Should all Christian men follow the Pence rule?

why would you want to be around women

What if women want to be around you?

Impossible.

I could understand this as a public figure and to squash gossip. Most people couldn't identify with this though. I'm not married, don't intend to marry, and am celibate. Do I not talk to women at all? No, that's silly. And I'm called to shine whatever little light I have from God into the world. Not be some hateful incel. I'm a volcel. Heh

It's even more weird to bring up Christ and the Samaritan woman in this topic. He's Almighty God in the flesh. And he dismissed temptations from Satan himself, as if they were nothing.

Yes all men should, especially if you're in ministry. It's part of being above reproach.
At my state Baptist convention, 2 employees of opposite sex can't even ride in the same car alone to lunch by rule.

In the same logic, we don't allow Sunday school leaders to be alone with a child ever.

No.

This is a "Hitler did x" tier argument
Stop

If we did women would have more children.

Attached: download.png (726x475 20.63 KB, 124.82K)

That you even have "Sunday School" makes you fail just for that alone. That crap didn't even exist (or youth groups or women's groups.. or any group) until you knuckleheads popped up and started applying your Jew market demographic approach to the Church. It's probably why there are hangups about women here too. It screws up the market formula.

If you get tempted, it's your own fault.

Do you have AC and heat in your church?

The whole point of the pence rule is to prevent a false accusation you goober
Evangelicals aren't the ones with a pedo epidemic right now too

Yes

If your seriously implying there are only pedos in the Catholic church and not in any other Church then you have another thing comming.

Christ didn't live in a time when sexual assault allegations alone could absolutely ruin someone's life. They were alone, and if she ran off claiming he assaulted her, A) he would probably say something that would make them all question everything they ever knew (his rebuttals are GOAT), and B) people probably wouldn't believe her anyway

Hahahaha u mad?

All races murder too, but we're not all ñiggers

Why would you want to do like a christian zionist ?

That particular topic has nothing to do with zionism. Christian zionists also breath air, you know.

Jews too, and a lot of air.

Unless you're some goofball embecile with no self control who gets a full-on erection at the sight of a mere nipple, then by all means, listen to the man and do as the man says.

I am incredibly flirty without thinking about it. If I am alone with a woman who is not significantly older than me, a nun, or is my sibling, our relationship will sexually escalate. I don't keep female friends, don't hang out with them one-on-one. All the men in my family were raised like that. If I'm social with a woman my intentions are obvious, but that also leaves room for misinterpretation when it /just so happens/ that women find themselves alone with me.

When I am married, I would honestly have no problem with never having a conversation with other women ever again. I definitely wouldn't want to be caught with one and make a scandal out of a car ride or meeting or whatever. I know not all men think like this but I honestly thought the OP was just common sense

what a degenerate. your kind very often slides into affiar, divorce, etc. your kind NEED pence rule. remember what Job did : not look at women (essentially). you are playing with fire and it will not end will. period.

Its all fun and games until a rabid femenazi accuses you of rape 40 years later and #MeToo's you

Attached: christine-blasey-ford-party-girl.jpg (700x700 183.92 KB, 107.26K)

It's not about avoiding sexual sin, though that's certainly a good reason. It's about not getting Pooh'd in the MeToo era.

No.
Muslim culture has more kids, because they value natality, not because of being brutally repressive.
We had similar natality in the past, without being autistic.

You know they had similar rules during early medieval catholicism, right?

Is this bait or are you actually fuming? As a man I have a sexual presence and I'm conscious of it. That's what the "Pence rule" or whatever you want to call it is. Better to have a masculinity to reign in than a sterile harmlessness, imo.

No, but all muslim men should.

quality > quantity

Yes, absolutely. Not only that, but if a woman you are responsible for (wife, unmarried daughter, or unmarried sister) wants to be together alone with another man, you should put a stop to that shit right away and get her a chaperone.

The Muslims are absolutely right about the correct way to treat women. Feminism was a shit test. We failed and they passed; that's why they are outbreeding us.

Attached: download.jpg (225x225, 7.75K)

...

...

Why are you so salty about that? Morality is a personal responsibility. As they said, their body their choice, their hell their choice. Your only responsibility is to talk some sense into them, guide them to the right path. If they reject you, clean the dust off your feet and walk away. There's no such thing as forced love, these two words contradict each other.

Beating them up, covering them from head to toe, and not letting them choose a partner?

They're breeding brainwashed and hiveminded drones that are allergic to critical thinking. I'm absolutely thankful we're not heading down the same path.

If your five year old son wants to get a tattoo do you say "his body his choice?" If he does not want to go to church do you say that his hell is his choice and walk away?

Women are like children; they are mentally, emotionally, and spiritually unfit to make their own choices. This is made clear in the Bible as early as Genesis, when Eve eats the fruit of the forbidden tree. Which is why wives are called upon to submit to their husbands in Ephesians 5:22-24:

And, obviously, unmarried women should submit to their fathers, per the 10 commandments.

Attached: headcovering21.jpg (500x333, 42.63K)

I'll at least wait until he's old enough to drink. That's the age where most people start to become wise enough to understand themselves better.

And you think men are? Because I've seen many men that aren't. Isn't it be better to judge a person individually?

But Ephesians 5:21 says that both wives and husbands should be subordinate to one another.

God made women from men and gave us responsibility for them. Adam's first sin was his failure to protect Eve from the snake. Besides, we have dont it the modernist way for far too long and look at all the fruit feminism has bore! Innocent men accused of rape 40 years later, infanticide being celebrated and encouraged, divorce rates through the roof. So no, that user is right. Us men need to learn from Adam's mistake and must take better care of our women.

God made women from men and gave us responsibility for them. Adam's first sin was his failure to protect Eve from the snake. Besides, we have done it the modernist way for far too long and look at all the fruit feminism has bore! Innocent men accused of rape 40 years later, infanticide being celebrated and encouraged, divorce rates through the roof, women pastors teaching tolerance of evil, etc . That user is right. Us men need to learn from Adam's mistake and must take better care of our women.
God fearing communites aren't made of individuals, they are made of families.
Yes, but the wife still has to listen to her husband per God's rules. It's literally how successful familes are made. Husbands have God as the center of their lives and wives have their family as the center of their lives. Each has a duty and a role to fullfill. Thats how it works.

Radical individualism is what satan and his minons push so they can destroy the family unit and have communites based on individuals instead of families.
Ironic because women in the west are brainwashed and indoctrinated into the cult of feminism and now replacement rates are falling behind, men are becoming faggots, women celebrate abortion, and march out in streets like brainwashed drones for causes based on lies. Just because Muslims value family more than western civilization doesn't make them brainwashed, it makes them smart.

Adam's first sin was listening to Eve.

Stop blaming Adam for Eve's mistake.

Quit being a liberal and trying to make excuses for not taking responsibility. Christianity isn't r9k.

You should pay attention to the creation story. Eve was made from the rib bone of Adam. Not from his skull bone so she wouldn't reign over him, and not from his heel bone so he wouldn't reign over her. It's true that Eve sinned first, but Adam was equally sinful. Then God cursed Eve with the responsibility to bear children painfully and becoming the oppression victim of men. (Genesis 3:16) So, by putting women below men, you're rejecting the purity of man and woman that was abolished by the sins of Adam and Eve. Adam and Eve should've protected each other, it wasn't just Adam's sin.
Maybe you should also look at the fruit patriarchy has bore. Wars, conflicts, harsh violence, dictatorship, capital, and so on.
Do monks and nuns even have families? God fearing communities are made of individuals who call each other brothers and sisters and love one another despite all their differences.
A little throwback to the creation story. There's a parallel between the role of Eve and Mary. Eve was the first to sin, but Virgin Mary compensated Eve's sin by being the bearer of the gospel. Joseph her husband assisted her in fulfilling God's will that was spoken to her, and thus he didn't reign over he nor he was the bearer of the gospel. This proves that wives may in fact lead her husband, therefore both wives and husbands should be subordinate to one another under God.
Paul said it's better for a man not to touch a woman. Was he a minion of satan? Christ has come to the world not to bring peace but a sword that destroys families. Is He a minion of satan?
Secular ideologies are not infallible, unlike the religious dogmas of Islam.
Islamic radicalism is the antithesis of smart.

Pray that you stop being this retarded.
Or pray that you begin to communicate with folks here in good faith if you're here to b8.

Not him, but…
GIven how much you've shitted up any thread even tangentially related to women, that's ironic.

Feminists are the ones perpetuating the idea that what "she says" always overrides what "he says" behind close doors.

Their very goal is to make this a vulnerable situation out of nothing and is the benefit to their mission statement to do whatever in their power to get you to agree by THEIR sexist terms with such flimsy arguments (as explained).

People who try to convince under this title are either useful idiots thinking their doing a just cause when actually perpetuating sexism or the very people who want to promote this sexist lopsided line of thought and are even willing to twist and undermine Christianity to achieve this.

Attached: download.jpg (1500x856, 337.77K)

Adam was responsable for accepting retard.
He could have said no.

Wtf is Zig Forums being raided this week?

Seems like the hotpocket squad is advertising on reddit while banning all the regulars again.

As far as I'm aware this is wholly incorrect? I've never ever heard of or seen the temptation in the desert being dismissed as if they were nothing..isn't the whole point that he was tempted (I would speculate likely beyond anything we experience) as a man just like we have been as men which, in addition to the incarnation itself, and the suffering and humiliation endured at the passion and on the cross, forms part of his immanence - i.e. being in the world as a man in all the ways that matter and which means we can relate to him, and know that he went through that all to show us his willingness to share in our suffering, and willingness to show he wants us to relate to him. Correct me if I'm wrong.

Point of clarification though, writing this the thought came to mind that there could be two uses of the word 'temptation' and we could each be using the same word to discuss a different thing i.e. two uses being

1) 'the temptations' (temptation1) are the things which are borne of satan and come out from him and travel over to Christ (or us) to try and effect us. This 'generation and movement' from temptor across to target is 'the temptation.' If you use this meaning, following actually 'being tempted' (in the second sense, temptation2, i.e TIF, see below), you're right it could have been the case that Jesus literally dismissed them as if they were nothing. He is God afterall and the perfect man so he would not mentally ascend to temptation with the intention to sin.

or

2) the 'temptation' is the thoughts, inclination, fantasy ('TIF'), eveything falling short of committed mental ascent /intention to action. TIF comes after the reciept of the 'temptation1' following it's generation and sending by satan.

It's the second meaning that I had always understood as what had been meant regarding the time Jesus was tempted in the desert and that no, as a man, he was not able to dismiss it as if it were nothing initially and yes, was subject to TIF (i.e was tempted(2)) but, as the perfect man, was able to struggle to overcome the temptation and eventually triumph and dismiss. As above, to me this cements and emphasises his humanity and his full participation in it and creation (immanence), including in a key area of moral choice, just like we have, created in the image of God. But as the God-man he ofc was able to be victorious over such temptation.

Rambling but interested to know your thoughts, am I spouting total heresy?

lol wew easy lad you need to watch that shitty attitude my dude

Christ warned us that even looking at a woman with lust in the heart is adultery, I believe it's absolutely acceptable for men who struggle with lust.
If you're worried about "witnessing to women", I think you'd be excused for not witnessing to a scantily clad woman who would just inspire sin in your heart.

Jesuits invented Sunday school. That should speak for itself

I'm married and I go out of my way not to have close female friends and to associate as little as possible with women of the opposite sex.

I wouldn't want my wife to have a close guyfriend, why would have a female friend then? It signals the wrong thing to the community and is unnecessary temptation. If I need to work with a woman, fine…. but outside of work I am not hanging out or chatting with females anymore.

Bump for this my tiggas

Attached: 44960de98eaaa04eb6e0ddaf7ce0989b4b5a1f841629b151cb8a2bb383897a1c.jpg (400x433, 22.87K)

Friggin' bumpin this ish back to where it needs to be to be answered

user GOES BUMP BUMP BUMP IN THE NIGHT COS THIS IS AN IMPORTANT QUESTION THAT REQUIRES

My great-grandfather wrote his sons a letter with that teaching; worked well for him and them all…

So you're into trannies, huh?

You misunderstand it. Being alone with a woman you could potentially marry is a date. Ifyoure married youcant date… so the rule makes sense

What's particularly amusing about the Pence rule is how worldly normies have absolutely no clue what he is trying to achieve with it, or why he would want to do it. All they see it as is a way of keeping women out of his inner circle because "muh sexisms".
I actually admired the guy when I heard about that. It might be a tad extreme for a politician, but I thought he was applying his faith into decisive personal policies and it shows me just how truly and thoroughly based the man is.
Can we please get Trump impeached already? This guy would show the world what's what.
inb4 Zig Forumssters sperg out because I dared insult their prophet (pbuh)

Let's not sperg out over something that doesn't deserve the ire it's getting, nor focus on details when there is a broad-brush principle that needs application here. Seems to me and are just troll-tier baiting, ignorant of Christian living principles. No one is suggesting women be lead around by their fathers/brothers wearing dog-collars. Well, okay, this guy might be, but Pence aint. Only fedoras make extraneous comparisons like that. Even arguments like "hurr-durr U can't control yourself" are silly. If I man cannot control himself, it's true that he is as a city without walls, Satan's plaything to tempt and torment at will. But the idea isn't to free-wheel through life getting as close to temptation as we can to prove we're Christian He-men. Paul gave the "flee and run away" instruction about one temptation and one temptation only. Do we think ourselves wiser than an apostle?

Furthermore, this isn't ONLY about controlling oneself as much as (a) controlling others hurr durr, you think you're really that irresistable to strong, confident womyns Who said women were the only threats? hurr durr ur gay No, but my colleague may be, and particularly (b) controlling gossips. Regardless how "liberal" the world's attitudes these days to sex – aint no big thang – the fact is that sexual harassment is a thing, and that gossips still love to natter about meaningless who's schtupping who banter, undermining your reputation and your witness before God, there are still real dangers to be avoided. And NO MAN is so invincible to the devil's temptations that they cannot still be tempted into sin. Flee temptation, the Lord God Holy Spirit advises in the Bible over and over. Only a fool believes he is stronger than the devil.

Having been in business more years that some here may have lived, I know temptation exists on the road, the business meeting in that other city, the hotel room that comes with it, and the female colleague who's also in the same hotel, and one thing leads to another and you're having a perfectly innocent business planning session in her hotel room about the following day's marketing meeting or whatever. Then, in an instant, you, the devoted "family-values man" (that's all normies think Christian means), have created the impression you're cheating on your wife, or f–king around if single, because no one else knows better, they trust you as far as their suspicions will allow – "I'd fug her, so why wouldn't you have" – and your witness to the world, your "light on a hill", is completely compromised by this one innocent act of convenience.
And this isn't even touching on the idea your colleague may actually be trying to get you into bed – it does happen – and you, being male, are tempted and could fall!!!!!

continued below

Attached: pence-removes-woman-from-his-office.jpg (258x385, 53.68K)

continued

With this in mind, meetings aren't for back offices, they're for glass meeting rooms, they're not in the hotel room, they're for the hotel conference room, or around the restaurant table at dinner. Your hotel bedroom is sacrosanct, but if everyone insists, you make sure it is never just you and one of the women without others present, or the door stays open. It's simple rules, but they're to (a) remove temptation, and (b) mitigate "suggestion" to or suspicions by the world. I think Pence is on the right track. If it works the way he insists on it, then that works for him, good. Congress is a 19th century building, so there are no glass-walled offices when there really should be. But then how will that lobbyist pass the bulging manila envelope unseen?!

Also as user notes, it also mitigates the odds of that whole sexual harassment shitstorm raining down on you. Doesn't make it impossible, but the odds are lessened.

Not that it's easy to live like this in a world where women are often your boss and may regard your "prissiness" about such things suspiciously like inherent sexism – our COO is a woman, and my new boss is a woman, and it's something I'll need to watch out for. It may cost me promotion or salary bumps or bonuses. These are the real-life costs of living Christ-like, I guess. Fortunately, sexual harassment has companies scared enough that HR policies are usually your friend: glass-bowl meeting rooms and offices, business trip policies, etc, meaning you can hide behind such policies if your moral principles aren't strong enough to overcome others' dismissing them.

Nevertheless, this applies, too, to our Christian circles. It's nice that Jodie decides to stay back and help me clear the dishes in my flat after cell group or whatever, but I'd really like it if Alice and Ben could stick around while she does, please? Especially if Jodie is engaged or something. I don't want Mel to get the wrong idea, or anyone else for that matter. Otherwise, don't worry about it, I got this. Or, let's move to the Church annex and then there's always people passing through. I mean, fifteen minutes aint no big thing, but hours alone together is potentially an issue. All this said, I cannot count the number of times I've broken this rule. I guess you just gotta be flexible but smart about it. I'm not saying we ought to Muslim out, but Electric Pence has still got the right idea.

The bigger problem, frankly is what the sadly-forgotten Christian singer Mark J. sang about in "Espananza" which is well worth a view. (Pic related.) None of us is immune to temptation, and none of us is immune to fantasising about lust, especially while we're still single, yet even when we marry.

''Watch your thoughts, fellas. Watch your thoughts."

HERE IS THE DELETED POST WITH CARTOON NUDITY REMOVED
Amateur mods

What's particularly amusing about the Pence rule is how worldly normies have absolutely no clue what he is trying to achieve with it, or why he would want to do it. All they see it as is a way of keeping women out of his inner circle because "muh sexisms".
I actually admired the guy when I heard about that. It might be a tad extreme for a politician, but I thought he was applying his faith into decisive personal policies and it shows me just how truly and thoroughly based the man is.
Can we please get Trump impeached already? This guy would show the world what's what.
inb4 Zig Forumssters sperg out because I dared insult their prophet (pbuh)

Let's not sperg out over something that doesn't deserve the ire it's getting, nor focus on details when there is a broad-brush principle that needs application here. Seems to me and are just troll-tier baiting, ignorant of Christian living principles. No one is suggesting women be lead around by their fathers/brothers wearing dog-collars. Only fedoras make extraneous comparisons like that. Even arguments like "hurr-durr U can't control yourself" are silly. If I man cannot control himself, it's true that he is as a city without walls, Satan's plaything to tempt and torment at will. But the idea isn't to free-wheel through life getting as close to temptation as we can to prove we're Christian He-men. Paul gave the "flee and run away" instruction about one temptation and one temptation only. Do we think ourselves wiser than an apostle?

Furthermore, this isn't ONLY about controlling oneself as much as (a) controlling others, and particularly (b) controlling gossips. Regardless how "liberal" the world's attitudes these days to sex – aint no big thang – the fact is that sexual harassment is a thing, and that gossips still love to natter about meaningless who's schtupping who banter, undermining your reputation and your witness before God, there are still real dangers to be avoided. And NO MAN is so invincible to the devil's temptations that they cannot still be tempted into sin. Flee temptation, the Lord God Holy Spirit advises in the Bible over and over. Only a fool believes he is stronger than the devil.

Having been in business more years that some here may have lived, I know temptation exists on the road, the business meeting in that other city, the hotel room that comes with it, and the female colleague who's also in the same hotel, and one thing leads to another and you're having a perfectly innocent business planning session in her hotel room about the following day's marketing meeting or whatever. Then, in an instant, you, the devoted "family-values man" (that's all normies think Christian means), have created the impression you're cheating on your wife, or f–king around if single, because no one else knows better, they trust you as far as their suspicions will allow – "I'd fug her, so why wouldn't you have" – and your witness to the world, your "light on a hill", is completely compromised by this one innocent act of convenience.

And this isn't even touching on the idea your colleague may actually be trying to get you into bed – it does happen – and you, being male, are tempted and could fall!!!!!

continued below above

Attached: pence-removes-woman-from-his-office-censored.jpg (257x385, 53.41K)

naw, appearantly polsters have lost faith in trump, it's pretty lame

Bump for unanswered question.

But then how do you ask one out? This would be fine if you are already taken, truly asexual, or celibate but what if you are single and are looking for a potential wife (despite turbulent times)? Arrange marriages are no longer the style in the West (unless polygamous Mormon, Muslim, Pajeet, or SEA Gook)

At church events, at the public market, etc…that’s why small cities and villages are the best.

So in other words places where you are taking a higher gamble of your potential gf being either a nominal or non-Christian and ignore the “Pence/Billy Graham rule” in OP’s question? Because let’s face it strangers don’t care what strangers do to each other except maybe violence and rape (with the exception of jealous “cockblockers”)

based

Bump de bump

Attached: c1df213d7cb48a6df5a7be6e9ed40875a9aca2971bbf366b706308c53cae994a.jpg (581x604, 99.3K)

bump

I feel like it's unnecessary unless you struggle particularly with lust, but I don't think it would hurt to observe the practice just for good measure and for your own benefit with all the fake rape accusations being tossed around.

Why is Nick Fuentes tormenting that poor kitty cat?

yeah, the Pence Rule is how men with power protect themselves. Linus Torvalds also follows the Pence Rule, but he does it surreptitiously, since he can't say he's doing it because he's a Christian.

That rule is always followed by men.

Attached: ClipboardImage.png (1280x720, 1.59M)

Reported.