Rafflesia Interview Transcript

Rafflesia

Questions:

1. How do you identify yourself, religiously?

I identify as an Israelite. However, I distance myself from the often-used "Hebrew Israelite"

2. What is your relationship status?

I am married.

3. What is your general reaction to what you listened to?

On an emotional level, disgust, anger, and a deep sadness. On an intellectual level, bafflement and offense on a personal and professional level.

4. Do you believe women are unable to understand men, and therefore unable to judge their actions? (Please explain)

I believe that it couldn't be any further from the truth. Women are no less mentally capable than men. They are just as capable of understanding and judging men as other men are. The same as men are capable of judging, understanding, and assessing women. The assertion that women shouldn't stop and consider whether or not men are actually correct or just, and merely accept it, is absolutely absurd and frankly, unconscionable.

5. React to the statement, “women are a possession”.

Such a mass of reactions. Where to start? First off, the idea is simply incorrect on many levels. The logic employed is deeply flawed, and I find it almost insulting that somebody could speak as though said logic was undeniable considering its absurdity. I'll assume the specifics of which will come in another question, so I won't speak at length on it quite yet. An emotional reaction is revulsion, sadness (particularly because it has been supported by women), and to be honest, quite a lot of rage.

6. How do sex slaves, like Bilhah and Zilpah, prevent “the lust of the world”?

Sex slaves in absolutely no way prevent lust. They are the ultimate embodiment of lust. Now, don't twist that. They are not the embodiment of lust in that they are the most lustful beings in existence. No, they are the embodiment of lust because their mere existence shows the unbridled lust of men. The idea that a man sleeping with multiple women is somehow some barrier to lust is so patently insane it is laughable. If a man desires to sleep with more than one woman, it is because he is not only lustful, but he is also incapable of controlling it. Yeshua himself said that to look on a woman with lust is adultery. You cannot consensually sleep with a woman without looking with lust. "Oh, but she's another woman he wants to take to wife, or she's a sex slave." You cannot have a wife without having sex with her. Sex is quite literally a requirement, without it, you have not consummated the marriage. So, by default, if you are married, you CANNOT, I repeat, cannot, gain another wife without committing adultery. Without looking on her with lust, you will not consummate said marriage. To sticklers, a blind man can still desire a woman lustfully without seeing her, so "look upon" is not quite so literal. Anybody who supports plural marriage in any capacity has completely ignored Yeshua, and the entire New Testament in general.

And that's without getting into the idea that plural marriage is somehow "God's plan for marriage". It isn't, and it never has been.

7. How do you define “love”?

Oh man. Such a nebulous concept. Love arguably has no solid definition. I'd argue that there are multiple forms of it. For example, people could love their possessions, like a gun collection or their vehicle, but that's an incredibly selfish form of love. Arguably it isn't love at all. In relation to people, love is a deep, selfless feeling of care, affection, and utter devotion to another person. With friends, it typically stops there. With spouses/etc/ it goes deeper. To love a spouse is a special thing. It certainly involves a feeling of responsibility and duty to that spouse. However, that is the base level. You care for them not because you're "supposed" to, but because they are your partner in life. Man, it is so complex. Breaking it down into such structured lines of "duty, obligation, yada yada yada" is ridiculous. People experience love in so many ways. Brain chemistry, personality type, etc. In the case of God to his people, the love is completely selfless, and utterly undeserved on our end.

8. Does love create crippling, unmanly weakness in men?

In relation to their implications, it could not be further from the truth. Love is a strengthening force. It is not only the greatest motivator in the world--consider loving God, after all--but also a massive support system. A man or woman with a spouse that truly loves them is a supportive, not a detracting, force. If someone tries to say that you cannot love both your God and your spouse, then that person has a tragically miniscule capacity for love.

9. React “the American woman is the enemy of a man”.

First off, this idea that there is such a thing as a single defined "American woman" is absurd. There is so much variation in American women that it's a completely moot point. My wife is an American, and is also a woman who follows the Law. Certainly not in the interpretation these women have been told (aka, adding a million things to the law, something we're told not to do). She is in no way an enemy to me, and is the exact opposite of an "effeminizing" force. The root problem is this idea that we are supposed to have a "Hebrew culture". Specifically, the culture of those who lived in Israel and their forefathers. The idea itself is a little absurd. I'd like to remind people that culture is culture, independent of religion in many cases. These people were in no way role models. That is another idea these people have wrong, in fact. The people in the Bible were often HORRIBLE people. There is a reason that God scattered them. They were a stubborn, evil, idolatrous, lustful people. This was not just because of outside influences, either. The Talmud exists because of this culture's mores and taboos. Not because of God's laws. Yeshua left to bring the message to Gentiles for a reason. The culture of the ancient Israelites, or "Hebrews" as they continually call them, is not one to emulate.

10. From this podcast, what is a “Biblical” marriage?

Reading between the lines, because they never had the clarity of thought to define it, a "Biblical" marriage is one that has a man married to multiple women. Said women apparently live in different houses--something that was not the case historically, but that's another issue--or theoretically in different tents. The man works the land--something that ignores the way the people of Jerusalem lived. The man sees his wives in very small doses--also ignoring that women worked the fields as well--and is not affectionate with them. They do not have conversations long enough to broach deeper topics, and she does not consider or judge him in any way. She merely has sex with him, raises his children, feeds him, and does what he tells her to.

11. From this podcast, what makes a man? What makes a woman?

According to this, a woman is a meek being that does not question her husband. She listens to him in all things, she serves him as her "master", she has sex with him when he wishes, and she bears his children. According to this, a man is someone who tells his wives what to do, does not love them, has sex with multiple women, but works the land and provides women the physical things they need to survive. He owns many things, including women. To quote them, a man is "a possessor".

12. What makes a good marriage?

First off, it requires there only be two members. A good marriage is one based on communication and support. They must both love each other entirely, and support them completely. Now, supporting them does not mean doing everything either of them says or wants. Sometimes people want things that are not Biblical, ethical, moral, or practical. When issues arise, both members of the marriage consult each other, talk it out, and then make an adult decision with how to proceed. The man ultimately has the decision to make in steering his family, but he holds his wife in enough respect and esteem to consider her. Although the women [speaking in the podcast] never explicitly stated it, it was implied that the man essentially uses them for sex. In a good marriage, the sex is entirely consensual, and actually enjoyable for both members. It isn't subject to the whims of only one member. For a Biblical example, men are not supposed to go to war in the first year of their marriage, because they owe their wives a year of happiness, up to and including sexually. Even ignoring sex, that rule proves you are to care about your spouse's happiness, not just taking care of them, devoid of affection.

13. (If married) how does your marriage work?

Well, considering I have an extremely healthy marriage, it follows the guidelines I just laid out.

14. How do you think this makes Israelites appear to non-Israelites?/ How does this make you feel about this religious sect?

I imagine it makes non-Israelites recoil from the religion in a massive way. It makes us appear like ignorant barbarians, misogynists, and due to their logical failures, it makes us appear like utter morons. As far as how it makes me feel about this religious sect, I consider "Hebrew Israelites" as a completely different sect than me; I don't tend to agree with very much of what they say. I always was under the impression that their opinions of plural marriage were "Well, technically it is allowed, but you shouldn't do it". Knowing now that they fully support polygyny I can say solidly that I entirely condemn them.

15. Any closing thoughts/comments?

My closing thought: If you know somebody who is living in this situation, please try to help them see the errors of their ways. Please, I implore you, cut any and all ties with these people and do everything in your power to prevent others from going down that path.

Comments:

You don’t take the women and children because they have value. The cows have monetary value, but humans have inherent value from being human. The Israelites paid their servants when they were set free to pay for their work, not because they are property, but because their labor has worth. The logic here is all messed up. The logic here is, “a human being is property”, so why would you pay them wages at the end of their time? If I took a book I owned, and I threw it out the window, I would not then throw twenty dollars at it. I would not because the book is property; it is only worth itself. Humans are paid because they are valuable beyond themselves. They do not “belong” to anyone, or their labor would be part of that “property”, not something you would then pay for. The point of taking people as bondsmen was conversion.

"They were farmers and warriors." There were a ton of city dwellers. Jerusalem was a friggin CITY. There were SO many people there who were tailors, etc etc etc. Those men spent all damn day with their wives. "

Oh, they didn't spend any time with their wives" WROOOOOONG

“Take a woman” doesn’t mean literally “go steal one”. It means “to have sex with”. It doesn’t mean to go kidnap someone. It means to have sex with your wife.

“No time for romantic love?” Tell that to the Song of Solomon.

We don't get the notions of romantic love from Rome. That's the stupidest thought yet. Cultures around the world, back to the ORIGINS of the written word, had romantic love. There is ancient graffiti of love poems. Love is NOT only 'duty, obligation, discipline, and honor'. I've heard literally no sources. They're saying things without ANY backup on these. They're saying that romantic love didn't exist without Biblical evidence. They're parroting their pastor. There is AMPLE historical evidence contradicting this.

"You're bought with a price" Yes, your SALVATION! Men are bought with the blood of the messiah, too, for cryin’ out loud.

Proverbs 7 is about a whore who's cheating on her husband as well. The description is not about romantic love. She seduced a man with flattery and "harlot"-like dress. Reading comprehension is important. Oh my god. This verse ISN'T about a woman who's using her words to lead her husband astray. The man is just as freaking culpable. He slept with a married woman because she shook her a** at him. For cryin’ out loud.  It isn't a freaking cautionary tale about flattering words. It's about a seductress. For crying out loud, gaaaaaaah. Flattering words are not the f****** problem in this verse.

These women are so insulting. They’re saying “I’m going to apply women writ large as the enemy” to a verse that’s about actual enemies.

For f**** sake, women. Why would hearing that Jacob loved Rachel more, why would that skew ANYTHING about God? Jacob is not God. Jacob is only even important because God promised Abraham. Jeez. These women. Also, the fact that these women think it's okay that Jacob treated Leah poorly because God took pity on her and gave her a kid.....ugh.

So....you're not allowed to idolize men, but you're supposed to listen to them in literally everything? Okay, that makes sense.

"Don't convince your husband not to be a p***k, because if you ask God to fix it, he'll make you pregnant, so you'll be all good" These women, man.

YESHUA IS NOT YOUR LOVER.

'Committing' to being a "Hebrew" is apparently never questioning men.

"God told me yadayadayada" Such hubris.

We can't have any revelations outside the word or what a pastor tells us???? F***.

The irony of them saying that lust is NOT wanting multiple wives is hilarious.

They literally never took ANY time to try to say WHY plural marriage is 'God's plan'.

YOU SHALL NOT MARRY A WOMAN AND HER SISTER, F***.

God didn't TELL Jacob to marry two women. He just DID it.

HER HOUSE ISN’T THE WAY TO HELL BECAUSE THE SEDUCTION IS BACKWARDS, IT’S BECAUSE IT IS A HOUSE OF ADULTERY

Finally done. Now pass me the brain bleach.

If God esteems no man above another, why should you allow your spouse to esteem another above you? Self-respect is an enormously important part of life. If your only form of self-esteem is "I'm a very valuable possession for a man", you have unresolved issues of self-worth. The fact that God will take pity on you for having an unhappy marriage, and being treated poorly by the person you are supposed to be treated the best by, does not mean that you should enter into that scenario. Paul says it is better to be single if you can control yourself. If you're incapable, then you should at least enter into a relationship that will strengthen you. Not simply because "A man being strong strengthens you, because then he can tell you what to do more". The Bible exists. We've got all the instruction we need. A woman stranded on a deserted island with nothing but a Bible can still reach understanding of the Word, and can still reach salvation. She does not require a man to be "strong" and dictate it to her.

I could write so much on each of their logical errors. It would take so much time though.