006

Apparently, a woman who thinks for herself would be a Bad Thing (especially if she had thoughts on the Bible). I seriously wonder how he interacts with women who don't meet his exacting specifications.


Uh... I seriously wonder if this guy interacts with ANY women.
posted by cusack at 7:43 PM on January 23, 2006

Oh, I see. Its a private web page...

Do you seriously not understand the difference? Or are you playing a semantics game because you have nothing of substance to say?
posted by Falconetti at 7:43 PM on January 23, 2006

There are thousands of people on the internet with profiles similar to this, and they aren't trying to harm anyone or push their views. They're just trying to find someone to spend time with. If he was an extreme case or something, then maybe it'd be amusing. Have we lost our creativity here, Metafilter? Is this really all it takes to amuse us? Because if it is I'd suggest a trip to any fucking church in America, where there's probably going to be somelike Josh wandering around. Y'all be a bunch of assholes, amigos. Bullyfilter is right.
posted by billysumday at 7:47 PM on January 23, 2006

Hmmm... the tags have magically changed to the sarcastic extreme. Well.. I must say thanks for removing the "funny" tag. I just may be satisfied.
posted by eli_d at 7:49 PM on January 23, 2006

Just so you know, I agree with quite a lot of what he says. On the subject of abuse, I only differ that you can divorce but not biblically remarry-but if a guy is gonna abuse you he will probably screw around on you too, so not a biggie. (I'm probably stricter than my own church on that point.)

I wish him well and hope he finds someone. Believe it or not there are plenty of gals who share his views. Really.
posted by konolia at 7:49 PM on January 23, 2006

I’m a virgin and I’ve never really kissed a girl (assuming cheek, forehead, and grandma don’t count)...

Don't see this changing anytime soon...
posted by sourwookie at 7:50 PM on January 23, 2006

This man is funny. This is the same thing (on a much larger scale of course) as telling your friends about a funny guy you met. You don't tell all your friends, as to some it might be offensive. But the question is if mefi is offended.
posted by Suparnova at 7:50 PM on January 23, 2006

I hope the guy finds what he's looking for.

Which is not to say that I think it's wrong to poke a little fun at him in the mean time. No one could write THAT much stuff about themselves and not invite a jab or two.

And, in fact, though he and I agree on almost nothing, we do agree that it would have been two hours better spent serving Jesus than watching Episode III.

War of the Worlds is a close call, though.
posted by JWright at 7:51 PM on January 23, 2006

Actually, I agree with him about tv. Tv is very, very, bad.
posted by R. Mutt at 7:53 PM on January 23, 2006

People like Josh, assuming he exists, is why I refuse to travel domestically any further west than Springfield, MA and further south than Philadelphia.
posted by Mayor Curley at 7:53 PM on January 23, 2006

Mayor Curley, keep going west and it gets vetter again, BUT you have to go a fair ways.
posted by Elim at 7:56 PM on January 23, 2006

Yes, Falconetti, I seriously don't understand the difference. But what interests me more at the moment is why he thinks he deserves a girl like that. Besides, you know, that whole "you love someone despite and not because thing"... But I may be naive..
posted by c13 at 7:57 PM on January 23, 2006

Afroblanco, Dan Savage only complains about low-cut jeans on overweight women. He calls it GLH (Girl Love Handles), but I prefer the slang muffin-top. I agree, muffin-tops are gross, but strangely I find slightly overweight women in corsets to be attractive. It's all about where the fat pours out of the outfit :-).

eli_d, You can laugh at someone and still respect them.
posted by BrotherCaine at 7:57 PM on January 23, 2006

<Bono>I STILL HAVEN'T FOUND WHAT I'M LOOKING FOR ...</Bono>
posted by octobersurprise at 7:58 PM on January 23, 2006

I thought at first: why post this here (the exalted Metafilter!), but then, doublethought: I never visit sites like this, so it was interesting and mind-expanding to learn about what Josh and men like him think about women. Truly fascinating and indicative of mainstream freakiness.
posted by kozad at 7:59 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm not interested in making fun of the guy, but I must say that his tastes in women and mine seem diametrically opposite.

Asro Zombie seeks an ungodly woman.
posted by Astro Zombie at 7:59 PM on January 23, 2006

You could probably get a decent Jezabelle for a couple hundred clams, Astro Zombie. Or is that not ungodly enough?
posted by PurplePorpoise at 8:04 PM on January 23, 2006

Does the bible say it's okay to post a personal ad on the internet? I wanna know here the chapter and verse is on that one...
posted by Hildegarde at 8:07 PM on January 23, 2006

Yes, Falconetti, I seriously don't understand the difference.

Maybe I didn't articulate myself well. Everyone is a public figure on the internet to a certain extent, you are right when you imply that. One thing I was attempting to say is that some are more "public" than others. He is passively broadcasting his message and doesn't seem to be seeking attention outside of gaining a girlfriend. Others, like most bloggers, are actively trying to seek a broad audience. Maybe it is a distinction without a difference and it is definitely subjective, but it still seems valid to me.

My main point was whether metafilter thinks this is an appropriate use of the front page, whether it fits the customary guidelines, and whether the general consensus is that such a post is worth having. I don't think it is, but I also understand that I don't run the show.
posted by Falconetti at 8:11 PM on January 23, 2006

"passively broadcasting"? That seems like a contradiction in terms. Isn't metafilter just helping him to find his perfect godly woman?

I enjoyed it, what can I say.
posted by Hildegarde at 8:17 PM on January 23, 2006

No one would laugh at this if it were just some pathetic loser trying to get laid. We've all been pathetic losers trying to get laid at some point or other. We'd probably figure out better ways to help him, if it were ever posted.

The reason it's funny, and the reason it's posted here, is that many fundamentalist Christians do believe that they ARE better than the rest of the world -- that we're all sinners, evil, and they are not. Josh has a long section specifically speaking out against tolerance for sin. There's no question in my mind he'd feel he was clearly a *better* person, a more *worthy* person than I, probably than any person on Metafilter if he met us. (He'd probably think I was Satan incarnate if he really got to know me.)

The fact that he makes a point of explicitly coming out in favour of spousal abuse is just icing on the cake, though I dp respect his honesty in telling us.

I personally find it hard to laugh at him -- it's too fucking sad in one sense and too fucking scary in another. But feel free; he richly deserves it, he's knows you're doing it, and it just makes him feel even more superior to him.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:19 PM on January 23, 2006

Funnily enough, there is actually a legal framework culled from a case called Zippo v. Zippo that attempts to define the interactivity/passivity of a website in order to assess whether it meets the requisite minimum contacts in order to satisfy personal jurisdiction. Most courts now seem to think it is mostly unworkable and focus on intent to reach an audience instead. So the courts agree with you, Hildegarde. Whether that is a good or bad thing is another question.
posted by Falconetti at 8:21 PM on January 23, 2006

Falconetti, there's this wonderful website dedicated to discussing the suitability of Metafilter posts. You should consider whether your complaints about this post would be better suited there.
posted by boaz at 8:24 PM on January 23, 2006

yeah, yeah. I thought about it, but others were bitching or talking about the worth of the thread as well and frankly, I don't have the fortitude to try to make a MeTa post.

I also have email in my profile, so you don't have to pollute the thread yourself if you are so concerned.

On topic: I don't agree with anything this guy says.
posted by Falconetti at 8:29 PM on January 23, 2006

I wish him well and hope he finds someone. Believe it or not there are plenty of gals who share his views. Really.

This is interesting as well. I wonder where all these girls are, given his state of affairs.
posted by c13 at 8:30 PM on January 23, 2006

....to YOU. It makes him feel even more superior to YOU.
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:30 PM on January 23, 2006

So there's a "ChristiansMingle" site but we weirdo-Americans (well, I'm an immigrant) don't have a dating service.

Long before the start of the Internet, there were zines, and there was a mail-in dating scheme called the Good Sex For Mutants Dating League (motto: all the way on the first date). I don't remember the exact details and shockingly (hah!) Google doesn't give me any really good results for this -- here's one from 1988 (yes, eighty-eight) that has a description. The idea was you'd tell one person all your sexual perversions, drug habits, fetishes, criminal behaviours and the like, and they'd match you up with another person whose kinks would be similar to yours, or complement yours, or at least be as bad as yours if in some totally different direction.

I don't remember who the person who did this really was, or if in fact they got anyone laid. I'll bet they did though -- they probably just accumulated letters until they had two in the same area and introduced them -- I'll bet they had a pretty well 100% rate in getting people into bed with each other.

So -- where's the modern day internet equivalent? Looking, I am -- I'm on okcupid (but they're all young and straight -- not sexually straight, very few American women are these days after everyone's seen all this porn but intellectually straight), intellectconnect.com (yeesh, that name -- they're older, less straight but a very small universe).

Hmm... you know... I forgot I have an interest in the name weirdos.com. Let me go talk to my friend who owns it...
posted by lupus_yonderboy at 8:36 PM on January 23, 2006

okcupid ?
posted by c13 at 8:39 PM on January 23, 2006

Ach. Everybody's entitled to a little love. Leve the poor guy alone. And I'll betcha anything he gets some responses. Here's hoping it works out for ya, kid.
posted by jonmc at 8:48 PM on January 23, 2006

Astro Zombie, perhaps you should explore this thread.
posted by youarenothere at 8:49 PM on January 23, 2006

Josh visits the same dominatrix brothel that I do. He's there at least a few times a week. I hear he's a good tipper. As he should be, considering the cleanup time.
posted by loquacious at 8:52 PM on January 23, 2006

I mean, seriously, what do we all ahope to gain by piling on this guy? Some fleeting feeling of superiority over some guy we're never going to meet? Making fun of a gy in that postion just smacks of cruelty, and that's not a good thing under any moral system, scared or secular, that I've ever encountered. Religion has been a help to several people I've known, and while I have strong disagreements with the mainstream church on a lot of things, I fail to see how making fun of some guy looking for love is going to change any of that.
posted by jonmc at 8:55 PM on January 23, 2006

I feel the same way as Kozad about this... I'd never know about this little slice of America without this post. I'd be interested in tracking this Josh character -- finding out what kind of people come knocking, what his dates are like, what his fam... heeeyyy... [cranial smoke] put it on the TV thing!


At least he has standards.

posted by Baby_Balrog at 7:15 PM PST on January 23

no no no... we don't look at Charles Manson or Dennis Rader and say, "At least he isn't lazy."
posted by Extopalopaketle at 8:57 PM on January 23, 2006

Some fleeting feeling of superiority over some guy we're never going to meet?

I think, in all honesty, that that is precisely what we hope to gain. And yes, that is both sad and cruel.
posted by youarenothere at 8:59 PM on January 23, 2006

Josh bless America!
posted by furtive at 9:00 PM on January 23, 2006

I feel the same way as Kozad about this... I'd never know about this little slice of America without this post.

well, a lot of people could say the same thing about Gay America, or Muslim America, or God knows how many other slices of this country. These people are just human, and once you recognize that hatred comes a lot harder (and before you ask, I say the same thing to them). Reda Donna Minkowitz's Ferocious Romace to get better illumination on what I'm talking about. (That's the thirs time today I've recommended that book. she must be on to something).
posted by jonmc at 9:02 PM on January 23, 2006

Hatred? Who said anything about hatred? I think the choice is more between laughing or getting depressed.
posted by c13 at 9:04 PM on January 23, 2006

I think the choice is more between laughing or getting depressed.

Or merely letting the guy go a bout his business and minding our own. And laughing at somebody (as opposed to playful ribbing) is one of the meanest things you can do. C'mon, we're better than this. One of the reasons I still consider myself a liberal is because we're suppoed to be above stuff like this.
posted by jonmc at 9:07 PM on January 23, 2006

Well, I don't think anyone here acutally contacted him. As far as laughing, I don't know about others, but his and that grouphug site are getting me prettin depressed.
posted by c13 at 9:13 PM on January 23, 2006

and this, my friends, is what happens when your semen backs up into your brain.

Ok now that's just funny. Look guys, this fellow questions the value of dating at the tender age of 16, and this site ironically answers the question on it's own: "So that you'll understand how to communicate with other humans properly and not be a total social retard when you start looking for a life partner".

Reading this guy's site actually gives me a weird compulsion to expose my children to MORE television.
posted by glenwood at 9:14 PM on January 23, 2006

letting the guy go a bout his business and minding our own
Jeebus H. Cro-Magnon! Spousal abuse is everybody's business. This guy and guys like him need to know that women aren't possessions. Fucktard.
posted by fish tick at 9:14 PM on January 23, 2006

fish tick: thanks for making my point for me. I'm much obliged.
posted by jonmc at 9:15 PM on January 23, 2006

also, I just showed this thread to my very athiest better half...and she's as disgusted as I am.
posted by jonmc at 9:17 PM on January 23, 2006

I know DOZENS of people just like Josh. They do sense that they are superior. But they are, um, well meaning in their superiority. That being said, thanks for the term MUFFINTOPS metafilter!
posted by BrodieShadeTree at 9:20 PM on January 23, 2006

jonmc: Reda Donna Minkowitz's Ferocious Romace to get better illumination on what I'm talking about. (That's the thirs time today I've recommended that book. she must be on to something).

It's good to see I'm not the only person who's hitting the sauce right now.
posted by subgenius at 9:22 PM on January 23, 2006

They do sense that they are superior.

And we're different how exactly?

Look, I've known my share of born agains and i differ strongly with many of them on a variety of issues, but most of them were decent people when all was said and done, and I certainly understand what drws people to to evangelicalism. Forgive me for trying to show compassion.
posted by jonmc at 9:24 PM on January 23, 2006

It's good to see I'm not the only person who's hitting the sauce right now.

Yes, I have been drinking. But if you want to use that as an excuse to disregard what I'm saying, there's a fart mark on my shorts you can kiss.
posted by jonmc at 9:25 PM on January 23, 2006

also, I just showed this thread to my very athiest better half
You are to be commended for your progressiveness in allowing her access to the internet.
posted by fish tick at 9:25 PM on January 23, 2006

One of the reasons I still consider myself a liberal is because we're suppoed to be above stuff like this.

Above making fun of people? Did you actually, you know, meet any liberals before coming to this conclusion?
posted by boaz at 9:25 PM on January 23, 2006

fish tick, when you get out of high school, I'll take anything you say seriously. boaz, I've known people so far to the left that they make the average MeFite look like Republican bankers, and I've seen them act every which way from utter assholishness to admirable humanity and compassion, but the backbone of liberality is supposed to be tolerance of differnece. that's supposed to be what separates us from them, eight? or am I wrong?
posted by jonmc at 9:31 PM on January 23, 2006

Cut the guy some slack. At least he knows what he wants and won't accept anything else. He's also unshy about letting everyone know where he stands. He's not going into this with eyes closed, and will likely end up with exactly what he wants in a significant other. Beats the hell out of most relationship starters: anyone who answers his description is likely to match up quite well.

That being said, I think his Xtian values are both myopic and naive. I truly hope he rethinks his birth control methods once he finds Mrs. Josh.
posted by HyperBlue at 9:37 PM on January 23, 2006

eight? or am I wrong?

Nein, you are right.
posted by Falconetti at 9:37 PM on January 23, 2006

I'm glad he has such exacting standards--it decreases the chances that he'll be able to impress his ideology onto children.
posted by Citizen Premier at 9:38 PM on January 23, 2006

I get very uncomfortable when people who are clearly unopposed to spousal abuse use "we" and "liberal" in the same sentence.

*boots fart mark, hard*
posted by fish tick at 9:41 PM on January 23, 2006

that's supposed to be what separates us from them, eight?

Who's this us, kemosabe?
posted by boaz at 9:45 PM on January 23, 2006

How do you translate "doesn't think abuse is Biblical grounds for divorce, but does think you should protect yourself and your kids and get a legal separation" to "clearly unopposed to spousal abuse"?
posted by Gator at 9:55 PM on January 23, 2006

all publicity is good publicity.
posted by arialblack at 9:55 PM on January 23, 2006

"My friends drug me"

Yes they did, josh, except for 'friends', read church and for 'drug' read drugged and fucked up.


he really meant dragged. ha ha!
posted by lalochezia at 9:56 PM on January 23, 2006

Wonderful.
posted by sjvilla79 at 9:57 PM on January 23, 2006

jonmc, I would wager that liberalness or liberal thinking was more about being inclusive of a wide range of ideas, thoughts, or positions. One could argue that the liberal position on this is that this guy is too myopic and needs to open his experience for the better of himself and everyone else. The message here isn't so much for him, but for anyone else who would envy his closed world view and shun a more progressive appreciation of the people and experiences around them.

Sure, it's mean to make fun of people. But it is healthy to note how shortsighted behavior can lead to limited experience and accomplishment. I think Josh has painted himself into a sinless corner and he's missing out on a lot that the world has to offer.

My only regret in the tenor of this thread is that it seems to me that Josh is desperately trying to make a safe place in this world. Unfortunately he seems to have also given up his abilitly to make hard choices and experience risk. I would have liked that the conversation was more about the popularity of risk avoidence in today's society - thus avoiding having to deal with the trials and tribulations of a world that is difficult to understand.

Yessh. I'll end it there 'cause I'm starting to ramble...
posted by qwip at 10:02 PM on January 23, 2006

BrodieShadeTree: I know DOZENS of people just like Josh. They do sense that they are superior.

But you're better than that, right? ;-)

Really, not so different to people here, or over at Slashdot, or over at the-site-that-shall-not-be-named, or indeed your average 'blogger.

Even the "average man-in-the-street" identifies as such because he believes he's superior to people who aren't "average".

At least religious types can point at a book in an attempt to justify why they think their superior. Though, come to think of it, there's plenty on /. who'd point at K&R for the same reason.

"Yes - we're all individuals!"
"I'm not..."
posted by Pinback at 10:05 PM on January 23, 2006

Sure, it's mean to make fun of people. But it is healthy to note how shortsighted behavior can lead to limited experience and accomplishment. I think Josh has painted himself into a sinless corner and he's missing out on a lot that the world has to offer.

Sure. But is playground level cruel teasing the best way to get him to figure that out? A younger jonmc might've thought so or wouldn't have cared. now, he's not so sure.
posted by jonmc at 10:09 PM on January 23, 2006

Sure. But is playground level cruel teasing the best way to get him to figure that out? A younger jonmc might've thought so or wouldn't have cared. now, he's not so sure.

Alas, just as younger jonmc had to learn so do these youngsters. Peoples are peoples as long as they don't do anything to me I am cool with them.
posted by ozomatli at 10:18 PM on January 23, 2006

He doesn't like TV?
Who does this guy think he is, a pompous, hipper-than-thou self-righteous MeFite or something?
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 11:00 PM on January 23, 2006

While this thread has devolved into a standard (repetitive, boring) religion bashing session, it really has lost track of why the post was funny in the first place.

As the headline says, "Josh is a thorough man." Specifically, Josh has created a 23 page long screed on exactly what his perfect woman is, complete with references. That he cites the Bible is somewhat happenstance -- it would have been equally funny if he had cited John Gray or Dr. Ruth.

What we have here is a young man who has 8 tons of theory and no practice to speak of. We all remember that part of our life, and I don't think it's particularly mean to have a fond laugh reminiscing about it.
posted by tkolar at 11:21 PM on January 23, 2006

i'm going to go out and commit adulty today and josh can't stop me
posted by quarsan at 11:29 PM on January 23, 2006

quarsan, I'll pray for you. I'll pray that it's a threesome.
posted by qwip at 12:00 AM on January 24, 2006

I'll pray for video evidence.

Explicit video evidence.
posted by Astro Zombie at 12:50 AM on January 24, 2006

"If public (and Christian schools as well) continue to detereorate and become more and more wordly then homeschooling becomes and more and more logical choose."

A ringing endorsement.
posted by Joseph Gurl at 1:30 AM on January 24, 2006

Reminds me of "I Want You Bad" by Offspring.
posted by darkstar at 2:10 AM on January 24, 2006

I think people are getting Josh the individual confused with Josh the type of person.

I don't hate Josh personally.
But I do so vehemently hate the type of person that he is and the values that he stands for.

And I'm not above saying it.
Meh. I'm a bad person.
posted by slimepuppy at 2:31 AM on January 24, 2006

From the link;

"It’s my current understanding that abuse is not Biblical grounds for divorce. Yes, you should protect yourself (and your children – if there are kids), and a legal seperation is likely in order but I do not see grounds for divorce or remarriage..."

In short; "I'm probably gonna beat ya bitch, so you'd better know that goin' in."
posted by Effigy2000 at 3:02 AM on January 24, 2006

Never mind my whale gut, wench, cover your ankles!
posted by The Jesse Helms at 4:19 AM on January 24, 2006

Common folks, stop picking on poor Josh. His only problem is he never rode the baloney pony.
posted by Goofyy at 4:46 AM on January 24, 2006

Somehow this guys needs to get on to a Reality TV show.
posted by fluffycreature at 5:10 AM on January 24, 2006

I like the fact that he backs slowly away from his hard-line views as he comes to realize they're driving away even the godly women. After his statement that TV is eee-vil and he won't allow it in his home:

Added 7-27-2005 I’m looking for someone who can at least consider a life without TV and raising kids without a TV in the home. I realize a relationship is about compromise...

In short; "I'm probably gonna beat ya bitch, so you'd better know that goin' in."

Don't be an asshole. He's talking about not wanting to date women who have divorced their husbands because of abuse; he doesn't consider them Biblically divorced. This guy is obviously not the beatin' type; in fact, I'll bet you he winds up happily henpecked.
posted by languagehat at 5:47 AM on January 24, 2006

Josh meet Mahir Cagri, now start taking notes.
posted by mrmojoflying at 5:50 AM on January 24, 2006

Josh can find some likeminded individuals here.

(I don't agree with everything on the linked site but I posted it to show he's not an anomaly.)
posted by konolia at 6:29 AM on January 24, 2006

what could I have accomplished in that 2 hours for Christ instead?

Putting up a 14 page personal ad on the internet?
posted by patgas at 6:52 AM on January 24, 2006

<invective>
There's one thing I don't get at all about fundamentalists (including my entire immediate family -- I'm the only member of said family who is not a hardcore fundamentalist pentecostal)

They justify the absolute proscription of drugs and alcohol with the "your body is the temple of the lord" thing. But they have no problem at all chowing down on saturated fat & sugar (I defy anyone to explain to me why cocaine is a drug & refined sugar is somehow not) and rarely exercise, except for waving their hands around in church.

And, no surprise, they mostly look like Josh, except for a few exceptions which are usually because of genetics not habits.

I think it's utter bullshit. Temple of the lord my ass.
</invective>
posted by lastobelus at 6:53 AM on January 24, 2006

Skirts coming to withing a few inches of the knees and shorts below mid-thigh are probably fine… but I know that I don’t stumble near as quickly in this area as it seems most guys do, so maybe my thoughts are pretty tame compared to true modesty.
Full length skirts or stronger views are fine as well as well, I’m not sure a girl in this day and age can be too modest.

So, standards of female "modesty" are determined by how much a horny guy who isn't getting any can stand seeing out on the street. Charming! And not his only "Fundy Christian or Radical Muslim Cleric?" moment...
posted by availablelight at 7:20 AM on January 24, 2006

So, standards of female "modesty" are determined by how much a horny guy who isn't getting any can stand seeing out on the street. Charming!

Believe it or not, yes. I went to a Christian college (for a few years- left because I haaaated the atmosphere), and women were often lectured on dressing so as "not to make our 'brothers' stumble"....
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 7:23 AM on January 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

I ended up feeling like I didn't learn a thing about him.
posted by agregoli at 7:36 AM on January 24, 2006

Please note that I am NOT mocking...I am creeped out. Doesn't anyone else feel uncomfortable about all the kid references?

I love kids and I’m open to the possibility of God leading me to a single mom. I’ve known a few and they need just as much love and care as anyone else…
I’ve always said it’s like “buy one, get one free”.

Now THAT'S just plain scary! Anyone who looks at a relationship with a single mother as "buy one get one free" definitely needs further scrutiny.

Two weeks at camp I knew this one 6 year old girl that got attached to me… she’d run to me each morning when she saw me and jump into my arms and I’d talk to her for a bit then set her back down to play. My friend Edge saw us one day and said he though I was going to make a great Dad. I can’t wait.
posted by leftcoastbob at 8:45 AM on January 24, 2006

My friend Edge saw us one day and said he though I was going to make a great Dad. I can’t wait.

Wait a minute... all this time we've been making fun of Adam Clayton?
posted by COBRA! at 8:55 AM on January 24, 2006

Someone should email Josh a link to this thread.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:56 AM on January 24, 2006

No one objects?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:09 AM on January 24, 2006

Do iiiit.
posted by slimepuppy at 9:13 AM on January 24, 2006

I object, don't do it.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 9:14 AM on January 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

I will never get how these tubby guys think it is just fine to let the wimmin know when they are a little too fat. He calls for understanding in that arena, but then basically lets forth that he doesn't want to hear from teh fatties.
posted by oflinkey at 9:24 AM on January 24, 2006

Someone should email Josh a link to this thread.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 8:56 AM PST on January 24 [!]
No one objects?
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:09 AM PST on January 24 [!]

Not alot of time to look for objections. If Josh looks at his referal log, he'll spot all the traffic from metafilter. And if he comes here, as another said in the thread, he will just see it as a 'test of his faith'.
posted by rough ashlar at 9:25 AM on January 24, 2006

I haven't emailed him yet. But I've collected a veritable bounty of websites that bear his indelible stamp.

I don't know what it is about google-researching individuals who have active online lifestyles that is so appealing to me. It's seedy and voyeuristic at best. But I love it.

I love uncovering their website that they created at the vocational college, displaying their robotics project. I love finding their MySpace profile, and reading about their friends and the company they keep.
I get a little charge out of every miniscule piece of information I gather on them. Every piece helps me reconstruct what they might really be like, in real life. The video games they play, where they work, their favorite recipes, every mundane detail.

I'm also the guy who starts conversations with strangers at the check-out line, though. It might have something to do with that.

I haven't emailed him yet, though I want to. If only so I can find out if he's anything like the person I imagine him to be.

And I can tell you right now, from what I know of him, from what I've seen, he's an excellent, productive young man who has done many impressive things so far with his life. Definitely not a sloucher.
posted by Baby_Balrog at 9:38 AM on January 24, 2006

Seriously, what the fuck is the point of this thread? Obviously, people like Josh exist. I've met a hell of a lot of them. I grew up with some, and some of them are my family members. I tend to agree with that line in 'Last Temptation of Christ' about pity being the worst of human emotions, so I just try to ignore their ideas about life. Mocking them doesn't help expand their minds. It's just low.
posted by Football Bat at 10:01 AM on January 24, 2006

Mocking them doesn't help expand their minds

Perhaps you don't know just how condescending a remark that is.

You don't agree with his views. I get it. That doesn't make YOUR view the enlightened one and his the unexpanded one. I was once one you would have called "enlightened" and I turned my back on that type of life. My views are quite a lot like Josh's now. And the very fact he is upfront about what he wants is to be admired. He wants a solid marriage based on two people who agree on how they see the world. That just makes sense. If you don't like his views, don't marry him, 'k?

(Yeah, I'm cranky today. Don't take it personally.)
posted by konolia at 10:28 AM on January 24, 2006

thanks for the term MUFFINTOPS metafilter

It actually started here.

Interesting bit of etymology from the guy who gave us alllooksame.com

/derail
posted by bashos_frog at 10:40 AM on January 24, 2006

Obviously, people like Josh exist. I've met a hell of a lot of them.

Well I've never met anyone like him at all and would never come upon someone like him in my daily life, so this was an interesting link to me. Not everyone lives where there are a lot of people like this, so that does give him a sort of freak-show quality, sorry. It's commendable that he's being so upfront (that website doubles as a handy warning sign!) and I hope he finds his perfect match.
posted by zarah at 11:11 AM on January 24, 2006

I know DOZENS of people just like Josh. They do sense that they are superior.

But you're better than that, right? ;-)

This alone made the thread worth reading. Though there are some truly insightful comments amongst the snark.
posted by orange swan at 11:53 AM on January 24, 2006

"Don't be an asshole. He's talking about not wanting to date women who have divorced their husbands because of abuse; he doesn't consider them Biblically divorced. This guy is obviously not the beatin' type; in fact, I'll bet you he winds up happily henpecked."
posted by languagehat at 11:47 PM AEST on January 24.

I find it difficult to believe that a guy who has set down around 10,000 words on exactly what his future wife must think, do, say and how she must dress, will be very understanding if she diverts from these rules more than, say, once.
posted by Effigy2000 at 12:17 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm sure he can Biblically divorce her if she is not sufficiently obedient to her husband-- the rules tend be be pretty convenient that way, at least for men.
posted by InfidelZombie at 12:26 PM on January 24, 2006

I don't think Josh is a cruel fellow, and I don't think his site is "rules" that he's going to use against his future wife. He's just explaining what he imagines his "dream" wife would be like. I think we all do that, and I don't think the fact that his ideals are perhaps different than ours makes him a bad person- or a future wife abuser.
posted by ThePinkSuperhero at 12:28 PM on January 24, 2006 [1 favorite]

1. The hat's got it right.

2. This FPP would have been outrageous if someone posted a personal ad from a dating website. Joining an online dating service is a private matter. But building a public, independent wifetrolling website makes you fair game to snarkattacks webwide. (That said, this thread isn't nice, and perhaps nice isn't such a bad idea now and then.)

3. This lead me to the MeTa thread, which, in turn, led me back to crazy ass Mary, which, in turn, made the whole damned enterprise worthwhile.
posted by kosem at 12:44 PM on January 24, 2006

I will never, ever understand people who want to marry themselves. Only, potentially, the opposite gender.

Common interests I can understand, but this is something else...
posted by slimepuppy at 12:59 PM on January 24, 2006

Alright, I'll defend poor Josh. So he's a fundamentalist, yeah, sorry, that's his right, no?

He's not going about finding a woman by dishonest means though. He's not tricking women. He's not raping them. He's actually being pretty honest. A woman who reads his profile pretty much knows well what she's getting herself into.

Sure, there's plenty to disagree with. But Josh didn't write this for you. Snickering to yourself is one thing, open ridicule is disgusting. The guy's just lonely for christ's sake, give him a break.
posted by Pollomacho at 1:16 PM on January 24, 2006

Also, he didn't create "a whole site" here -- it's one page, which is just his personal ad, copied and pasted from the Christian dating site (where you have to sign up and log in in order to see anybody's profiles). Seemingly, he just put it up so that a few more people might see it outside the login-only site.
posted by Gator at 1:31 PM on January 24, 2006

Mean is the new nice.
posted by Astro Zombie at 1:31 PM on January 24, 2006

cell divide: here's your solution. There. Go and sin no more!
posted by nlindstrom at 1:55 PM on January 24, 2006

eli_d: I agree. I flagged the post as being Fantastic. Oh, wait....
posted by nlindstrom at 1:59 PM on January 24, 2006

Two weeks at camp I knew this one 6 year old girl that got attached to me… she’d run to me each morning when she saw me and jump into my arms and I’d talk to her for a bit then set her back down to play. My friend Edge saw us one day and said he though I was going to make a great Dad pedophile. I can’t wait.

There, fixed the quote for ya.
posted by nlindstrom at 2:07 PM on January 24, 2006

There, fixed the quote for ya.

I'm really creeped out by the fact that in modern America, men are completely unable to express any fondness for children without suggestions of "pedophile" being tossed at them. I don't know why this is, or how long it's been going on, but it's wrong. And I don't think it's a joke, either. I think there's a significant portion of society that thinks there's something wrong with a man who likes kids.

Has anyone else noticed this?
posted by mr_roboto at 2:25 PM on January 24, 2006

I suppose Jenna Jameson wouldn't be a good fit for Josh?


heheh.....I was going to make a joke about Josh fitting in JJ but I decided not to....
posted by RockPaperScissors at 2:51 PM on January 24, 2006

Actual pederasts, who seem alarmingly common, have ruined our innocence.
posted by Astro Zombie at 2:52 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm really creeped out by the fact that in modern America, men are completely unable to express any fondness for children without suggestions of "pedophile" being tossed at them.

Fondness for children--hmmmm....

I love kids and I’m open to the possibility of God leading me to a single mom. I’ve known a few and they need just as much love and care as anyone else…
I’ve always said it’s like “buy one, get one free”.

"Buy one, get one free." I just can't get past that and I don't think there's anything quite normal about a man who looks at marriage to a woman with kids that way.

The more I ponder it, the more I'm really, really uncomfortable with it.
posted by leftcoastbob at 4:19 PM on January 24, 2006

Just so you know, I agree with quite a lot of what he says. On the subject of abuse, I only differ that you can divorce but not biblically remarry

Give your head a shake, konolia. THINK for a change! The Christian God is the one that is love and forgiveness.

Tell me, where is the love and forgiveness in your scenario?

I hope you know that I support your desire to fulfill a belief in the need for a religion. I hope you understand that I believe your understanding of your religion is deeply flawed. I hope you realize that when I address your faith to you directly (but publically), it is with the intention of making it possible for me to continue to support your desire for religion.

I hope you understand how important this gift of support is. I loathe religions for the stupifying breadth and depth of harm they have caused these past few millenia. I am certain that religion is going to be the unnecessary doom of mankind, and that it will be because some religious elected leader or tyrant will push The Button just to be right.

I always am far more polite than you might realize. What I want to write, you would not wish to read. Your throwaway statements on the punishment of others sometimes make me livid with anger.

I support you with this understanding: if you are free to discuss your religious beliefs publically, I must also be free to respond to them with complete freedom of speech.
posted by five fresh fish at 6:25 PM on January 24, 2006

Where's your God now Konolia?

I kid, I just heard that in my head reading FFF's post.
posted by Pollomacho at 6:46 PM on January 24, 2006

Why is it, that those who profess the deepest certainty in God and the nature of the universe feel so threatened by those who do not share the same faith?

I mean, if I stepped into a room of people, loudly proclaiming with fervor and deep faith that the sun wouldn't rise tomorrow, i would laugh them off.

I mean, if you are privy to the Truth, and there are those that contest it, there really should be neither a contest, nor even a challenge.

The religious response to neigh-sayers, atheists, and practitioners of contradictory faiths immediately instills in me a sense that their faith is in grave jeopardy. The "Attack" on Christmas would mean as much as the "Attack" on the sun rising, if christianity was the one True Faith. Teaching evolution would not be a threat if creationism was the Truth. The discussions based not on the Bible but on how one feels or one's opinions or logic would be hardly a threat, if the Bible was the Truth.

The fear so many religious feel, the threat they perceive to their worldview, and the vigor with which they believe themselves to be "spiritual" warriors in the world is indicative, at least in my mind, of doubt, and a belief that can be simply shattered by mere hearsay.

I am very wary of those who claim Truth, yet simultaneously argue that their Truth is in jeopardy by those who offer other rationals and other Truths. I am also very wary of those who claim Truth in general, so that may cloud my opinion.

[/rant]

It looks like this guy just really doesn't want to deal with people who don't have the same rulebook. I can imagine it would make life emotionally easier to navigate. I hate to see what happens when he discovers that people interpret text in very different ways, and his bride to be doesn't quite see eye to eye with him vis-a-vis matters of theology.

on preview: FFF, well said. And, note, the rhyming bit at the end was unintentional.
posted by Freen at 9:13 PM on January 24, 2006

If you don't like his views, don't marry him, 'k?

You know, as a guy, I can't marry him. Which for once makes me truly grateful for the religious right in this country. Keep up the good work, konolia.
posted by boaz at 9:20 PM on January 24, 2006

I'm sympathetic to social conservatism myself, but does this level of detail really belong in a personal ad? Wouldn't it be sufficient for Josh to say that he's a fundamentalist Christian, and that he'd like to meet a woman who is also committed to leading a Christian life and to resisting the comforts and temptations of modern American life?

A lot of the stuff he's got in there (being dragged to War of the Worlds by his friends, for example) seems like it belongs in a blog, not a personal ad--it's interesting (and hence FPP-worthy, IMHO, as a glimpse into a life very different from mine), but in a personal ad it makes him sound kinda self-involved.

One other note: if he's looking for someone who's really committed to leading a Christian life, and that's what is most important to him, he probably shouldn't spend a lot of time talking about less important requirements (dress, physical appearance). A quote that comes to mind:

Being an orphan, I learned to protect myself from an early age. I learned that the best way to avoid rejection is to reject others first.

From Ashes of Time.
posted by russilwvong at 9:33 PM on January 24, 2006

>>but does this level of detail really belong in a personal ad

Well, that's probably why its on metafilter. Pointing at a fundie isn't very amusing, but this laundry list that could easily be turned into something like a powerpoint presentation is a marvel of its own. I mean, its literally a personal ad with a table of contents.

Considering how exacting it is I'm half-wondering if its a hoax. I assume these types can find potential mates at their local megachurches and religious functions.
posted by skallas at 9:42 PM on January 24, 2006

I assume these types can find potential mates at their local megachurches and religious functions.

Well, he's a computer guy. He's not necessarily going to have much in common with a woman he runs into at his local megachurch, even if they're both fundamentalist Christians.

I did a quick Google search on his id and found ServerSideWiki. Mostly technical. I think his "About Me" page would probably serve him better as a personal ad.

Also: Star Wars Episode 3... What would Jesus do?
posted by russilwvong at 10:06 PM on January 24, 2006

Okay, let me cough up an explanation on the marriage thing.

Jesus Himself said that a man should not divorce a wife except for immorality. Paul went on to clarify that if an unbeliever left an believer, the believer was free-this in the context where it was made clear you didn't divorce an unbelieving spouse if he or she was willing to remain married to you.

The Bible also declares that a wife should not leave her husband but if she did she should remain unmarried or else return to him. Which is what I see as the "abuse clause."

As I stated before, I in no way say a woman should stay with a man who beats her-and neither does God. (Or for a man to stay with a female abuser...you get the idea.)But when we are talking about marriage in a biblical sense we are talking about covenant not contract and only certain things break covenant.

BTW I personally believe God is more interested in underlining the importance of permanence in marriage than He is in freaking out if someone blows it in this area. Of course there are grey lines. I think it is between God and the individual-but there is an ideal and the ideal is a permanent and loving covenant between a husband and wife that typify the relationship between Christ and his Church.

oh, and FFF, would it help if I told you I know people-Christians-who remarried after divorcing an abusive spouse and then subsequently wound up going thru another divorce? In at least one case hubby number two turned out to also be abusive. Just cause you can remarry doesn't mean you should.

My church is nothing but helpful to abused spouses-as I said I know of people who went thru that and none of them were counseled to stay. No one was beat up about remarrying as far as I can see, but my own personal convictions are on the stricter side.
posted by konolia at 10:21 PM on January 24, 2006

Indeed, mr_roboto; out of every stupid thing in that thread, that pissed me off the most.
posted by Alvy Ampersand at 10:21 PM on January 24, 2006

Where's your God now Konolia?

Everywhere, but thanks for asking. ;-)
posted by konolia at 10:22 PM on January 24, 2006

"Neigh-sayers"?
posted by Gator at 4:43 AM on January 25, 2006

As I stated before, I in no way say a woman should stay with a man who beats her-and neither does God.

No. Rather, you say that a woman who makes the mistake of marrying an abusive husband must never love another man again.

That is the cruel punishment of an unloving and unforgiving god.

Your personal god, Konolia, is not the Christian God.
posted by five fresh fish at 9:56 AM on January 25, 2006

Jesus Himself said that a man should not divorce a wife except for immorality.

The gospels are not transcripts. Written many years after the fact, they are socially constructed and influenced, and may or may not be reliable indicators of what JHC actually said. I heard he hung around with prostitutes, so he may not be as dogmatic about these things as you think.
posted by found missing at 10:34 AM on January 25, 2006

fff, if the man marries again, the gal is free to marry. If he has sex with someone else, she is free to remarry.

Don't make it what it ain't.
posted by konolia at 11:35 AM on January 25, 2006

Your personal god, Konolia, is not the Christian God.

Whoa there. I'm an atheist, but I found this to be pretty over-the-top presumptuous. Who are you to dictate this?

May I issue a plea that we not turn this thread from one ridiculing some poor random lonelyheart's search for love into one which ridicules the personal religious beliefs of our own members? Thanks.
posted by whir at 1:35 PM on January 25, 2006

socially constructed and influenced, and may or may not be reliable indicators of what JHC actually said.

That's a debate for Biblical scholars, but for folks like Josh, the debate is settled.

From Josh's point of view God (holy)ghostwrote the Bible. Every word is His word. If there is contradiction in lessons taught by Jesus and his followers, God wanted that paradox.

If Josh feels a woman is tainted because her divorce was for Unholy reasons, it's because God didn't find it necessary to give any good reasons for seperation.

What does God want from you? Read the Book, it's all there. This perhaps is why Josh is so fluent in his description of his ideal women, he has no need for concepts of Free Choice his every actions is governed by the Bible. He is used to having it spelled out for him in long prose and scipture. Even dedicating space to rail against Christians who commit 'little' sins and fail to measure every action against that of will of the Savior. Pretty uptight kid.
posted by MiltonRandKalman at 2:13 PM on January 25, 2006

Who are you to dictate this?

I'm the one who sides with love and forgiveness, that's who. That makes me about 100x more Christian, even as an atheist, than a whole lot of Christians-by-name.

Konolia: If you don't want it made what it isn't, please make sure you give a complete statement. Your initial comment gave absolutely no clue that your firm statement actually contains at least two loopholes.
posted by five fresh fish at 2:26 PM on January 25, 2006

Surely you can forgive konolia for his deeply held personal religious beliefs, then, even if you don't agree with them?
posted by whir at 2:43 PM on January 25, 2006

Well, I already said adultery/sexual immorality are dealbreakers earlier in the thread.

And God is love and forgiveness AND just and holy. Love and forgiveness does not mean God does not have standards for our lives. I love my kids and if they mess up I forgive them but that didn't mean they didn't have to follow my house rules when they lived at home.

God's principles are for our benefit. Does He pick us up and help us when we mess up? Sure. But most people-and most Christians for that matter-do not see marriage as the solemn covenant it really is.

And abusers should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law, and should not be allowed to terrorize their families. God hates abuse and family violence-as a matter of fact there are verses in Malachi that are pretty specific about it.
posted by konolia at 2:43 PM on January 25, 2006

Whir, thanks for the defense, but I'm a girl. ;-)
posted by konolia at 2:44 PM on January 25, 2006

Oops, sorry.
posted by whir at 2:49 PM on January 25, 2006

Surely you can forgive konolia for his deeply held personal religious beliefs, then, even if you don't agree with them?

I utterly fail to understand what you intend to mean by this.
posted by five fresh fish at 4:58 PM on January 25, 2006

fff, I suspect he means that for someone who believes he sides with love and forgiveness, your attitude towards konolia doesn't provide much evidence of either: your comments are quite critical, even intolerant.
posted by russilwvong at 5:45 PM on January 25, 2006

Konolia's original statement was "On the subject of abuse, I only differ that you can divorce but not biblically remarry-but if a guy is gonna abuse you he will probably screw around on you too, so not a biggie," with no further explanation that the "not a biggie" is an escape clause to remarry.

Ergo, my initial reading of it is that if a woman were to make the horrible mistake of marrying an abuser, she should be stuck with that creep for the rest of her life, unable to marry again.

I am not cool with that, and I will do everything I can to prevent such hurtful, inhumane ideas from becoming any sort of influence on our lawmaking. I am utterly intolerant of those who would force their religion on others.

Read Ain't Nobody's Business If You Do. It's online for free, and it's likely at your public library; it can also be purchased.

Doing so will give you great insight into where I'm coming from.
posted by five fresh fish at 7:57 PM on January 25, 2006

I will do everything I can to prevent such hurtful, inhumane ideas from becoming any sort of influence on our lawmaking. I am utterly intolerant of those who would force their religion on others.

Where did the influence on lawmaking and the forcing of religion on others come into it?! This is MetaFilter, not a state legislature. I didn't see konolia claiming that these rules should be forced onto anyone.
posted by russilwvong at 11:09 PM on January 25, 2006

Konolia has made no bones about her past and present political activism. Her religious faith informs her political stances, and her family is involved in political action.

Y'all should also understand that Konolia and I have previously communicated privately, and I believe all is cool between us two. As far as I know, I'm not on her shitlist and she certainly is not on mine. My public messages to her are, as far as I am aware, not causing her any hurt. Also, I like Konolia, and wish her to be the best Konolia she can be.
posted by five fresh fish at 10:19 AM on January 26, 2006

I believe all is cool between us two.

Okay, in that case I'll bow out of this thread. (Unless Josh shows up.)
posted by russilwvong at 3:58 PM on January 26, 2006

Yeah, me and fff are cool.

FWIW I personally would not change divorce laws. My beliefs on divorce and remarriage have to do with my faith and I do not expect those who are not Christians to follow that part. Even in the OT there was divorce-Jesus made the standards stricter but these standards are meant to protect wives. Men were notorious for divorcing their wives for nonsense and particularly in that culture a scorned wife could not fend for herself.
posted by konolia at 10:54 AM on January 28, 2006