Does the doctrine of original sin explain our propensity to sin?

As a young fellow I once heard a good Adventist pastor contend that we don’t become sinners from sinning but that we sin because we are sinners.  Now for many reasons I loved this particular ideology but as I think about it this doctrine raises some questions which really need to be answered.

First let us define a sinner.  The operational definition of a sinner from my study is as follows.  It is an individual who upon knowing what the good is chooses the evil any how.  This is why Adam and Eve can be counted as sinners now in spite of their former sinlessness.  They knew the score and yet they chose sin anyhow.  The dictionary definition of sin is also helpful.  It is simply a person who has sinned.

So to the questions.

1. Why did Adam and Eve sin?  Did they become sinners through sinning or were they already sinners?
2. If they were already sinners then does that mean it is impossible for God to create beings that are already sinless?
3. Why did the Devil and his host of minions sin?  Did they not start from a default condition of sinlessness?
4. Paul tells the Athenians on Mars Hill  [Act 17:30 KJV] And the times of this ignorance God winked at; but now commandeth all men every where to repent:  If I read this correctly God only holds us accountable for that which we do know while holding us innocent for that which we do not know.  For this reason we safely regarding children as being regarded innocent by God until they reach the of accountability.  So at what point have children become sinners?
5. If children are sinners at birth what sin did they commit?

Now consider the following.  By their fruits ye shall know them.  What spiritual fruits do we observe in the lives of those who hold to the doctrine of original sin?  Many years ago in discussion with a Melanesian gentleman from the Solomon Islands, he observed that Adventists were the only ones who showed a change in lifestyle once they chose to become Adventists.  He noted that all other Christians stayed in  the same lifestyle even after accepting their brand of Christianity.  One atheist gentleman once challenged him asking him what possible benefit Christianity could be.  “For starters you’re not on my dinner menu” was the response harking back to his cannibalistic heritage.  Oh yes he had a dry sense of humour.

In the original sin doctrine a person will keep sinning for the rest of their life.  This obviously must include the time after the period of probation has closed when there will be no intercessor.  It would appear to me that the doctrine of original sin is going to damn many to hell because of the fact that they will sin after probation closes.

Your comments are invited.

Parrying the silencers part 1

One of the things red pill men will encounter in arguing against feminists and their enablers is a whole toolkit of shaming tactics that are employed to try and stop the arguments.  These femtards do not want the truth of what they are saying to try to come out.  If anything the fact that they are using this kind of strategy to stop the argument should tell you something about them.  That is the fact that they regard the flinging of shame and name calling to be an effective tactic means that returning fire upon them will have a much more devastating effect.

The silencers are by nature herd creatures.  They need to feel part of the in group to be able to believe that their arguments are effective.  Your strategy is to find ways to separate them out from the herd.  For more information take a look at http://www.anonymousconservative.com/.

The reason I say part 1 is that the silencing/shaming tactics are many so it will be useful to develop a toolkit over time.  I often have thoughts on how to deal with these underhanded tactics and believe that lovers of truth should be given the tools to send these silencers packing.

So lets deal with the first silencing tactic.  This one is especially common in the Christian community.  Suppose you say something negative against a person or a group of people regarding their behaviour.  We’ll take the favourite whipping boy of Christians in general i.e. homosexuality as an example.

FM(Father Marker) “Don’t you know that homosexuals will never go into the kingdom?”

LC(Liberal Christian) “You shouldn’t be judgemental”.

FM “Are you saying that I’m being judgemental?”

LC “Yes I am”

FM “Are you serious about that?”

LC “Indeed I am”

FM “So please explain to me how you’re allowed to judge that I’m judgemental but I’m not allowed to be judgemental.”

At this point they may denial that they have indulged in any kind of judgementalism of their own in which case you can ask them how they managed to determine that you were being judgemental without using some kind of standard against which to judge that you were being judgemental.  Lets face it the accuser of judgementalism is being just as judgemental as the person they are accusing.

The reason that you continue to question the seriousness of their claim is that libtards have developed a new strategy once you corner them.  i.e. deny the seriousness of their claim by trying to claim that they were only joking.  It is a lot more difficult to back out of a claim of only joking when you have caused them to assert the seriousness of the viewpoint that they have utter.  However even if they are able to back out of their claim through the “only joking” path that presents them with a new difficulty.  If they ever try to do that your immediate response is to question them by asking them “So if you’re joking as you are now claiming then how can I take seriously anything else you say in dialogue?”

How women admit their inferiority to men.

In a recent article http://familyshare.com/marriage/5-ways-you-are-unknowingly-destroying-your-husband-and-killing-your-marriage five ways are listed in how women destroy their marriages in the Christian world.

Of course this leave the writer with a problem. They know that the women reading the article will cry “But what about the men!?” implying that men must surely have some faults and therefore the women will be absolved of some the responsibility for the things that they are doing to destroy their marriages. This is so common that most articles written to women or even public presentations to women when men are not present always have to put up a disclaimer similar to disclaimer at the end of the above page.

UPDATE: Men, this advice applies to you as well.

Now you will notice that when men are publicly ripped for their bad behaviour eg. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZkaeAkJO0w8 there is never any cry from them “But what about the women!?”

Women know that they are not equal to men and it is this awareness at a subconscious level that seems to be behind the reason why, when being held to account for bad behaviour, they always cry “But what about the men!?”

Victimhood the postmillenial Pharisee.

Jesus relates a parable of the Pharisee and the tax collector which goes thus,

[Luk 18:9-14 KJV]

9 And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

10 Two men went up into the temple to pray; the one a Pharisee, and the other a publican.

11 The Pharisee stood and prayed thus with himself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], extortioners, unjust, adulterers, or even as this publican.

12 I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of all that I possess.

13 And the publican, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

The pharisees of the day were seen as high status due to their commitment to public religiosity. Jesus commented on their loud and public displays of prayer and due largely to his words Christians today think of them as the lowest of the low.

As I look around church and society today it has occurred to me that we now have what I refer to as the Post-millenial Pharisee. Commonly known as the “Victim”.

The victim sees themselves as possessing a superior form of righteousness due to the uniqueness of their experience. They loudly proclaim this in the form of “You cannot understand my unique situation because you haven’t had the same experience as me” which is used as an argument stopper as well as a form of bragging rather than an attempt to demonstrate the truth.

So with all of this background I present to you

The post-millenial Pharisee’s prayer.

And he spake this parable unto certain which trusted in themselves that they were righteous, and despised others:

Two people went up into the temple to pray; the one a Victim, and the other a white male.

11 The Victim stood and prayed thus with herself, God, I thank thee, that I am not as other men [are], managers, Supervisors, Directors, or even as this privileged white male.

12 I receive rape threats twice in the week, I live under oppression in the kitchen.

13 And the privileged white male, standing afar off, would not lift up so much as [his] eyes unto heaven, but smote upon his breast, saying, God be merciful to me a sinner.

14 I tell you, this man went down to his house justified [rather] than the other: for every one that exalteth himself shall be abased; and he that humbleth himself shall be exalted.

Burned out Red Pillers and grass fires.

In recent times there has been a bemoaning by some of our manosphere commentariat of the lack of any new and enlightening material coming out for the benefit of men who have taken the red pill. I believe that this is natural but also not the problem that they think it be for a couple of reasons.

First is that eventually the subject does get beaten to death by a few notables. Now in my case it has to be beaten to death because I’ve been steeped in blue pill thinking all my life that I need to be forced fed a few red pills a bit like an anaemic needs to keep taking iron tablets.

For those who don’t need this ongoing treatment as I do there is something else to consider and I think of the analogy of a field of short dry brown grass after a long spell of dry. We could think of this long spell of dry as being the continuing campaigning against the patriarchy by feminists and their efforts to gain supremacy in society. Consider one of these pieces of grass through a series of events to catch fire. The rest of the grass around this first burning piece are in a fit condition to immediately catch fire.

As the fire progresses a curious thing happens. The centre where the fire began is not all blackened and not capable of burning any more. However the edges keep enthusiastically burning away. I think of notables such as Stardusk, Aurini, Fidelbogen et al as being the starters of this blaze. They are now burning out but one will notice that a whole raft of new MGTOWers and other manospherians are starting up their own blogs and comment channels. These folks are part of the area of the field where there is fuel to burn. These folks all create their own audiences some of whom are new members to the red pill but who begin to take up the torch enthusiastically to spread the word.

They may also burn out but in the mean time new members come in with their own enthusiasm to spread the word. I believe that one way that the blackened areas can be useful is that they can act a mentors to those who look up to and respect them. e.g. go and leave some comments on their channels. Just recently a channel has been started by a young 14 year old whipper snapper going by the name George Freeman. I believe that he must be experiencing an intense joy at the attention being given him by some of the other notables especially when they ask him questions such as what life is like in school with the girls.  Us older/more experienced gents can encourage him when he hits roughs spots, which will happen, which hopefully can give him strength to persevere.

I’d suggest that the burned out ones may benefit by sparing a bit of time to comment on the channels of these new ones. This will increase their own audience and encourage other kids to give the whole thing a go. Let’s keep that fire edge burning and blacken the whole field.

Does the “Fireproof” video in the Adventist Book Centre promote immorality?

So I was perusing the Adventist Book Centre Website the other day and found that they had the DVD “Fireproof” available to purchase. There was a whole blurb on it and how it teaches such wonderful morals etc. etc.

Anyone who has bothered to read what Dalrock has to say on the subject will see that it is a very man unfriendly video. It panders to the Eat, Pray, Love crowd (Cheat, Betray, Leave?). It is essentially divorce porn for Christian women. But there is another aspect to it that I hadn’t seen until recently when there was some commentary on how many women are treating men these days.

This treatment can be summarised thus – Alpha fux, Beta bux. Alternatively – alpha lays, beta pays. Essentially what is now being seen by many in the man-o-sphere is that women have divided men into two classes. There are men that they want to fuck(alphas) and men that they want for protection and provision for them(betas).  The second category of men are also known as walking ATM’s.  Generally these two categories are mutually exclusive.

In other words the men they want to fuck don’t have to worry about providing and the walking ATM’s won’t have to worry about getting some nooky from them.

Coming back to “Fireproof” one sees two men in the life of the woman in the movie. One is the walking ATM who is of no use to her if he will not come up with the goods for whatever it is she wants no matter how unreasonable it is. The other is a man who can give her satisfaction and the money don’t really matter.

What we see here in Fireproof is a classic promotion of polyandry but of course done in such a manner that it can be plausibly denied.  The Christian version of polyandry is commonly referred to as Serial Monogamy.

CS Lewis – an imbiber of the Red Pill.

CS Lewis is often quoted from Adventist pulpits and has written many things that continue to be helpful to the Christian world at large.

He wrote a number of books including “The Great Divorce” which included this delightful chapter on a woman who fits what I regard the epitome of narcissism.

Read, my red pill Adventist brothers and enjoy.

THIS CONVERSATION also we overheard.

“That is quite, quite out of the question,” said a female Ghost to one of the bright Women, “I should not dream of staying if I’m expected to meet Robert. I am ready to forgive him, of course. But anything more is quite impossible. How he comes to be here . . . but that is your affair.”

“But if you have forgiven him,” said the other, “surely—–.”

“I forgive him as a Christian,” said the Ghost. “But there are some things one can never forget.”

“But I don’t understand …” began the She-Spirit.

“Exactly,” said the Ghost with a little laugh. “You never did. You always thought Robert could do no wrong. I know. Please don’t interrupt for one moment. You haven’t the faintest conception of what I went through with your dear Robert. The ingratitude! It was I who made a man of him! Sacrificed my whole life to him! And what was my reward? Absolute, utter selfishness. No, butlisten. He was pottering along on about six hundred a year when I married him. And mark my words, Hilda, he’d have been in that position to the day of his death if it hadn’t been for me. It was I who had to drive him every step of the way. He hadn’t a spark of ambition. It was like trying to lift a sack of coal. I had to positively nag him to take on that extra work in the other department, though it was really the beginning of everything for him. The laziness of men! He said, if you please, he couldn’t work more than thirteen hours a day! As if I weren’t working far longer. For my day’s work wasn’t over when his was. I had to keep him going all evening, if you understand what I mean. If he’d had his way he’d have just sat in an armchair and sulked when dinner was over. It was I who had to draw him out of himself and brighten him up and make conversation. With no help from him, of course. Sometimes he didn’t even listen. As I said to him, I should have thought good manners, if nothing else … he seemed to have forgotten that I was a lady even if I had married him, and all the time I was working my fingers to the bone for him: and without the slightest appreciation. I used to spend simply hours arranging flowers to make that poky little house nice, and instead of thanking me, what do you think he said? Said he wished I wouldn’t fill up the writing desk with them when he wanted to use it: and there was a perfectly frightful fuss one evening because I’d spilled one of the vases over some papers of his.

It was all nonsense really, because they weren’t anything to do with his work. He had some silly idea of writing a book in those days … as if he could. I cured him of that in the end. “No, Hilda, you must listen to me. The trouble I went to, entertaining! Robert’s idea was that he’d just slink off by himself every now and then to see what he called his old friends . . . and leave me to amuse myself! But I knew from the first that those friends were doing him no good. ‘No, Robert,’ said I, ‘your friends are now mine. It is my duty to have them here, however tired I am and however little we can afford it.’ You’d have thought that would have been enough. But they did come for a bit. That is where I had to use a certain amount of tact. A woman who has her wits about her can always drop in a word here and there. I wanted Robert to see them against a different background.

They weren’t quite at their ease, somehow, in my drawing-room: nor at their best. I couldn’t help laughing sometimes. Of course Robert was uncomfortable while the treatment was going on, but it was all for his own good in the end. None of that set were friends of his any longer by the end of the first year.

“And then, he got the new job. A great step up. But what do you think? Instead of realising that we now had a chance to spread out a bit, all he said was ‘Well now, for God’s sake let’s have some peace.’ That nearly finished me. I nearly gave him up altogether: but I knew my duty. I have always done my duty. You can’t believe the work I had getting him to agree to a bigger house, and then finding a house. I wouldn’t have grudged it one scrap if only he’d taken it in the right spirit-if only he’d seen the fun of it all. If he’d been a different sort of man it would have been fun meeting him on the doorstep as he came back from the office and saying, ‘Come along, Bobs, no time for dinner to-night. I’ve just heard of a house out near Watford and I’ve got the keys and we can get there and back by one o’clock.’ But with him! It was perfect misery, Hilda. For by this time your wonderful Robert was turning into the sort of man who cares about nothing but food.

“Well, I got him into the new house at last. Yes, I know. It was a little more than we could really afford at the moment, but all sorts of things were opening out before him. And, of course, I began to entertain properly. No more of his sort of friends, thank you. I was doing it all for his sake. Every useful friend he ever made was due to me. Naturally, I had to dress well. They ought to have been the happiest years of both our lives. If they weren’t, he had no one but himself to thank. Oh, he was a maddening man, simply maddening! He just set himself to get old and silent and grumpy. Just sank into himself. He could have looked years younger if he’d taken the trouble. He needn’t have walked with a stoop-I’m sure I warned him about that often enough. He was the most miserable host. Whenever we gave a party everything rested on my shoulders: Robert was simply a wet blanket. As I said to him (and if I said it once, I said it a hundred times) he hadn’t always been like that. There had been a time when he took an interest in all sorts of things and had been quite ready to make friends. ‘What on earth is coming over you?’ I used to say. But now he just didn’t answer at all. He would sit staring at me with his great big eyes. (I came to hate a man with dark eyes) and-I know it now-just hating me. That was my reward. After all I’d done. Sheer wicked, senseless hatred: at the very moment when he was a richer man than he’d ever dreamed of being! As I used to say to him, ‘Robert, you’re simply letting yourself go to seed.’ The younger men who came to the house-it wasn’t my fault if they liked me better than rny old bear of a husband-used to laugh at him.

“I did my duty to the very end. I forced him to take exercise-that was really my chief reason for keeping a great Dane. I kept on giving parties. I took him for the most wonderful holidays. I saw that he didn’t drink too much. Even, when things became desperate, I encouraged him to take up his writing again. It couldn’t do any harm by then. How could I help it if he did have a nervous breakdown in the end? My conscience is clear. I’ve done my duty by him, if ever a woman has. So you see why it would be impossible to …

“And yet … I don’t know. I believe I have changed my mind. I’ll make them a fair offer, Hilda. I will not meet him, if it means just meeting him and no more. But if I’m given a free hand I’ll take charge of him again. I will take up my burden once more. But I must have a free hand. With all the time one would have here, I believe I could make something of him. Somewhere quite to ourselves. Wouldn’t that be a good plan? He’s not fit to be on his own. Put me in charge of him. He wants firm handling. I know him better than you do. What’s that? No, give him to me, do you hear? Don’t consult him: just give him to me. I’m his wife, aren’t I? I was only beginning. There’s lots, lots, lots of things I still want to do with him. No, listen, Hilda. Please, please! I’m so miserable. I must have someone to-to do things to. It’s simply frightful down there. No one minds about me at all. I can’t alter them. It’s dreadful to see them all sitting about and not be able to do anything with them. Give him back to me. Why should he have everything his own way? It’s no good for him. It isn’t right, it’s not fair. I want Robert. What right have you to keep him from me? I hate you. How can I pay him out if you won’t let me have him?”

The Ghost which had towered up like a dying candleflame snapped suddenly. A sour, dry smell lingered in the air for a moment and then there was no Ghost to be seen.

What does feminism have to offer the SDA church?

From http://www.returnofkings.com/39218/the-deadly-consequences-of-feminist-propaganda-in-the-us-navy is the following observation about feminism.

What has feminism given us, exactly? Feminism has proven to do nothing more than perpetually drive home the point that not good enough, is in fact, the new good enough. To say anything to the contrary of the politically correct feminist narrative will quickly have you labeled as a scumbag women hating misogynist—there’s no room for honesty in feminism.

That is what feminism gives us. It gives us silence in the face of inadequacy, even if that inadequacy can result in the loss of life. It ties the hands and gags the mouths of the reasonably minded and the responsible. It gives us cover-ups and subterfuge in lieu of the fervent thoroughgoing truth. It erodes the morale of the profoundly talented, while giving the deficient a place and a voice that they do not deserve, and did not earn. Feminism is a systematically imposed mechanism that saddles men with the responsibility of compensating for the frailty and biologically imposed limitations bestowed upon women—just so they can arrogantly, yet fallaciously say, “See assholes? We can too!” It gives us special interests, but not our best interests.

The world works in one of two ways. The first is to shovel the necessary shit, pay your dues, and work tirelessly to achieve your goals to the highest level. You will have fought tooth and nail to earn your stripes and you will never be given any reason to doubt why you have a place at the table; you’re there because you deserve it. Most importantly, the strife you endured and the hardships you overcame will give you immeasurable pride. You will have persevered and built a strength of character that extends down to the core of your soul, and no one can ever take that away from you—it’s yours. As a result of all of your hard work and dedication, you will be respected.

The alternative is that you can have special treatment, privileges, and coddling. You can use excuses and cries of victimhood to justify your own shortcomings. You can bully your way into a place at the table via legislation and lawsuits. Indeed, you will have your place. You will find yourself amongst the best and the brightest. Insincere smiles, phony congratulations, and unearned accolades will all be there for your taking. The politically correct line will be towed for you and for the benefit of people like you. However, rest assured, everyone knows how and why you got there.

Which begs the question. Will you be on the receiving end of the respect and sincere admiration of your peers? Will you be viewed with reverence and held in high esteem? Will you be… equal?

Never.

If this is what feminism is offering society in general then what makes any card carrying Seventh Day Adventist think that it will do any better in the church?

What to do if you’re a virgin in your twenties.

A blog post on Return Of Kings by the same title had someone offer the following comment and it is well worth considering for the Post Millenial young man.

Hmmm – why would it matter? What is this programmed “need to get laid”? I don’t want to see any bullshit that you need sex or you die. Look at all those fat ugly stupid broke dick fellows out there who are so far from getting laid they even masturbate in their wet dreams.

 

Have any of them rolled over and died because they could not, or would not, get laid?

 

This notion that we NEED sex is part of the fuel of the feminist movement, because this instilled “need to get laid” is the only agency they have over us. We all know the drill: when a woman with high SMV makes demands, they are met. That’s how the pretty ones can be the most horrible people you meet because they had a lifetime of getting a pass because of their looks (and hence, they get even worse in a kind of death spiral).

What happens when a woman of low SMV makes demands? She gets told to fuck off.

 

Now, imagine if the hordes of privileged upper middle class white women, never having been oppressed, started their moves and were collectively told to fuck off?

 

But what happens instead? Well, their first line is “What’s the matter, bitter because you can’t get a date/laid?”. I’ve heard this, you all heard this.

 

And lo and behold the media uses movies and little news stories making implications that if you don’t grovel to the demand of they who have vagina, it means you don’t want vagina, and therefore that means you are gay/trans.

 

I recall back in the 80s the beginning of two movements: the “It’s OK for men to cry” movement (be a bitch basically because there are times when you WILL cry and don’t have to be fucking told it’s OK cry for fuck’s sake) and the other movement was the most insidious “You might be gay and don’t know it”. Ah yes nothing put vagina (and the need to have it) on the pedestal more than that, and also destroyed all comradery and fellowship because it was said that a “sign of being gay” was if you actually cared about your guy friends (as if these were not the fellows you grew up with, who were like brothers – no no we can’t have that). Yeah it was fun when everybody, being brainwashed to think they got a Richard Simmons ready to bust out of them spontaneously, became backstabbers and made it a penchant to fuck your best friend’s girlfriend because if you did not chase, beg after, and slobber for every miserable piece of vagina that came along, “it meant you were really gay”.

 

Once I ignored a whore with known bastard kids who left notes on my truck at work and lo and behold, what rumor did she spread? That’s right. But I didn’t give a fuck because most of the women there I would not touch with a borrowed 10′ pole and it was to my benefit to be left alone (to you know, work – the thing I was paid to do).

 

A LIFETIME of this crap can and will have young fellows acting on the line of thought that if they did stand up for themselves they wake up the next day and shout “faaaabulous” and start sucking cock.

 

To the point of going to a dirty whore prostitute whose only advantage is that she is at least more honest in her sexual commerce with men?

 

I’m over 40 and wish I was still a virgin. I just think of the pure hell and torment I could have avoided if I just wanked or something. It’s one heady mindfuck when you are told you will go gay in 2 seconds when you don’t chase the pussy, and the pussy is possessed by the most horrible human beings that post-modernity could have ever feared churning out.

 

And most of feminism is based on this “weakness”, this instilled and fostered weakness comprised of a multi-pronged social and media attack. The think-tanks played this one well. And we got played.

 

A challenge to the Adventist church.

The gentleman who wrote this threw out a challenge.  He doesn’t know it but I believe that this challenge applies especially to our church.  Consider the following :-

—

We swim in a sea of feminism. Gynocentrism applies in many areas of life. And that leads to a testable hypothesis, although I dunno how to do it:

Hypothesis: the more strictly a denomination hews to Bible precepts of marriage and church leadership, the fewer divorces will be seen.

Null: Divorce numbers from different denominations would show no difference, for example the number of divorced Episcopalians per 100,000 would be no different than the number of divorced Church of Christ per 100,000. Repeat for multiple denominations.

How do partition the set of churches into “Bible following” and “not so much”? Start with women as pastors/teachers/leaders/elders/bishops/deacons/etc. Any church that allows women to lead and/or teach men is liberal, under this partition. Any church that bars women from preaching, from leadership positions, etc. is not liberal.

Problems: many. First of all, it’s a moving target. As the mainline Protestant churches crash in numbers, congregations either move to other denominations or form new ones. Some are tinkering with changes – such as allowing individual churches to have some women as officers, on their on decision – as I write this. So a denomination that was not liberal 40 years ago is now sliding rapidly. Others are shifting differently, there are Episcopal churches that have removed themselves from the US leadership and placed themselves under the authority of bishops in Africa, in order to shield themselves from the whole homosexual marriate / priest / bishop issue. Thus a congregation might have been part of a liberal church 5 years ago, and now is not.

Second of all, some of the most conservative denominations are small, on the order of 50,000 people in toto. That denominator will make them more sensitive to even a handful of divorces, and thus could skew results.

And this is just for the Protestant churches. The RCC and the Orthodox have the same problems, but they tend to be more difficult to see due to organizational structure. Latin Mass churches might have fewer divorces than the 100-guitar-african-drum-Buddhist-gong mass churches, for example.

Then there is the “boiling off” problem. Consider Jenny Erickson, who was kicked out of an obviously conservative Protestant church for good reason. How many women left that church afterwards, in a huff over “misogyny”, I wonder? And where did they go, to a storefront, a mega, or something else? There’s obviously going to be self-selection that would tend to push divorce-prone out of conservative churches, and towards more liberal ones.

However, with all the caveats above, this would be a worthwhile study to do, except that I fear no denomination – not one – actually keeps the stats. There’s not much to be gained in doing so, and a fair amount to lose.

If one denomination would lead the way, as you, Dalrock, have championed: “We, the Strict Bible Church, have the lowest divorce rate of ANY denomination”, perhaps the challenge would lure other conservative churches to follow. And the silence of the mainlines would speak for itself.