In my last post I waved a bit of red meat in front of the crowd before explaining what was going on. Many of the readers never got that image of the juicy steak out of their minds and were thereafter unable to form a clear thought.
This was in fact the whole point of the post. The modern Christian man is unable to overcome the Pavlovian response, and those with something to sell know they can rely on this. Christian women are in feminist rebellion, and as Pastor Baucham points out this goes back to Genesis. But Christian men are enabling this rebellion, partly out of fear and partly out of following their emotions. The advertisement for Stepping Up™ is masterfully tuned to push all of your non-threatening-Christian-headship buttons. It is pure genius, as I conceded in the title and the post. But the pathology is so deep many Christian men can’t overcome their feelings to understand the problem even when it is plainly put in front of them.
For those who still don’t get the point of the last post, I’ll recap. Don’t worry, I’m not talking about women in that post. Rebuking women is hard, and more importantly uncomfortable. It doesn’t feel good. I am talking about a man. That feels better, doesn’t it?
There is a man named Dennis Rainey, and he leads an organization called FamilyLife. The organization he leads hires women like Sheila Gregoire to teach Christian wives that biblical submission means not submitting to their husbands. See the OP for the quotes. Sheila’s teaching on submission shouldn’t come as a surprise to FamilyLife because Sheila has a long history of writing the most ridiculous things about what the Bible says regarding men and women and marriage. Even if it was a surprise, FamilyLife never took the article I referenced down. In contrast, when Dennis Rainey, a man, heard Pastor Baucham clearly preach on submission for Christian wives, Dennis Rainey felt the need to explain:
There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.
He also expressed discomfort that a man would be preaching the Word to women:
But hearing it from a man—it is interesting. I think for some women—that makes it tough to hear….
…I feel like we poisoned the stream about—I don’t know—four decades ago and really made it almost objectionable for a message like this to be preached by a pastor—by a man—to a mixed audience, at this point. I don’t want you to hear me apologizing that we did it…
This same man, Dennis Rainey, is waving a feel good message pushing all of your non-threatening-Christian-headship buttons in order to sell his latest project, Stepping Up™. And Christian men will buy this message in droves, because it feels good, and doesn’t offend their feminist wives, mothers, and sisters.
Christian men need to stop acting like chicks and following their feelings over the Word of God. Yes it is uncomfortable, but over time it will become more natural.
First! Ha.
You are not sufficiently pessimistic enough. “Magua understands that the white man is a dog to his women.” Mague understood the white man well.
Damnable cynicism.
Woman was made for man, not man for woman. The nouns in that verse are collective so the verse is not specifically about the relations between individual hubands and wives but to the overall relation of man to woman within a specific community.
Another verse that gets short shrift I where it says that women re not suppoed to teach or be given authority over men. How many christian schools have female teachers teaching. What are clearly young men.
Coincidence. I was just looking at an atrocious bit of rationalization by a man named John T Bristow who has made it his life’s work to claim Paul wasn’t saying what he was actually saying.
http://www.beliefnet.com/Faiths/Christianity/2003/07/What-Paul-Really-Said-About-Women.aspx
This post was disconcertingly high on the google results. The first move is to play pedantics on the “male is the head” claim by saying it didn’t actually mean leader, but rather person who takes the brunt of the punishment or the first person to go into the fight. In other words, all responsibility, no power.
The comments are garbage with a particularly rebellious woman named “mostlyautumn” yanking her crank freely in the wind with the typical “I am womyn hear me roar” we can expect from modern women who, instead of reading the Bible, just listen to people they agree with talk about it.
Hilaire Belloc observed that Heresy often takes the route, rather than denying what is self-evidently true, of saying “but that’s not really what they meant.” We’re seeing it clearly as churchians morph the Bible into something somewhat unrecognizable, similar to supreme court justices finding bizarre provisions in the constitution despite its relatively clear wording.
Dalrock, maybe you should have entitled this posting “A Verification of Dr. Pavlov’s Work”…
Ring the bell, note the salivation. Repeat, in order to demonstrate it is not random chance at work.
It is not necessary to repeat ad infinitum, of course.
Fascinating to see just how deeply accepted the shibboliths of feminism / gynocentrism are, isn’t it?
@Matthew King
By all means, continue digging.
@The Karamazov Idea
Excellent example of what Paul specifically warned against; I guess they don’t believe the sin of being a “man pleaser” covers the sin of being a “woman pleaser”.
From when I first heard, looked into it, and was disabused of the great gulf of meaning between “agape” vs. “phileo” (short version: If it had some significance in Greek, although Jesus spoke to Peter in almost certainly Aramaic, it wouldn’t have been a barb the third time he asked it, but it was.), I have come to realize the first trick in the charlatan’s manual is to pretend there is some secret to be unlocked only with extensive study of the Greek that is not sufficiently conveyed by the wide range of English language translations we have inherited from the past work of many learned men. It reminds me of the Islamic dodge – oh, wait, that’s not in Arabic, there is no way to express the real meaning in your language, sorry.
I notice that this particular fawner for attention of the women in the crowd at BeliefNet never returns to his idea of how this particular verb should be understood for the relation of Jesus to the Church – his argument, is, of course, that Jesus is not the Church’s master, but just someone that goes before it, like the point scout, and, given the statements of his Jezebel heretic Mostylautumn, the understand this to mean that Jesus was sent before and is subordinate to Mary, whichever Mary they choose at the time. Jezebel herself asserts that the master of the universe is Mary in her comments.
(It’s funny how they will skip the plain writing of Peter’s epistles; I can accept that Paul had a deep and abiding understanding of Greek, as we are given his biography, that he studied at the very feet of the wise men of Israel and was the most Pharisaic Pharisee; given that Peter relied so much on Mark to write for him, is basically an uneducated fisherman, it’s probably wise they never play the game of “And Peter chose this word for this particular shading of connotation, and notice here that Peter shifts into the passive voice, with deep abiding meaning.”)
The Good Lord promised to send the Holy Spirit to instruct us, not a Greek grammarian, not a marriage counselor, not a Harvard PhD; to seek for revelation beyond what the many good translators have already given us as a heritage is the pride of hubris returned to us – somehow the Holy Spirit is inadequate, and the wisdom of man will correct the wisdom of God – it at least sells books, seminars, DVDs, and website memberships.
when is matt king going to
man up
and write
a blog
that men want
to read?
when will his wife
give him permission
to do so?
One point to start on is the “Ephesians 5:21 as context” argument to negate Ephesians 5:22-24. It’s actually easy to blow that argument out of the water because in Numbers 16, Korah and his followers made the exact same argument and God gave them His judgment. There is no difference between Korah and his followers challenging the authority of Moses:
“all the congregation are holy, every one of them, and the Lord is in their midst, so why do you exalt yourselves above the assembly of the Lord?”
and a wife challenging the authority of her husband:
“We’re equal in Christ and Ephesians 5:21 says we are to submit to one another in fear of Christ. Who are you to tell me what to do?”
That argument got shot down, all the way to Sheol.
There is a giant segment of men in churches today who are afraid of and slaves to their wives. I’ll probably have to move along to someplace else when the older elders die at my church, unless the new guys actually take the hint when told it is wrong to say from the pulpit how your wife is less of a sinner and therefore closer to God by the magic of her vagina.
One cannot believe that the “pastor of his own household” was supposed to take his lessons and direction from his charges. I’ve fought men who think that the idea of a men’s leadership conference is repugnant, but think nothing of women’s conferences, women’s retreats, and what have you, solely on the basis they want their wives there to listen to the same teaching, not feel left out, and explain it to “the dumb men” when they get home. It is an abdication of responsibility that can be quite profitable for snake oil salesmen like Mr. Driscoll.
These same men hate the idea that some men are single and happy. I have been confronted to my face numerous times that I am ordered to get married. When I quote, “It is better to stay single than to marry; it is better to marry than to burn”, they deny it, suggest that it applied only until the temple destruction in 70 AD (!), or suggest that the Christian walk involves being bossed around by a woman as the natural order of things. I’ve learned to laugh at them and ask them why neither or Lord nor many of the apostles are recorded to have married, and so must not be real men. Their response is always “worldly wisdom”, which could have come straight from To Love, Vacuum, and Henpeck.
Thank you, Dalrock! I am a Christian woman, living a blessed life in humble submission under my loving husband’s leadership. I am outgoing, gregarious, assertive, etc…, but I make a choice to bring my personality as well as my body and my life into glad submission to my husband and my God. My husband does everything in his power to lead in a godly manner. The more we try to out-think God and His Word, the farther from His will we become. Trying to make Him after our own image= confusion and despair.
Yeah, the Church has largely been pushing this “stepping up” conundrum for so long, now they are being honest about it. They know that eventually men are going to rebound and regain tehir Biblical perspective. All they are doing is draining the last bit of money to be had from these poor suckers before women will take the money and run and they will be left doing the real owrk of God, educating men in faith and headship. That is their problem though, no money in it.
What is a “super church” to do?
If women no longer control the money, the “church” of today is going to face a dry well, financially speaking. So, they are doubling down. I hope we avoid the wrath of God, as He is the shrewdest judge there is. I suspect that the reason my heart felt a sudden pain of fear for saying that I hope God judges them, is because He will judge me also.
We are all in deep in this state worship whether we like it or not. All we have left is to build two walls on either side and stand in the gap, hoping, praying, that the Lord won’t punish us all.
From Ezekiel 22:23-30
23 Again the word of the LORD came to me: 24 “Son of man, say to the land, ‘You are a land that has had no rain or showers [a]in the day of wrath.’ 25 There is a conspiracy of her princes [b]within her like a roaring lion tearing its prey; they devour people, take treasures and precious things and make many widows within her. 26 Her priests do violence to my law and profane my holy things; they do not distinguish between the holy and the common; they teach that there is no difference between the unclean and the clean; and they shut their eyes to the keeping of my Sabbaths, so that I am profaned among them. 27 Her officials within her are like wolves tearing their prey; they shed blood and kill people to make unjust gain. 28 Her prophets whitewash these deeds for them by false visions and lying divinations. They say, ‘This is what the Sovereign LORD says’-when the LORD has not spoken. 29 The people of the land practice extortion and commit robbery; they oppress the poor and needy and mistreat the alien, denying them justice. 30 “I looked for a man among them who would build up the wall and stand before me in the gap on behalf of the land so I would not have to destroy it, but I found none.
There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.
Mine, too. like that spookily accurate 3000 year old description from Ezekial in that comment by El B.
but recognizing the hypergamous nature of woman, and crafting dogma to counter it? never.
No, no, no Dalrock, you are confused. You obviously need to read a bit on the Family Life website and get yourself straightened out about what men need to stop doing. Behold:
40 Things Husbands Should Stop Doing
Of the 40, here are several particularly useful ones:
2. If your wife is a stay-at-home mom, stop treating her like her work during the day is somehow less strenuous or less important than yours.
3. Stop coming home from work and plopping in front of the television for the night, leaving your wife to bear the responsibility for everything else going on in the home.
4. Stop working so much. Find a healthy balance between work and family. Your wife would rather have you than a big house, nice car, etc.
6. Stop allowing the spiritual leadership of the family to default to your wife.
14. Stop using the word “divorce” in your vocabulary.
17. Don’t purchase any major item without first discussing it with your wife.
24. Stop acting like God and trying to control your wife.
25. Stop pointing out her mistakes and asking for explanations. Doing these things can make her feel like a failure.
27. Stop telling your wife that she is supposed to “submit” to you. If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.
33. Stop putting a number on how often you should enjoy sexual intimacy.
36. Don’t allow guy-only activities (like playing golf, basketball, etc.) to rob you of leisure time with your wife and kids.
37. Stop expecting your wife to do all the housework.
Hey, no wonder Christian wives like this Dennis Rainey guy’s website!
I guess #14 only applies to men, though. A female commenter, Needagape, has a very long comment about how her husband doesn’t make her feel loved enough so she’s considering divorcing him. All the replies to her are very positive and affirming.
Basically, what the list is saying is that Christian men need to stop following their own feelings over the Word of God and start following their wives’ feelings over the Word of God. So you apparently had it half right, Dalrock. Good job!
Hey, there’s one for wives, too!
15 Things Wives Should Stop Doing
Well, I don’t want to gloat, but guys, um, did you notice that we need to stop doing fewer things than you need to stop doing? Probably it is because we are more spiritually mature than you. You might want to ask your wives to help you out with being the spiritual leaders of your homes for a while, at least until you stop doing all that dumb stuff that you do.
Hey, I have no idea why people think that Christian leaders cut husbands off at the knees, no sir I do not.
SSM quotes some jawbreaker site:
27. Stop telling your wife that she is supposed to “submit” to you. If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.
DING! DING! DING! DING!
We have a winnah in the Churchian “how to destroy marriage” sweepstakes! A pile of methamphetamine-laced high-protein hamster chow, in two sentences. In this dreck, “Leadership” means husband is taking wife where she wants to go. The correct name for this is chauffeur, a hirling who drives the automobile where the employer in the back seat directs — and if the destination changes from day to day, or hour to hour, or minute to minute, why, the chauffeur just keeps on driving without complaint. That’s what employees do, y’know.
This is the “Driving MIss Daisy” school of marriage advice.
I leave it to others to provide the appropriate Bible quotes refuting this.
@ Anon Read
Ok, challenge accepted:
(1 Peter 3:1-6)
@ SSM
You know, looking at the list for wives… every single one of them was good advice. Every. Single. One.
How many good ones were there for the husbands? 3? 4?
@SSM
Good find. They even managed to work the term “step up” into the subtitle:
As the discussion on the OP should prove beyond any doubt, there is no limit to what you can sell modern Christian men if you use the word “step up”.
There is another buzzword in the subtitle which I see in both Rainey and Gregoire’s marketing, and that is “down-to-earth”. This is code word for “what normal people do”, which has obvious benefits in a time of mass feminist rebellion. Normal women in a time of mass feminist rebellion rebel. Normal men in a time of mass feminist rebellion enable. Gregoire’s tagline is:
The same frame is in her appeal to avoid 1 Peter 3:
Keep it real. Not that theoretical stuff in the Bible.
Rainey does something similar after he has the woman come in to explain that submission means leading your husband (emphasis mine):
He used the same terminology when introducing her:
Also, I didn’t work this into the original post because it was already too long, but in the discussion after that same message Rainey alludes to the same thing Sheila does:
I would bash these peddlers advice for men.
I’m still trying to get why folks around here think that when I say you should lead women and protect them from themselves is also considered bad advice.
Just because women rebel…doesn’t give you the right to disregard your authority or responsibilities. Just because some phony baloney government run by evil elitists doesn’t like the patriarchy doesn’t mean that God has suddenly forgotten about men and their struggles. I still think it’s more of a fear problem amongst men that causes women to rebel. Have some faith in God…lead a woman and you’ll be amazed at the results. Do not be afraid.
If she rebels…punish accordingly. Throw her out of the garden for a while.
@Earl
I don’t think people are reacting to the validity of the advice. There are an army of poseurs who are eager to tell other men how easy it is to marry and lead a wife. Many, actually nearly all, of these men haven’t managed to do this themselves. It is certainly very easy when they close their eyes and imagine it though. If you’ve done this (married and lead your wife), then obviously you shouldn’t be mistaken for a member of that group.
Well I never said it was easy.
Nothing in life that is worthwhile is.
But I’ve found the things in life that I hate to do, or the hardest things, or the things the were uncomfortable enough to force me to change…tend to produce the best rewards.
It takes a lot of balls and thick skin to lead a woman. Especially in our age.
@earl
It might help if you acknowledged that. Better yet, describe how you have overcome the challenges of leading your own wife.
But Earl, your suggestion here is very good:
The problem is that the modern church is on board with the feminist culture at large in calling this abuse. What Pastor Rainey and his ilk are suggesting is that you must lead but you may never have the authority to mete out consequences for unacceptable behavior. Really, from their website:
25. Stop pointing out her mistakes and asking for explanations. Doing these things can make her feel like a failure.
How can you lead a woman and protect her from herself if you aren’t even allowed to point out her faults and sins to her in order to help her repent and mature spiritually? So, your advice is fine, but the problem is that the church and wider culture make this a tricky business. That’s why it’s so important that women get a talking-to about submission which I referenced in the previous thread and which Mr. King felt was unnecessary.
How many years have you been married, Earl?
Oopsie, I forgot to close my quote after the word “while”.
Well, in all fairness, I don’t think Earl has to be married to understand what Biblical marriage is supposed to look like. I mean, the doctor who delivered my children was a man; he’d never pushed out any babies himself personally but he understood the mechanics of what was supposed to happen. Even single folks can see what the Bible says about marriage.
By the way, the Bible says the husband is the head of the wife, but does it actually say anywhere that he has to do this “leading” thing? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he just supposed to go about his life and the wife is supposed to follow? It really seems like it all hinges on her submission, not his leadership skills. It seems to me that when Family Life says:
If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.
they are really judging the wrong person. I would rewrite it to say:
If she is not following you, that means she is not submitting to you as unto the Lord.
Doesn’t that seem more in line with Scripture?
I have been intending to write a post on the subject, but my current thoughts regarding male leadership and female submission and this whole kerfuffle:
Male leadership is essential to fixing the current crisis, but men “acting like men” or becoming more manly, is not enough. Not even close. What is needed is for men to set clear guidelines on female behavior, and punish women when they cross the line. However, in the current environment that is not only unfeasible, but invites disaster upon those who suggest it. The ugly truth is that the only way the situation can get turned around is if enough men get together and demand that changes in the social contract be made to restrain female behavior, and they back these demands up with the credible threat of violence. Nothing else will work; not reason or logic, not threatening a “strike”, and certainly not “manning up” and counting on women improving themselves to meet those standards. Don’t forget it only takes a small number of cads to satisfy nearly any number of sluts.
but I found none. Amen,El Bastardo.Christian men need to stop acting like chicks and following their feelings over the Word of God.Dalrock, christian men need to believe what God says before they will follow. Eph5:22Wives, be subject to your own husbands, as to the Lord. 23For the husband is the head of the wife, as Christ also is the head of the church, He Himself being the Savior of the body. 24But as the church is subject to Christ, so also the wives ought to be to their husbands in everything.…You see, the husband IS the head! The husband’s headship has nothing to do with ANYTHING the wife does or does not do, just as Christ’s headship has nothing to do with whatever the church does or does not do. Accepting and acting as if what God says is true is the beginning. A man’s believing, following, doing the will of God is independent of any other entity in the universe, including the all powerful woman.Reddirtgirl: There are as many spiritual women as there are spiritual men; or to put it another way, there are as many spiritual men as there are spiritual women. If we are in Ez22 era, that would be none, and judgement is nigh.
SSM> 27. Stop telling your wife that she is supposed to “submit” to you. If she is not following you, that means you’re not leading her as Christ loves the church.
Thanks for addressing (tangentially) what Dalrock has not addressed in recent memory.
Marriage is not a _sacrament_ of the Church; it is a _contract_ of the State.
The State commands men to submit to it on pain of death and sets women as overseers over them.
As long as this condition persists, women will not submit to their men, and men will have no choice but to grin and bear it.
You cannot have biblical rules in marriage if you do not start the marriage in Christ.
Because in State defined marriage, men will _always_ be subordinate to women.
IMO, it’s a waste of time asking the overseers to submit to their subjects.
sunshinemary
By the way, the Bible says the husband is the head of the wife, but does it actually say anywhere that he has to do this “leading” thing? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but isn’t he just supposed to go about his life and the wife is supposed to follow? It really seems like it all hinges on her submission, not his leadership skills.
Anonymous Age 71 made this point some years back (when he was Anonymous Aged 68 IIRC). He asserts there’s nothing in the Bible that instructs men to tame or their wives. I can’t confirm or deny. I will point out that of the multiple mentions of women in Proverbs (I am still reading) most of them are bad examples – the woman who is like a ditch a man falls into, the woman that makes a man want to go live in a tent on the roof, the woman who lures a man into very bad places. There’s nothing in chapter 31 that indicates a husband must subdue his wife like a bronco buster in order to get some peace of mind, either.
If I take a group of people to (insert big city), and there are known bad areas that are near our route of travel, those people who wish to claim my protection must be under my authority. That means I may refuse to stop for a potty break for a while, if the neighborhood is not looking good. That means I may order everyone into a store – or out the back door of a store for that matter – without the time to have long, existential debates about the meaning of “now” or “later”.
Them’s just the rules for playing tour guide in Chicago or Dallas or Los Angeles or DC, or Miami, or etc.. A defined period of time, and then a parting. Nothing like marriage at all.
“Submit” is a verb, not a noun. A woman who is not actively submitting is all but certain to be resisting, passively or otherwise.
@Dr Faust: You are not sufficiently pessimistic enough. “Magua understands that the white man is a dog to his women.” Magua understood the white man well.”
This +1,000,000
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) said:
when is matt king going to…
…
when will his wife
give him permission
to do so?
Ahem
Burn!
How does all this feminization of the church play out among pro-creationist sects/denominations?
I would be inclined to think that a strict adherence to scripture, that creationism requires, might be a firewall against feminism in the church. (There’s loads of stuff, particularly in the Old Testament that is far from flattering about females.)
The reason I’m asking you folks is because I reckon you Christian MRAs would know one way or another.
@evilwhiteymalempire: Most of the churchians with whom Dalrock takes issue ARE creationists, I think, though they are usually evangelicals rather than fundamentalists. But even in the fundamentalist churches (which are nearly all creationists), while there might be more lip service to headship and submission, it is becoming less and less common and it is still tilted heavily toward the husband’s responsibilities than the wife’s. Everything Dalrock says needs to be heard just as badly by the creationists as by any others.
Zorro and Faust are anti-whites.
The struggle in marriage is cultural. I wonder how many commenters are really into traditional gender roles or if they see the feminine side of the marriage equation to be a potential second breadwinner, instead.
Mike C. says,
As long as this condition persists, women will not submit to their men, and men will have no choice but to grin and bear it.
You cannot have biblical rules in marriage if you do not start the marriage in Christ.
Because in State defined marriage, men will _always_ be subordinate to women.
You do know that Paul’s letter is addressing state marriage, right? Cuz that’s what marriage is… a state institution. I’ve largely read those verses as a means of separating Christians from the world around them – be examples of Christ’s love for the Church and the Church’s submission to Christ so the world can witness that relationship.
Sunshine Mary,
What exactly is so wrong with the advice of not letting the wife be the defacto spiritual leader in the house? I thought that was one of a man’s role in his home… one that I don’t see a lot of Christian men stepping into.
@sunshinemary
I don’t know if Earl is married or not. As I alluded, he tends to sound like the young inexperienced man who is eager to tell the old experienced men they don’t know a thing about the world. He isn’t simply stating what the Bible says about marriage, he is saying things like:
There is a saying in Texas: All hat and no cattle. If Earl has calmly faced down a wife who had her finger on the detonate button, ready to throw him out of the home he worked to make, and out of the lives of his children, then he is a man with balls of steel and he has my respect. If he boasts so freely to men who have calmly faced down a wife in that circumstance while never having done so himself, he is a poseur. This is forgivable in a young man, but it is something older men have an obligation to try to help correct. If you pay attention you will notice that we tend to first be more gentle with younger men in this regard, and leave them an option to come clean before we call them out more directly. Part of this is gentleness, and part of it is there always is the possibility that the man who seems like a poseur is in fact the real deal. I don’t know which Earl is, but I do get the sense that he is a young man.
I can’t say for sure which Matthew King is either, but my poseur meter is pegged with him, and I also don’t get the sense that he is a young man. I believe Rollo once said you should imagine everything Matthew King writes spoken in the voice of Dr. Smith from Lost in Space. I tend to picture him more as Cliff Claven:
@TFH
The Sunday Morning Nightclub is a disaster. Barring repentance, pastors need to throw out the harlots who would turn the church into a brothel, as well as the Johns who followed them there.
I’m not married but my parents have been happily married for nearly 50 years. They taught marriage ministry’s in the church for quite a few years. I sat with my mother the other day and told her that I can’t find a suitable wife. I started explaining feminism to her and the timeline of when it started and how women marry the state. She said she could understand why I’m not married. The way my parents marriage works is that my parents don’t do anything unless they are both in agreement. I’ve found from watching that my parents defer to each others strenghts and trust each other but, if they can’t agree nothing happens. I wasn’t raised to be a wussbag, my parents put plenty into helping me become a man. I stopped going to church because the pastors were teaching sugar flavored poisen about marriage and family. There will be a reckoning in churches across America as more and more smart young men leave like I did. Let the pastor man up and marry those sluts!
hey dalrockas!
da gbfmz found some video of matt king posting on manosphere blogs and interacting with other posters!!
that’s cool someone has been filming all this zlzlozozozlzoloz
WP just said my comment couldn’t be posted, and ate it.
Brief recap: These last two posts and the comments have been great. It feels like my birthday.
Earl has said he has never married.
[D: I thought you would like it. I just checked the spam filter and there is nothing there from you. I’m not sure what WP did.]
Earl is single, never married so far as I know, in his early thirties, and a devout Catholic (he’s open about all of this, so I’m not outing him in any way).
Oh, okay, I get what you are saying. We women have to do something kind of similar to one another when it comes to mothering; childless women always seem to think they know exactly how to make children behave and want to lecture women who actually have children about it ad nauseam. It really sets my teeth on edge to deal with that.
Anyway, I will step out of the way and let you guys do your thing.
@ SSM
I made this comment over at Robyn’s and Empath’s blogs but it fits here as well:
@ Christina
Well, there’s the fact that there’s multiple commands in the Bible for wives to submit to their husbands (Eph 5, Col 3, 1 Pet 3, Tit 2)….
The same reason as to why women are not supposed to be pastors in the church, and why women are to ask their husbands if they do not understand something in church.
Here’s a sentence you can ponder about submission:
What man can be a leader without a follower?
A man should be taking initiative — and many men attempt to not simply because of all of the “man up” stuff I’ve seen in dozens of churches — but if he’s not being followed then how exactly can he lead?
Also, obviously… to those wives of NON Christians… much less Christian men who “aren’t leading”:
1 Peter 3:
In the same way, you wives, be submissive to your own husbands so that even if any of them are disobedient to the word, they may be won without a word by the behavior of their wives, 2 as they observe your chaste and [a]respectful behavior.
1 Corinthians 7:
13 And a woman who has an unbelieving husband, and he consents to live with her, she must not [g]send her husband away. 14 For the unbelieving husband is sanctified through his wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified through [h]her believing husband; for otherwise your children are unclean, but now they are holy. 15 Yet if the unbelieving one leaves, let him leave; the brother or the sister is not under bondage in such cases, but God has called [i]us [j]to peace. 16 For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?
The Scripture is really quite clear. It doesn’t matter what the husbands are doing. The wives are called to submission and respect.
That said, it is very very very important for a woman to vet a man before marriage to ensure that she is getting a man who intends and will lead her. But even if that is not the case and he turns away, she still has responsibility to God for her role in marriage.
Dalrock, excellent articles!
I just wanted to point out a connection that the disjointed braying of Matthew, King of 5,000 words when 50 would do, caused to be obscured in the previous article, “Brilliant advertising”.
On August 17, 2013 at 8:46 am, Matthew wrote: “You do not take command of women by whining about how it’s all their fault we’re not the heads of households anymore, and look at this bible verse where it says this, and you reeealy reeealy shouldn’t divorce rape me are you because that wouldn’t be fair, and, and, and … ”
And then, a few paragraphs later, he wrote: “But what if she doesn’t listen? What if she goes her own way? What if she files for divorce, takes my kids? Or calls the police? What if she writes a mean blog post about how horrible a husband I am? These are phantoms, fantastical fears you would rather have direct you in the abstract hypothetical than confront them in the face and thereby demonstrate they are not real.”
By claiming that these fears are not real, a claim that is empirically completely false, Matthew is also necessarily claiming that it is all the fault of women.
Why does Matthew King, intrepid hero in his own mind, so stridently insist on putting women at the center of everything? Is he merely too stupid to understand the Holy Writings of da GBFM?
And let us not forget why no one should ever go to Earl for advice on leadership: [also in “Brilliant advertising”, on August 17, 2013 at 10:12 am] “Most women I’ve encountered don’t have a clue…because they have no idea how leadership works. You make a decision and stand by it…good or bad.”
No, Earl, if you make a bad decision, you correct your mistake, fix any damage, and redirect your followers from the path to harm. Your position is not only foolish, but also dangerous.
@Christina
According to Focus On the Family if he quotes Scripture and asks her to hold her questions and ask them of him when they get home, he is abusive. This is the world we live in. Rainey speaks approvingly of women teaching that submission doesn’t mean submission, and then he writes a book about how men need to step up. The book is then made into a video series by Rainey’s organization, and that video series is what the youtube video was advertising. Meanwhile Rainey’s organization puts out pieces like the one SSM quoted, decrying men’s failure to lead spiritually. The problem isn’t in saying that men should be the spiritual leaders, it is the constant game of crying “step up!” while cutting men off at the knees.
Matt’s prose and verse is of a decidedly different meter when you read his ‘loving’ posts over at Feministix blog. He likes to reserve his moralistic vernacular for biblical attempts at AMOGing every blogger in the manosphere, but when he’s using his God Game on Feministix all of that pretense falls by the wayside.
Matt thinks he talks a good game on my blog and Dal’s, but he’s really just a more moralistic and over-puffed version of Mark Minter.
http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/07/30/my-infatuation/#comments
That was a good one, but don’t just stop with this post, you can read Matt drop his Dr. Smith routine as he tries to net-game Feministix in almost every on her blog.
Poor Matt, for all your moralizing Feministix still wont wear her red lingerie for you. She saves that for guys like this:
http://feministx.wordpress.com/2013/08/18/indian-male-10/
,..or guys with my physique,..
Keep trying to save her Matt, it’s all very entertaining.
Don’t correct your wife. Don’t lead her, don’t get thrown in jail. Don’t get divorced, don’t lose your children, don’t get falsely accused of rape.
Let the abominable personage of feminine emancipation have complete constituency over this decrepit world. Embrace feminine acclimatization to the masculine, enjoy the breathtaking signs of transgender progress as women aspire to heights they never before dreamed possible.
Ascertain the glorious progress of post christian acclimatization to gender neutral norms producing a theoretically neutered society with no inbred sexual norms. This exposes previously aforethought natural gender roles for assigned birth sex and stigmatizes those caught inside in an unfortunately stagnate gender role.
Cry Havoc and let slip the dogs of war. Let this world burn with the fires of it’s own perversity. Let the decrepit minds who seek ultimate perversion achieve it, so that at long last we will face a real enemy and not a veiled one.
To all women who yearn, for their own immortal Independence, to achieve it through the perversity they see fit and let their enablers receiver the just deserts of their efforts as well. Let all who aspire to corrupt the desired station that GOD has set down bask in the infernal majesticicity of their concupiscence as they rally their heathen allies in a final affront to eternal salvation.
IN Short. Trying to correct women is pearls before swine. Good luck. And by good luck I mean i will see you on the other side.
Death is the only adventure.
@Matt King
One day we will see each other face to face. One day you will see the men you have berated. Romans 3:10 says that “there are none righteous no not one”, Romans 3:23 ” All have sinned and fall short of the glory of God”, Isaiah 64:6 “All your righteousness is as filthy rags”
Tell us all, where do you derive your authority? From where do you tell men to bow to the female em partitive? How do you tell me to submit to women?
We will see eye to eye one day. One day when this facade of government fades away. When all our troubles come to stay. And you will answer upon that day. Not to me……
@Christina
Ephesians 5:25-7
“25Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless”
1 Timothy 2:12-15
“12 I do not permit a woman to teach or to exercise authority over a man; rather, she is to remain quiet. 13 For Adam was formed first, then Eve; 14 and Adam was not deceived, but the woman was deceived and became a transgressor. 15 Yet she will be saved through childbearing—if they continue in faith and love and holiness, with self-control.”
“How many years have you been married, Earl?”
0.
But my father has been married for 35…so I did have a pretty good role model.
“Better yet, describe how you have overcome the challenges of leading your own wife.”
Steady prayer, going to confession, growing in my faith, going to the gym, paying bills on time, not getting myself into stupid situations, stabilizing my emotions, taking up new hobbies…and when any women do come around I’m not afraid to address what I am thinking. I make it my task to become a leader.
Remember men have a X chromosome too. A good way to lead a wife…is to lead yourself first. I know the times I tried to rebel against authority…I had to pay for it.
And submitting can also be a form of leading…if somebody knows a situation better than you do, then by all means let them lead so you learn something. Men and women might actually get smarter if they do this.
“No, Earl, if you make a bad decision, you correct your mistake, fix any damage, and redirect your followers from the path to harm. Your position is not only foolish, but also dangerous.”
Yeah…good advice.
But most people who make a bad decision tend to blame others, have too much pride to think they ever fail, or weasel out of it and never learn from their mistakes. That’s why you stand by a bad decision…so that you learn from it to not make the same mistake in the future.
All my screwups helped me more in my life…than my successes.
“If Earl has calmly faced down a wife who had her finger on the detonate button, ready to throw him out of the home he worked to make, and out of the lives of his children, then he is a man with balls of steel and he has my respect.”
There should be something to say about having prudence of not choosing to marry a woman that would go that route.
I know there isn’t a 100% guarantee of this…but if you keep sex out of the courtship and engagement phase…then your mind isn’t fogged to when she starts doing her female hysterics. You look at things more objectively. Then if you keep birth control out of the marriage…there is a better chance she’d stick with you because she’s getting her injection from her man regularly. Heaven forbid you get kids out of the deal!
I bet if you probed hard enough…you’d find most guys that get divorced or live in an unhappy marriage had sex before marriage and/or had some form of birth control during marriage. That is terrible disrespect to their gender.
sometimes I wonder if the great whore of Babylon who comes
is feminism herself
There’s a lot about the Bible that causes the hair on the back of my neck to stand up.
As I commented in your last post, men are afraid, but it is not Christ they fear. It is women. And the reason they fear women is because they believe that God is on women’s side.
As it is written,
Jacobwomen have I loved, butEsaumen have I hated. – Romans 9:13 New Feminist Bible@ Miserman and others
http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/female-self-deprecation-is-a-way-of-bragging/#comment-21972
It would seem women live in a constant state of fear. Meanwhile some of the best advice Jesus ever told men was “Do not be afraid”.
That should include not being afraid of women. For the only real power they have during this time in history…is what men gave them.
Clean up the fear, fellas….have some faith.
earl the professional hole digger & all round clueless virgin at life …
Seriously earl, you’re cluelessness & general ignorance about life in general is mind boggling …
Good morning. All my favorite things in a couple of posts. I recommend (or something) reading the Step Up blog. I have parsed the hell out of it…..quite literally.
There is not much to say on this that is truly new. There is always more drivel coming out of those places that should be highlighted. And as some know, if you care to see a virtual gathering of women who are the products of the last 40 years of this teaching, visit Christian Forums married section. Its a sight glass in to a massive tank filled with evangelical feminist men and women.
In the end, these ministries found the sweet spot in the average pew sitting Christian man. That would be pleasing the wife. They dangle a pleased wife like I dangle bacon to get my dog moving. The men dutifully lap it up, rerererere-doubling every few years. There is NOTHING new in any of these stupid canned seminars. Not. One. Thing.
The church follows the culture, but maintains some line it will not cross while asymptotically approaching exactly the things of the world. Men supplicating to women is de rigueur in life, hence, like Republicans chasing the big tent, the churches do the same stupid things wrapped in spiritual ribbons.
Ive always wanted to ask one of those guys…..I’d list off the countless movements and ministries like Promise Keepers, and Step Up, the movies like Courageous, list churches ministries, show them hundreds of sermons topically identical to Step Up, and ask…..if this one , this Step Up plan for example, if that is the big one, the one you claim God has shown you will finally win the families and fathers for the Lord and transform the church by the millions….(hyperbole fitting for a million -something- march), if EVERY metric we would choose to measure the effect is still headed the wrong way, what shall we conclude
1 Men are stupid
2 Men are innately less spiritual
3 The message is wrong or incomplete
They have not pondered 3 yet because there is nothing about it that would get such fawning feedback from women, and supplicant men. I say let this group go on and do what they do because they are harmless, and harmless is not what men should be
Matt King said, in the comments after the previous post:
You are encouraging an ethos of turning would-be allies into certain enemies rather than focusing on fraternal correction.
This is fraternal correction. I use the comparison only as metaphor, but Jesus “corrected” the possession of a man by casting it out then running it off a cliff. I am not asserting (or denying) that there is literal demonic possession afoot, just that whatever manner of deception is active here gentle persuasion is long past being the way to address it.
I have always been in agreement with the idea that the church is populated with what should be natural allies of the very best kind. But lacking a road to Damascus turnabout they are not going to realize it. The artificial reality they have created, then back filled with scripture mining and twisting, is too strong to convince them with even toned rhetoric.
@ Rollo,
I’m trying to imagine if Matthew King believes he is some type of Boaz leaving grain behind in the field for this “Ruth”? I can picture it I think. His way of modeling Jesus Christ would make me run from Churchianity, even if I was a woman.
Good job Matt King!
“Seriously earl, you’re cluelessness & general ignorance about life in general is mind boggling …”
Fair enough.
Tell me oh great pussy slayer…what have your tales of fornication taught you about life. Inform me of my ignorance.
More Matt King from before
So today’s women are unworthy sluts. Take that as stipulated. Now what are men going to do about it? Wait until they reform themselves? Plead with them that they are only hurting their own future? Quote scripture and verse at them?
Can he not see the common cause here? Can he not see that the men mindlessly following step up mantras ARE men in physiology only and have surrendered the kind of manly problem solving he goes on to point out to that of women? He talks about men preparing for a battle then running towards the gunfire. Would he say that men attending these kinds of training seminars are therefore in preparation for said battle, running thereafter towards the gunfire of familial destruction?
See, if the framing of step up ministries was to send men into a battle to reclaim their families in a Godly patriarchal leadership manner, it would be worthy. But note when Baucham deigns mention that, Rainey and Bob Lepine scramble to release countermeasures. Lepine says:
Now picture the men training for the battle with gunfire, and a general speaking to them telling them, here are our superior weapons and tactics, here is why we are RIGHT in our cause, no we are going to go and decimate that enemy….then some guy speaks up, “but I kinda see the point the other side has in this conflict and we need to be mindful that we are not right about everything”
That is just not how its done. Its ridiculous and Matt King has actually contradicted his own advice, though be sure that with amazing punctuational flare he will refute same, if he will even choose to walk with the pedestrians again on this topic.
“Now picture the men training for the battle with gunfire, and a general speaking to them telling them, here are our superior weapons and tactics, here is why we are RIGHT in our cause, no we are going to go and decimate that enemy….then some guy speaks up, “but I kinda see the point the other side has in this conflict and we need to be mindful that we are not right about everything”
So you are the type that only likes yes men. I prefer debate. I prefer a fight.
To defeat your enemy you must know your enemy…their motivations, their desires. Why are they even your enemy in the first place?
The easiest way to lead women is to ignore women. In fact it is sinful to try and lead women. You just handle your business and she submits to you. God said she is a helper. No need for a woman for anything not even to raise children. Look at any stats on child welfare it is the father that makes the difference in any family. In the work place every where you go having men is always more profitable and efficient. American football is the only masculine thing left in America and is the most popular. The Hall of Fame game between The Cowboys and the Dolphins was more highly rated than the Stanley Cup and World Series. PUA, pimps and players have women in submission because the woman has no other option with those men.
The “Christian” men here (churchian) arguing against the point Dalrock is making with his last two post are in the manosphere for a reason. They know something is wrong with the feminism and have been taught about conservative Christianity as the way of family and god. Those men have made that the essence of who they are and now they find out it is a lie. Imagine thinking you are the stalwart of mankind only to be you are a contributing force to the end of christanity and western civilization for any one that adds to your church. Think of the fact that men walking away from the church are doing more to save Christianity than any churchian or preacher with advanced degrees in theology. A PUA is doing more for the long term well being of western civilization than any “good submissive Christian wife”
Every day I learn more about the biblical principals and have stronger faith in Christ from the manosphere than ever from churchians. The red pill is a mutha fucka but man it does sooth the soul when it comes to the bible. A churchian has more faith in the church that he made than he does the word of god. And has used how pleasing he is to (wo)man as an example of the righteousness of his faith. (big chuches with women dropping in dollars) There cannot be a greater sin than that.
“The easiest way to lead women is to ignore women.”
Ok.
However is that the best way to lead them?
Jesus didn’t ignore women.
Seems like most guys round these parts want to take the easy way out on everything.
It’s a whole lot easier to blame all ills on women. Whether they be hers or yours. No reason to improve at all.
My father told me something exceptional recently…do you ever see how you come across to other people? I realized a lot of my ills came from having a bad attitude or having an inflated sense of pride. It gave me something to improve upon.
She plays a part in this mess…and so do men. Neither gender gets a pass.
I failed to circle back on my point just above. If, when training men a la step up, there was an express intent mentioned that this was to train men to counteract a society that has made the things of men seem generally bad, and the things of women generally good (better than men indeed), if men were learning hard truths about ourselves to equip is to REALLY stand a gap that is manifested in the allowance of all gender normal female pathology in addition to equip us in our own God ordained station, get us sorted to be more worthy of said station….it would make sense.
As it is it is painfully simplistic in its fix men fix the family message. NO reference to women’s role in the downfall is made. No nod to women’s unique sin nature. Look, it is not a fine line to walk. It is easy to talk to men about men and women.
When Rainey writes about parenting, he doesn’t mince words about the tendencies of children. he places the goal out there plainly that this is for good. Forget whether or not the analogy is right or wrong because it compares women to children….I don’t care….it holds, functionally. Rainey does not fear children. Nor does he sell any meaningful amount of programs or books to them.
Baucham’s words are the missing ingredient. Its not to replace teaching men our shortcomings with talking to men only about the shortcomings of women. It is to make men’s mission about humanity, about men and women.
In this Matt King is blinded by the appeal of the self effacing language of these ministers. He asks, what would we do, tell scriptures to women? I don’t know, maybe that’s a start Matt. Shutting down stuff like I repeatedly reference at
http://hupotasso.wordpress.com/
Men need training to come against that. And when teaching against it fails, and it largely will because the toothpaste is out of the tube, men need to know they are empowered by God’s own words to deal with this demonic induced rebellion in other ways. Hell yes there is fallout after such things. Rainey and Lepine are afraid of the fallout in their homes and offices because they have built their entire ministerial lives on the sand of supplicating to women.
You can easily insert a new chapter in the book where Screwtape and Wormwood create men like Rainey through their manipulative tweaking and relish in the destruction of the family.
Stepping up is the right term for the right thing. Stepping down is what they are selling, however.
The wolves are too enamored by the almighty dollar to ever go after women sinful nature.
That’s why it is better if religious leaders live a life of poverty. When you have nothing to lose…you can go after women’s sinful nature with ease. And I bet after the first wave of anger they predictably will have…they will either come to appreciate it or take their demonic rebellion elsewhere. I call that a win-win.
Dalrock and some other commenters have asked how does one get his wife to be submissive. There has been a lot of advice given out in the comments, but I can relate my own experience.
I have been married for 32 years, and the first 25 were good and produced 7 children. Of the 6 living children, only one has left off the practice of Christianity. So I think my wife and I have not been total failures. She has always been a loving and generous mother.
The last 5 or 6 yours of our marriage have been just ghastly. I pulled back from divorce because of the way the divorce papers would be served. I just wanted to not live with her, I did not want to humiliate her. A major part of the problem was because I was just too beta, and let her take too much of the family and spiritual initiative.
The marriage is no longer ghastly, but is slightly better than tolerable, with increasing signs of progress.
SSM posted a link to ‘Family Life’ and #6 on the list was “Stop allowing the spiritual leadership of the family to default to your wife”. I quit praying with my wife because a lot the destructive things were because, “That’s how God wants it!”. I also got tired of competing with ‘boyfriend Jesus’.
Eventually, when I could start trusting God again, I started praying in earnest. I prayed to drive Satan from our marriage. Every morning and night, I prayed the Memorare. Protestants may choose some other prayer. Every time I feel hurt or angry remembering the past, I pray. If difficult situation arise when interacting with my wife, I pray first, to keep my temper and stay calm. Regular Confession is also a vital part of prayer.
Once I noticed Grace starting to permeate my life, I somehow knew what to do next, without thinking. Previously, I thought I was being a good Christian, who placed God in the right spot, but I was not. I discovered the importance of putting God first. I received a sign last Fall when she actually apologized for something. I could feel the bitterness draining from me like pus.
Until recently she was in the habit of not looking at me when I was speaking with her, and she would turn her back when speaking to me. Correcting her, pointing out it was rude and contemptuous just did not work. (Point #25 on the Family Life list). To correct this, whenever I spoke with her and she did not look at me, I would stop speaking in mid word. If she would speak to me without looking at me, I would say, “I can’t here you”. This led to more than a few explosions, shit tests and screaming fits. When I got tempted to fight back or yell, I would leave and pray again.
This habit is broken, because I did not correct, yell, complain or whine. By the Grace of God I was able to show leadership, and she followed. Another commenter has asked how can a man be a leader without a follower. Actually leadership comes first, even if no one follows. My wife spent a long time waiting for me to lead. She is not truly submissive but she is getting more respectful and affectionate.
Which leads to sex. Let’s admit guys, without it we do not feel loved, and we feel stifled from the love we would like to express. Point #33 on the family life list, says don’t make it a number. Pointing out that God expects husbands and wives to be of one flesh, and that husbands and wives are no to deprive each other doesn’t work. Women are solipsistic so it’s all about her, and beside they keep hearing how they are the spiritual ones.
What has worked for me is to always have a back up plan to do something that I want to do without her. Such as, bake cookies, cut the grass, go fishing, or walk to the pond to take wildlife pictures. My opening is to say something to the effect of ‘you need your wifely pleasures, and I am willing to make the sacrifice’. If she refuses, I execute the back up plan without her. I pray as much as necessary to show no hurt or anger. If she agrees, but goes into ‘starfish’ mode, I say something to the effect of, “I am not making this sacrifice if you are unwilling to receive it”. Execute the back up plan.
My marriage is still in the early stage of being restored, and failure is always possible. What has worked is, I became a follower of God. God’s Grace has permitted me to be a leader. My wife has started to follow.
@Earl,
“I bet if you probed hard enough…you’d find most guys that get divorced or live in an unhappy marriage had sex before marriage and/or had some form of birth control during marriage. That is terrible disrespect to their gender.”
Good insight. Thanks.
She plays a part in this mess…and so do men. Neither gender gets a pass.
I listened to a sermon this morning on the prophet Nathan confronting King David about his affair with Bathsheba, wife of Uriah (2 Samuel 12). The speaker pointed out that at the end of 2 Samuel 11, Bathsheba mourned for her dead husband (who was betrayed and killed by David so he could have Bathsheba), but that the mourning time was fairly short, given her enough time to move into the king’s palace, get married, and have David’s baby so that no one would know about the affair. In this account, Bathsheba was quite hypergamous and as lustful as David.
Food for thought.
However is that the best way to lead them?
Yes it is. Too much of modern culture is centered around women just as the feminist intended. This is all part of the rebellion. Women are not needed and they know it. They can be valuable if they choose to be through submission but will never be needed. (at one time the greatest compliment a man could give a woman is that he needed her)
“Seems like most guys round these parts want to take the easy way out on everything.
It’s a whole lot easier to blame all ills on women. Whether they be hers or yours. No reason to improve at all.”
This is a fall back to a comfort zone. Seems to me the easiest thing for a man to do is follow the woman with obedience to the churchian instruction and when it doesn’t work out it is the other guys that won’t join in. Get to call yourself Christian that way and tell yourself and others you are going to heaven. (man, I want some of that)
In the biblical context the fault lies with man in the legal law world the fault belongs with women the same as any man that voted in misandry. Every subject is two’s legal and spiritual and churchians, liberals, and assholes in general speak and argue across both. Cause of a lot of confusion and debate in the manosphere. Spiritual world and reality don’t always match but can be a good way for lies to hide in plain sight with truly good men standing tall for evil in there hearts knowing they are righteous because evil gave them status and at least on the outside a dutiful wife.
“Seems to me the easiest thing for a man to do is follow the woman with obedience to the churchian instruction and when it doesn’t work out it is the other guys that won’t join in.”
Well here’s some food for thought.
Is Mr. Churchian instructor married himself…or reliant on funds from women in the church. He might be a bit biased in his opinions.
The Catholic church got it right with the rule of the priests staying single and celibate. There isn’t any married female bias in their ears.
“Bathsheba was quite hypergamous and as lustful as David.”
And David could have prevented it all if he listened to his conscience and not his dick. All that would have happend is that Bathsheba would of had to deal with her hypergamy and lust. Men’s sex drive is the source of his rewards and the source of his destruction.
Takes two to tango…but the man pays for it more in the long run because he is the acting agent.
Holy crap, Earl, in which diocese do you reside?
I had a priest of the Fall River, Mass. diocese tell me that the verses on wifely submission are not read because they are responsible for so much domestic abuse!
My response was, “If the Word of God causes so much evil when heard by Mass going Catholic husbands, let us be grateful the gays haven’t heard it yet”.
Somehow, I haven’t been invited back to that men’s group.
“Holy crap, Earl, in which diocese do you reside?”
Midwest…some of the dioceses haven’t been as infected as the northeast ones. But even the priests are showing signs of not wanting conflict with others as well…I happen to have a priest that mentioned last night in a homily he loves it and that we should not be afraid of conflict.
After all it wasn’t all palms and roses for Jesus either.
In my experience, money is not the motivator for these seminars and programs; or even for churches and sermons in general. Their goal is to be praised and celebrated. Call it: Pastoral Game.
Women are more mercurial, so they are more willing to dole out praise without feeling like they are giving up power, or reducing their own esteem in the eyes of others. Most of the time these calculations don’t even occur: They just blurt out whatever is in their pretty little heads.
Men, though, are covetous and miserly with the power of respect. They tend to think it can be hoarded.
The cumulative effect then is that when you preach a sermon that’s tells men to “toughen up” everyone who stays is satisfied. Women praise it because: Hey, who couldn’t use tougher men? The men who respond to it do so because they don’t think the pastor is talking about them. He’s talking about their do-nothing uncle, lay-about brother-in-law, or that nerd from work. In the view of these men, the sermons serve to lower the respect of these other men; which raises their own estimations of themselves. Some men will realize that the pastor did in fact mean such a sermon for them, and they leave.
The overall effect is to create within the church a brand loyalty to a man-up message that everyone is buying–because the ones who aren’t went shopping somewhere else. The pastor interprets this brand loyalty as:
1) Personal validation. (They love me! They really love me!)
2) divine validation (Look how bountiful the Lord’s harvest is! Every time I preach the Word the people gather and rejoice!)
It’s an orgy of dysfunction because no one will play their roles. The men who are offended ought to be either manning up, or confronting a people-pleasing false gospel. The men who are pleased ought to be abashed, or freely giving respect to their fellow men. The women ought to keep their traps shut more because even when they think they’re doing something kind (by praising someone) they upset the spiritual pH balance of a church.
In my experience, money is not the motivator for these seminars and programs; or even for churches and sermons in general. Their goal is to be praised and celebrated. Call it: Pastoral Game.
Cane you are getting to be a bad mutha fucka. I remember when you first started commenting here. That is the greatest motivation there is.
Hahaha! Lets ask Matt King how his “Pastoral Game” is working for him. Well done Cane.
@Earl
I would agree, except you have been all over this board talking about how there is nothing to fear. Just lead her right and everything will work out. Yet you are, as I understand it, in your early thirties and haven’t married. A loudmouth armchair husband. Full of tales of bravery and overcoming fear which you haven’t actually done. If there was nothing to fear, why haven’t you married? Especially since you offer your father’s experience as your armchair husband bona fides:
If you don’t have the gift Paul references in 1 Cor 7, why haven’t you taken his instruction and married? You learned about leading a wife from your father, and you tell us there is nothing to fear about becoming a husband in today’s climate. At your age I’d been married 10 years. You come in here lecturing men who did accept responsibility, men who have skin in the game, about how easy what they have done is.
You lecture men who manned up, lead a wife and built homes and had children, some of whom then had their wife rebel and their children ripped away during the very same years you were shirking all responsibility:
You are a pip squeak. A punk. The very peter pan manboy the video is using to sell non threatening headship. This would be different if you came in a spirit of repentance, but you come full of pride to lecture those who didn’t shirk their responsibility instead. Come back when you have real responsibilities if you want to have an ounce of credibility lecturing those of us who do about real manhood.
@Cane
This is the lowest form of AMOGing. Striving for real accomplishment is one thing, but selling out your fellow man for female approval is cowardly and craven. Ironically when these men do this they frame it as courage. It takes no courage to throw husbands under the bus, especially those who are deeply flawed. Courage in that position would be to point out that the Bible still is clear that the flawed man is head of the family, and the wife’s obligation is to submit.
The worst of the men who do this are the ones in leadership, and typically they are husbands themselves. They sell out the men in the flock so they can ingratiate themselves with their own wife and the wives of the men they are betraying. But the next most craven group are the omegas circling around the camp looking for a shortcut to manhood. If they can best a man who actually built something, they think they can avoid having to put in the work and time. They talk loudly to all who will listen about how they would make a better husband if only given a chance. They think this will ingratiate themselves with the women, but they don’t understand that unlike with the man in an actual position of leadership the women all feel his cravenness in their gut. He is repulsive to them, just as he is to other men.
“If there was nothing to fear, why haven’t you married?”
Because I am only recently to the point where I am not afraid to get married. I had a lot of sin…and therefore a lot of fear. Because of that fear…I wasn’t good socially with women.
I had to go through a lot of repentance myself first. I took responsibility for my actions and seeked to clean them up. I’ve gone to confession weekly and I keep finding new things that I swept under the rug…but now I’m shining the light on. It seems most men want to keep their sins, pass the blame, and/or not address their problems. Perhaps it would behoove men to take the same path I take…and then their marriages would work for the better. Maybe even their wives would see that leadership and follow suit…scary thought I know.
I know my life is a lot better since I did this.
And now you resort to insulting me…for nothing more than me presenting a different perspective. I’ll will take your insults gladly. I didn’t know I had to be married to give advice on how to have a better marriage. I guess I should tell the priest his marriage preparation for couples is pointless.
Its not for money in the sense of profit motive. Its for resources to plow back into ever more of this “craven form of AMOGing”. It expands their fields to the expense of the crop of fruit that ought to be growing there. So, yes, money is involved, but the drive is still the female pandering.
Dalrock, I agree with what you’re saying here, but Dennis Rainey isn’t half as guilty as John Paul II and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church.
Yes, the Evangelical church does not teach headship the way it should. Yes, they have caved to the feminists and are afraid of their wives. Yes, they should be lampooned for it.
But in terms of influence on society, you’re straining at … well, not gnats, but maybe frogs.
The camel is the Roman Catholic Church.
[D: This isn’t a RCC vs Protestant issue. To frame it as such only stirs more division.]
D: having been an Evangelical and then a Catholic, I think you’re wrong about that. But it’s your blog so say what you like.
@Empath
The irony is in their cravenness to brag about how they as men know their duty is to lead women, they are leading the very women they so desperately want to impress into sin. In the end they aren’t just betraying the men God tells us are the rightful heads of the household, they are betraying the women as well. They are the new serpent in the garden, with all of their boasting about how they could do it better amounting to nothing more than whispering in the ears of unhappy wives:
Another commenter has asked how can a man be a leader without a follower. Actually leadership comes first, even if no one follows
—————
That’s me. And you’ve switched the goal post, leasderSHIP first is fine. LeadING does not occur until there is a follower of her own volition,. This is illustrative, these ministries focus exclusively on the “ship” and omit completely the “ing”.
Se must adopt a “ship” as well, call it followerSHIP.
Rainey et al have no way to tell men that without women finding out. So, they have this unhealthy outlet for their own leadership drive, and it is in leading men to oblivion. They get to feel all leader-y and stuff
Effectively those men are being led. They are not leading. They head up large organizations that have as the hidden BOD, the collective of evangelical feminists.
It’s a ministry manifestation of what Murrows book shows when he quotes the woman who said
“Men sit on boards, women run the church”
Substitute ministry for church and you’re done.
I had to go through a lot of repentance myself first. I took responsibility for my actions and seeked to clean them up. I’ve gone to confession weekly and I keep finding new things that I swept under the rug…but now I’m shining the light on. It seems most men want to keep their sins, pass the blame, and/or not address their problems. Perhaps it would behoove men to take the same path I take…and then their marriages would work for the better. Maybe even their wives would see that leadership and follow suit…scary thought I know.
——————–
Earl, you have the back of the jacket there for a new FOTF bestseller
Like I keep saying there is more going on here than feminism in the Church. It has rebelled at the headship of Jesus Christ, His sheep actually hear his voice and we have had generations of scoffers in the “Church” that tell us that we cannot know truly what our Head wants, that He really doesn’t speak to us, that we need not worship in Spirit and truth but instead as Empath says, our “Personal Jesus”. The real Jesus is masculine and He expects men and women to die to self. That is the gospel that has been discarded for this form of Godliness that we now see. These pastors are the epitome.
“This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”
(2Ti 3:1-7)
@earl, you deserve Dalrock’s rebuke and correction in full. Every last word of it. Talked a great game only for us to find out you haven’t lived it; you’re only going by your daddy’s example and your new-found faith. Next time you go to confession, you have a great sin to confess: the sin of pride and arrogance. As yet another devout Catholic who got thrown overboard, I find your words insulting. You haven’t been there, you have not lived through the truth behind the wedding cake jokes; it is not your place to lecture us on how “easy” it is. I’m throwing that word back at you because it is the word you used. Yes your faith, your Catholicism is a wonderful thing, by it together with your understanding of the nature of women, you can cut down the odds of it happening to you. But … you can’t cut them to zero, you can’t cut the work to zero, she isn’t always going to make it easy for you even if you pick well. Even the best women have their moments. They sure as heck won’t be easy moments.
A pastor I listened to many years ago once said “90% of the time, my wife is a good Christian woman who is everything a man wants in a wife …. but oh that other 10%”. I leave you to ponder that one while in the confession line.
@ Earl
You accomplished all of this with a good role model? How about those of us that didn’t have a good role model? Do you think it’s possible that waiting for 15 years of your majority to get married might actually have contributed to the problems you describe? One aspect of what you are saying seems to escape you, how does a man in his 30’s who hasn’t taken on the responsibilities of manhood get-off instructing anyone? Are you waiting until you are 40 to grow up? Get it all figured out at 70?
One thing most guys find out about masculinity early on is that their are talkers and there are doers, and that you should try hard not to confuse the two. That is because listening to the well meaning advice of talkers can get you killed while rubbing shoulders with doers might actually benefit you. One of the reasons that God has us in a place where we have agency is for us to exercise it, not sit around and talk about it.
My advice, start doing while you still can before you are a washed out old man full of regrets because you only dreamed about things rather than doing them. Quit being a piece of flotsam and start doing what God sent you here to do. You will start feeling better right away.
Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night. And he shall be like a tree planted by the rivers of water, that bringeth forth his fruit in his season; his leaf also shall not wither; and whatsoever he doeth shall prosper.
(Psa 1:1-3)
Note the verbs.
Pingback: The Shorter Matt King Matt | Lucius Somesuch
The question was posed earlier about how exactly did “you” step up in your marriage, as a man.
Well, let me toss my hat in the ring.
Married 20 years, kids, yes, christian faith, middle class education.
I followed the “norm” and married, I was near 30 before I bit….HUGE MISTAKE!!!
BUT… The Rubicon was crossed in bliss (ignorance), I was totally unaware of red/blue pills.
15 years into the marriage she turns in a big way and I have to assess what I will do….this by the way is when I found the man-o-sphere.
My inclination was to put my foot down and divorce. I brief chat with a lawyer and accountant revealed the financial holocaust I would suffer.
What to do?
1) I accepted her use of sex as a weapon and simple quit pursuing. This drove her insane. Women do believe their tender trap in magic, when I simply shrugged and yawned, she started to initiate A LOT!!!!!
2) I joined the you-go-girl chorus and got her educated and employed. If you are going to be in prison, at least it’s better if the food is good and bed soft.
3) I used my best force multiplier, father time. Men age like wine, women like milk. I stayed fit, and I openly flirt. Competition anxiety is the bomb. Accept facts guys, we are smarter than them BECAUSE we use logic, not emotion. Where I once had dread of bankruptcy, she now dreads spinsterhood.
4) MGTOW even in marriage…works wonders. She now runs to keep up. She works to be part of my life and plans. But the fact is, I just don’t care what she does.
5) I am a believer and put God and his law first. I don’t care what she does…she follows me of her own accord! win-win
6) I parent my child, I don’t care what she thinks….she follows…win-win
seems to work, things have radically changed for the better
Not only do you claim the knowledge of those led through the sacrament of marriage, but also of the sacrament of priesthood!
Are you sure you’re not a god?
Brother TFH:
I know you’re being sarcastic, but I’d argue that the Sunday Morning Nightclub is an aesthetic eyesore. Even us hellbound heretics and sinful unbelievers can cultivate and appreciate good taste.
The church (mosque, temple, etc) ought to return to being a place for manly networking, concentrating on self-improvement, introspection, and other higher things. Chasing tail is anathema to a healthy man in such a place.
Regards, Boxer
You do know that Paul’s letter is addressing state marriage, right? Cuz that’s what marriage is… a state institution. I’ve largely read those verses as a means of separating Christians from the world around them – be examples of Christ’s love for the Church and the Church’s submission to Christ so the world can witness that relationship.
———————–
Christina
I have missed this one somewhere along the line. So THAT’S what the deal is…….
@Buck,
You restated what I was trying to say. You put God first. You led and she followed. Re. flirting with other women, some would say it is disrespectful to your wife. They may be right, but no woman wants a man that no other woman wants. My wife used to confront me, but (thanks to Rollo and Roissy), I reframed.
Her: “You were flirting with that woman!”
Me: “What? Flirting? She obviously thinks that YOU are a fortunate woman.”
@TFH
I know exactly what you’re talking about. College campus ministries are full of beta guys and loose women who like not getting judged. They can have as much sex as they want with rugby players and get up and give a testimony about how they came out of sin (again for the 16th time) because they realized Jesus’ love was enough. They love the immersion baptism thing. I know there’s that story about Naaman getting his leprosy cured by bathing in the Jordan, but I don’t think all the holy water in the world could cure some of the cases of Hep these girls had.
One of them was pretty dead set on pursuing me. Something about her was off so I played nonchalant aloof until I had heard enough. She had these ridiculous subdermal piercings and a distaste for authority of any stripe. She also is apparently in a leadership position for them.
I’m probably the first one who would decry the passive-aggressive draconian blue-law type measures I’ve seen in most baptist circles where a guy who drinks recreationally on weekends, but churches need to pull aside their women and give them the speech.
Wear sleeves in church. We don’t want to see your leopard print bra straps. Wear decent underwear. We don’t want to see your thong peeking out of your jeans. Well we kind of do, but it’s a buzzkill when I’m hearing about controlling my lust. Actually, don’t wear jeans at all. Dress better than you would for work. God is more worthy of your time and appearance than your boss. We don’t care how “edgy” and “relevant” you are with your nose ring, subdermals, tattoos or any other assorted mods you have. Your vanity shows you are clearly not in a mature place to lead, and your wanton “rebellion” in acting like the rest of the world proves you’re incapable of following.
But then these women might get insulted and stop going. The money would dry up. It would be a short-term financial disaster. Long-term? Well the families who stayed would develop spiritually into incarnate representations of God’s blueprint with guidance, patience, virtue and a little love. The product the church is pushing would finally be different than the secular equivalent. People would notice.
Modern church is marketing. It’s a crap product because it’s essentially the same as the secular equivalent. All the church has is gimmick (sub-par rock bands, non-judgmentalism, mental comfort). It has nothing of substance to offer as an alternative to secular living. When we return to the blueprint Christ and the apostles left, the “product,” we won’t need to be relatable. People will see the benefits of Christian life and seek it because they genuinely want it.
hey dalrockassz!
should girls dump da gbfm?
lzozozozooozzloz
Well gee, guys – thanks for all the scripture references like I was speaking against male leadership on spiritual matters.
Deep Strength,
I ended up in a quick wedding with a great guy. He’s not a spiritual leader, though – not because he’s incapable, but because his life doesn’t revolve around it. While expecting our first child, we were looking for a church and this subject came up. Knowing that he isn’t in that mind frame (yet… hopefully someday) and wanting to raise our child in it from the cradle, I pointedly asked if he was willing to be the spiritual leader of our home. Sure, woulda been a great question to ask while we were dating… too bad I didn’t. I don’t dwell much on that anymore because it tends to lead to feelings I don’t wish to have concerning my marital state. I love my husband and will dissuade feelings of dissatisfaction.
He said he wasn’t. So there. I wanted it, he isn’t currently willing, but when he is, I will step back and let him do it. Until then, I will pray for him and continue teaching our children.
A follower happens to need a leader, too, you know.
Dalrock –
Thank you for your response. I am not a follower of happenings in this sphere by the evangelical church, so the politics behind SSM’s issue escaped me.
I dated a girl whose church openly mocked 1 Timothy 2:11-12 when it was read during worship services on Sunday morning. I asked her afterwards what she thought about it, and she told me it was a controversial verse. I told her the whole Bible is controversial, why is this verse any different? Her mom also did all the talking instead of her dad.
” I’m throwing that word back at you because it is the word you used.”
I never said it was easy. Incorrect statement.
@Christina
You are welcome, but I realized after I wrote my reply that I missed the obvious answer. After hearing Pastor Baucham preach Rainey expressed his discomfort at the idea of a male pastor preaching to women, as I quoted in the OP:
He isn’t comfortable with a man being a spiritual leader of women because of some unnamed crime he suggests men coincidentally committed at the exact same time as the beginning of second wave feminism. He reinforces this sentiment when praising the woman he has teach that submission means not submitting:
Yet the article on FamilyLife berates husbands for not being the spiritual leaders of their wives. I can only assume they mean husbands who aren’t men.
” One aspect of what you are saying seems to escape you, how does a man in his 30′s who hasn’t taken on the responsibilities of manhood get-off instructing anyone?”
I live on my own, pay my own bills, have a leadership position at work, volunteer at the church, am a productive member of society, and take care of my own affairs including my weaknesses….how is that not responsible manhood?
Tell me what great tales you have about responsible manhood?
“Next time you go to confession, you have a great sin to confess: the sin of pride and arrogance.”
I’ve confessed that before…as well as being an angry person. Those planks have been well documented in my eyes.
Anything else?
So far the best advice I’ve seen was this comment.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/the-sin-of-modern-christian-men/#comment-89914
I learned something there. Perhaps instead of trying to tear me down…you guys give that another read.
I can only assume they mean husbands who aren’t men
Cis or Trans?
@ RICanuck:
I very much appreciated reading your message dated August 18 at 10:30 am. In addition to my prayers, reading sincere positive messages of healing are ointment to my sometimes troubled soul. Thanx bro……
@ Earl
The pertinent aspect of manhood on Dalrock is marriage. If you want to talk about volunteering at the Church, paying your bills or being a productive member of society I’d be more than willing to listen to what you have some actual experience in. You are in your 30’s and are unmarried, this speaks volumes. I masculine trait I particularly admire (as I believe most men do) is the ability to not talk out of your inexperience or to put it in more crude but succinct language not talking out your ass. Men that talk out their ass that hang around other men are generally held in derision and have a few options, learn to take it, stop talking out their ass and learn something, leave, or continue to whine like a girl.
You are like a guy that is an expert fighter and has never taken a punch, or a wannabe miler who has never ran into “the wall” talking about how easy it is to break 4 minutes. You are ignorant of your own ignorance and somethings only first hand experience can provide. Having a good role model was good, being a man and taking care of your own business is also good, but somewhere in there you haven’t developed the gravitas and common sense not to talk out your ass. It shows.
I read that paragraph as saying the exact opposite of how Dalrock interprets it. “Poisoning the stream” (which I assume refers to the fallacy of poisoning the well) couldn’t possibly be something that the speaker considers a good thing, or even neutral. But then, that would mean that he thinks it is WRONG to think it objectionable. And, anticipating that some will still misunderstand it so that they think it indeed is genuinely objectionable, he stresses that he doesn’t apologize that they had a man preach such a message to a mixed audience.
So, the way I understand this is that he is pointing out that the listeners (especially women) will probably feel discomfort at the message, but that is only because the well has been poisoned decades ago and that they should try to consider it objectively, realizing that the feeling is due to a logical fallacy.
@Earl
“I live on my own, pay my own bills, have a leadership position at work, volunteer at the church, am a productive member of society, and take care of my own affairs including my weaknesses….how is that not responsible manhood?”
How is what you are doing any different than what any adult woman is capable of?
I’d also like to know how you define maturity? Either in the Bible or in creation.
Judging from this thread, you’d be well advised to go again ….
If you want to talk about how your faith has affected your single life and your perceptions of the available (Catholic) women, we’re all ears. The current objection to your comments is that you haven’t lived what you’re preaching and that shines brightly through your words. I don’t go there because I know darn well I still have much to learn.
I gotta go myself: I’ll save a place for you.
Leadership in the World of Earl
[Excerpted from this guest post by Earl (and subsequent comments): http://sunshinemaryandthedragon.wordpress.com/2013/06/18/dont-tell-me-what-to-do/ ]
“Don’t tell me what to do.”
“I had said Sit Down! to her because I had a great story to tell her. I didn’t say it in a threatening way…just with authority. Her words back to me were no fitness test; this came out of her mouth with bitterness.”
“Immediately what rushed into my mind was revulsion.”
“I also for the first time had a sense of what God feels when I sin: revulsion.”
“Since I have been given great insight from God and many of the bloggers around these parts (to which I say thank you), I’m not going to give up on this lady.”
[comment to Earl] “People tell each other to do this or that all the time, no one cares. But then, you said you told her to sit down ‘with authority’, which can mean many things. That can come off as annoying, if you haven’t actually established any authority.”
“My authority has been established…I’ve known her for a year. This wasn’t our first dust up either when it comes to my authority…but this was the first time she blurted out those words.”
“…this was my dance instructor. She actually gets paid to teach guys on how to lead by being a follower. The problem is her following isn’t all that great.”
“Which is why during some lessons I tell her I’m making her a better teacher. To be honest…she has made progress since we’ve started.”
“I’m not marrying her, dating her, or having anything to do with her outside of learning something I want to master. Part of the mastery process in dancing is becoming a good leader…with her I just extend it past the dance floor.”
[question to Earl] “… what is the basis for your authority given that she is the instructor and you are the student.”
“Because the man leads the dance and the woman follows.”
Lets instruct Earl. He is a bit naive and a lot over read. It is better he sit among married red pill men than he sit under the auspices of leadership from red pill women. And thats not to suggest SSM deems herself a leader, but no matter how right she may get things on technicals, he will not be challenged in a year as he has been here in a day
I commented on this latest thread to urge you to stop chasing phantom bogeymen. And for that you fashioned me into yet another bogeyman for the Two Minutes Hate. I’m flattered. You insist every alien idea be personified into a villain, a symbol. And then your ad hominem approach makes you believe an attack on the man refutes the idea. This is a womanish tendency, to confuse the representatives of abstract principles with the principles themselves.
You are doing it wrong.
I won’t, can’t, don’t care to stop you, friends. Your dedication to insider preciousness is more than I have the resources or inclination to oppose. I can only exhort you to scrutinize messages rather than lambasting individual men. Not because it’s more “fair” to them — I agree, “Deserve’s got nothing to do with it” — but because it will ultimately help you be more persuasive among the 99.98% outside of your super-sub-niche choir. You mention the talismanic words “Bill Bennett” and everybody is supposed to cackle like hens about what a feminist he is? Does. Not. Compute.
I am an implacable believer in your cause, no matter how poorly you represent it. I am one of your would-be allies. But this place is a noisome romper room: I expected Mr. Dalrock to be more equanimous, but he is reduced to Invasion of the Body Snatchers-like squawking, now calling Earl names; and no “manosphere” farce is ever complete without an appearance by Rollo Tomassi and his recycling of old material and personal invective.
Whatever the truth you are attempting to promote, your message delivery is worse than ineffective. It is actively beneficial to the very enemies you seek to engage and presumably neutralize. You have devolved into a witch-hunt committee, turning over every rock to find foibles in would-be friends rather than gathering imperfect men to a common-cause that would address our mutual enemy at the gate.
I am glad to have become acquainted with Earl, who not only has the patience to deal with you, but also exhibits the kind of balance men will need to reverse this slow-motion cultural cataclysm. But he’s not perfect!!! You can only look at him and condemn him for the impertinence of strategic disagreement. I am glad for his presence, one of the ten for whose sake God will not destroy the millennial Sodom of our culture.
If you continue to think my criticism is somehow related to an “emotional” response (I flatly do not get this accusation), or a cryptofeminism, or some sort of personal loyalty to Bennett or Driscoll or this new fellow I never heard of and couldn’t care less about, Pastor Whatsit Whosit, you are overestimating yourselves. It’s not enough to be right, brothers. It’s not enough to preach until you magically penetrate the Babel barrier between your cult and the uninitiated. You also have to be somewhat skilled in the art of coalition building — yes! even among the dishonest and prevaricating people not yet as enlightened as thou.
But I now realize that this is a kaffeeklatch for men, to gather and blow off steam, to say the same ten things over and over to each other, to console yourselves for remaining utterly impotent against this tumorous culture. Yeah, I can see why you’d hate me for emptying out your kool aid bowl onto the carpet. “A little poison now and then: that makes pleasant dreams. And much poison at last for a pleasant death.”
I’m not deterred by your reactive condemnations and dyspeptic fits. It requires a morsel of substance to get my attention, but you seem to have abandoned the project of substantive discovery some moment shortly after you stumbled upon your first precious nugget of wisdom. And you hold on tight to that little treasure, afraid to expose it to the elements of criticism for fear of scuffing it or losing it. The buried talent, as it were (Matt 25:14-30). I can see now that you are not getting it, nor are you likely to get it anytime soon. A waste of good intentions, a misdirection of frustration. A minor tragedy.
So there’s one more feminist-enthralled pastor in the world, one more hypocrite, one more villain. What are you doing about it, besides bitching your own ears off about it ad infinitum?
Matt
You insist every alien idea be personified into a villain, a symbol. And then your ad hominem approach makes you believe an attack on the man refutes the idea. This is a womanish tendency, to confuse the representatives of abstract principles with the principles themselves.
The individual brings the idea, your chronology is off by 180. It is the principle we oppose, not the person. If he catches derision its a side effect, not by design. How can you not see that
Matt, you’re an insider in your own head. How is defining and addressing heresy to be compared to “Two Minutes of Hate”? Men are supposed to take the high pitch whinings of what Jesus described as hirelings at face value? We are “paranoics” if we believe that Satan has a plan for the body of Christ and that he wants greater than 50% of us to be foolish virgins failing to fill our lamps with the oil of the Holy Spirit but instead with the vomit of Churchianity? How should we respond to “alien ideas” when we know by the fruit of them that they are the doctrines of devils, by embracing them with the sophistication that you espouse?
How about we identify our fellow men, exhort them to be strong and warn them to eschew the sophistry you demonstrate and the emasculated brand of X-tianity of your mentors over in Driscoll-land? That seems like a rational start.
Bah, that last sentence in the first paragraph should read:
How should we respond to “alien ideas” when we know by the fruit of them that they are the doctrines of devils. By embracing them with the sophistication that you espouse?
Even so, Empath beat me to the trigger.
it seems an odd fixation that, no matter the topic, King is concerned that we are not walking alongside these men and calmly discussing some common ground that doesnt exist. He nods to the futility of addressing the females, then buys heavily into how these men will come around and that we are mean and hanging the problems on the men
Mr. King, if you believe that there is no value to keeping a familiar list of the names promoting misandry, you are sorely mistaken. I’m not into low church or non-denominational myself, but surely this kind of thing can even work its way even into a liturgical church’s culture. By coming to @Dalrock’s blog you are inoculating yourself against the feminist creep. No matter how many disparaging and frantic words you write to the contrary…
Best regards,
A.J.P.
Matt, write us an outreach opener, a paragraph of potential dialog, the olive branch, whatever, that would have them actually engage, then, more importantly, have a clue what we are saying. because most if not all of them are covered in the artificial reality they made
I’m waiting for your pearls of wisdom, I Art. You seems to have fun poking holes in what I say…perhaps you can bring something to the table.
Also, considering that Dalrock’s blog is that I have drawn a lot of real life value from the manosphere. When I go into my every day life it is good to have clear thoughts and have a rational approach to feminism. Matt’s insistence that we do nothing “kafeeklatch” here is just a form of straw-manning wherein he pretends that we never apply anything we learn here in our daily lives and so he can reduce the entirety of our lives to a few comments made on the internet is a window into his own solipsism, a projection of his own vain sophistry.
Nice try Matt. What are you doing here if this is nothing more than a waste of time? Is sitting and listening to Mark Driscoll screech “How dare you?” a better use of men’s time?
” It is better he sit among married red pill men than he sit under the auspices of leadership from red pill women.”
So far all I’ve learned from married red pill men is that I should bitch, whine, and blame women or manginas for all my ills. And if someone disagrees with my worldview I should insult and put down that person.
Oh yeah and if I haven’t experienced it personally…then I don’t know it. Sounds like solipsism. I’ve already learned all this from women.
@Earl
” You seems to have fun poking holes in what I say…perhaps you can bring something to the table.”
By implication you are suggesting that I haven’t already. The first thing I brought to the table specifically for you is advice that you cease from emitting “information” from your rectum. That was apparently a waste of my time.
Surprising how much urging, ideas and abstract principles can fit in mere two words: “Damnable cynicism”. Totally unlike the ad hominem approach of these other people.
@Earl
You equate solipsism with experience and act like your doody is profound.
@ I Art…
So you have none. Your method of discussion is to tell people to quit talking. You’ll go far in life with that attitude.
Read this again…this is how you will get my attention. Until then…you are nothing more than a hater.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/the-sin-of-modern-christian-men/#comment-89914
Earl even your gravatar adds to the tone. yes, Ive no room to point out how gravatars look.
Matt says we have a kafeeklatch, but the image the term invokes is more akin to his manner of writing/speaking. To take apart a ministers words and expose harmful effects, to hold then said minister accountable, and to call upon him to step back and re-look at the world is far from beauty parlor gossiping. Matts are the most sophisticated admonishments Ive evr seen that, when distilled, are not unlike those who pick apart the splling and grammer of others
Earl….what about that got your attention? tell us what we have to work with here.
@Earl
So I’m horrible because I tell a person who claims to be a man that men don’t speak out of their inexperience and get away with it. You mistake that to mean that I am telling you to “shut up” when in fact I am not. I specifically told you I’d be more than willing to listen to you (or read in this case) if you had something to share based on something you’ve actually had experience with. Yet, I am still a hater because I have given you the advice any man that gave a crap about you would give you.
Instead, what you insist on getting from me is a specially tailored method of tickling your precious ears and barring that YOU WANT ME TO SHUT UP! Sorry princess.
“Earl even your gravatar adds to the tone. yes, Ive no room to point out how gravatars look. ”
Glad he got your attention.
http://www.ewtn.com/library/MARY/kolbe2.htm
“Earl….what about that got your attention? tell us what we have to work with here.”
He’s married…he took responsibility for his actions…keeps his emotion in check with the help of prayer…he’s relying on God…his wife is starting to follow. Things are slowly improving.
I’m single…I took responsibilty for my actions…I’m keeping my anger in check…I’m praying…I’m relying on God…my life is slowly improving.
“Instead, what you insist on getting from me is a specially tailored method of tickling your precious ears and barring that YOU WANT ME TO SHUT UP! ”
You got nothing or you would have said something.
It’s just more of @earl trying to push the papacy on Christian believers.
Earl, what you fail to accept is that men have told you today what you didn’t want to read but you needed to. You are acting like an immature brat that needs a spanking because you simply won’t pull in your itty-bitty horns and acknowledge the validity of that advice. If you came on a job site with that mentality you would be taking a quick trip to the E.R.. Sometimes men will only warn a new guy once and then let natural consequences take over form there, most times they won’t repeat themselves and if they have to they certainly will make sure not to sugarcoat it. Asking for sugarcoating is a sure sign of a sucker, critiquing the flavor of the sugarcoating is evidence of a brat, arguing with the warning and the chastisement is an indication of a fool.
A reproof entereth more into a wise man than an hundred stripes into a fool.
(Pro 17:10)
“It’s just more of @earl trying to push the papacy on Christian believers.”
That’s funny…I don’t remember pushing Francis or any of his previous cohorts on here.
But I do find it amusing what people around her think I’m trying to do. It can’t possibly be that I am just passionate about my faith. I learned that from Protestants.
@matt king, “the two minutes of hate” was used in the book 1984 as a means to expend the pent up sexual energy that was caused by big brother ruining the relationships between men and women. big brother didnt want men and women putting energy in eachother but rather wanted all energy used for the state. please understand a book before u quote it over and over. I am unmarried also and cannot add a whole lot to the discussion but be man enough to realize that you may not know everything. Use your understanding of the two minutes of hate as an example. u may want to try reading through the classics.
@ I Art…
I’m still waiting for your experience or wisdom so that I can be a fool. Why else would I be here?
Don’t you get it I Art…I’m getting into a fight and I want to lose. I want you to hit me as hard as you can.
Insulting me…doesn’t matter. My feelings or emotions don’t matter.
Hit we with some wisdom, brother.
I nominate earl for “Troll of the year 2013”
Yes, Earl they clearly do, because unless I tailor whatever message you may need to hear to you as it suits you then I am simply a “hater”. Part of being a man is taking your lumps when you’ve earned them. I admit to being wrong ALL of the time.
Open rebuke is better than secret love. Faithful are the wounds of a friend; but the kisses of an enemy are deceitful.
(Pro 27:5-6)
Here goes: “Women’s rebellion only happens because a strong man isn’t there to guide her. ”
So was God unjust when He declared punishment upon Eve AND ALL women based on her rebellion?
Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
(Gen 3:16)
If all of her actions could be laid on the feet of a weak Adam, why didn’t all of the punishment fall upon him alone?
Furthermore, if the woman cannot rebel when a strong man is their to lead her what can be said about God in respect to rebellious Israel who He repeatedly declares is a harlot?
The beginning of the word of the LORD by Hosea. And the LORD said to Hosea, Go, take unto thee a wife of whoredoms and children of whoredoms: for the land hath committed great whoredom, departing from the LORD.
(Hos 1:2)
Are you suggesting that God isn’t a strong enough leader to keep His people from rebelling? What hope do mere mortals have?
I have some wisdom for you, Earl.
This is the kind of tone for which you have to earn the right to use. If you say it as a man who has been married thirty years to a man who has been married five, fine. They may disagree, but at least it is not ridiculous on its face.
But when you pontificate like this as a never-married to men who are married, you come across like a little child who is very sternly correcting adults – even if the kid happens to be right, you still can’t quite take the scene seriously.
And THIS is what the fight is about. Not the mere fact that you disagreed.
I know Earl, you fancy yourself as some kind of Catholic saint, why not do what the prophet of God Hosea did and demonstrate for all of us idiots what truly strong leadership can accomplish by going out and marrying a crack-whore. Send us updates.
Any chance this thread will get off of earl and discuss Dalrock’s point?
Sorry, Crowhill.
@Earl. Could you maybe demonstrate what a bad man that Uriah the Hittite was by serving King David loyally to his death? How else could Bathsheba have rebelled unless Uriah was at fault?
lzoozozlzlzol
hye i wa son da youtubesz wathcing muilye cuyrus twerkingz miley cyrus twerkinzg and i came acrossz a video about the adventurez da MATT KINGZ and EARLZ went onz!!
zlzozoozzozoz
“But when you pontificate like this as a never-married to men who are married, you come across like a little child who is very sternly correcting adults – even if the kid happens to be right, you still can’t quite take the scene seriously.”
Fine…read this.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/the-sin-of-modern-christian-men/#comment-89914
“I know Earl, you fancy yourself as some kind of Catholic saint.”
Another assumption that is completely wrong.
“Another assumption that is completely wrong.”
Another deflection by the princess that wants to “get hit”. Missing the point on purpose is the architecture of the sophist. Don’t say you didn’t have your chance.
And the statement of a strong man to guide her…I admitting being wrong when it comes to a man being at fault because she sins.
But a man is certainly at fault for his own sins. And he could provide an example to her on how to get rid her sins…by getting rid of his sins first.
“Another deflection by the princess that wants to “get hit”. Missing the point on purpose is the architecture of the sophist. Don’t say you didn’t have your chance.”
Please tell me where I said I was a saint. I’ve spent most of my time here telling how much of a sinner I am and was.
“Fine…read this.”
Doesn’t begin to explain your assertion that women ONLY rebel when they are not lead by strong men. Only means that if one in the entirety of history rebelled against strong leadership that you are wrong. That explains well the deflections of a coward whose mouth overloaded their ass and the reason cannot back down accounting for their childishness. We expect this nonsense from an adolescent.
“Please tell me where I said I was a saint. I’ve spent most of my time here telling how much of a sinner I am and was.”
How about you address the main point, you know the one that extended over several posts and paragraphs instead of pedantically clinging to a throw away quip?
Fine, you know you are a sinner and don’t fancy yourself a saint, I was wrong.
See how easy that is?
Well there was one woman in history that never rebelled against strong male leadership. I guess the optimist in me could see that type of woman be possible in the world.
But it would be easier to say that women will do nothing but rebel so I shouldn’t even try to change her for the better…and you’d be right.
“How about you address the main point, you know the one that extended over several posts and paragraphs instead of pedantically clinging to a throw away quip?”
That because I’m not married…I don’t know what I’m talking about.
Yeah it’s easy.
Leave Earl alone; he needs time to process what he has heard – he’s just getting more defensive.
Back to Dalrock’s article: we need to institute manhood rituals for young men going to church, something involving physical and mental prowess individually, and in a group – something for the generations coming up – that brings out manly virtues in them. Ideas?
Give them a pocket knife a great big woods and a summer. If they come out of it weighing more than Chris McCandless we congratulate them with an all expense paid trip to a monastery. When society gets their feminism issue sorted out we give our daughters the address to the monastery.
@Marlon
There is the bar mitzvah which may be a measure of intellectual prowess that we may learn from the jews. There may be days of wilderness dwelling akin to a temporary spartan lifestyle for the boys led by a wise men where by the campfire he reads them scripture and he imparts biblical manhood on them. There they are discipled by men.
@earl
He listed all the things he does, but reading the Bible didn’t seem to be there. I wonder as a Catholic he does not realize he needs to read the Bible to discuss it?
>>I didn’t know I had to be married to give advice on how to have a better marriage.
Why would you not need to be married to tell married men how to be married? Dalrock did not insult you. He described you.
By the way, Earl, a rarely known statistic for you and your comment about priests giving marital advice. Priests who leave the church and marry have the highest divorce rate of any recognizable group. Priests actually give lousy advice for marriage, much as you do.
@Matt Minter, do you actually use the words “noisesome'”, ”talismanic” and “kaffeeklatch” in your general conversations with coworkers and friends? Because you sure as shit don’t use terms like “dyspeptic fits” when you’re ministerially consoling Feministix about her preoccupation with Alpha guys on damn near every comment thread on her blog.
You’re a joke Matt, and all it took was red lingerie, a camel toe and your savior schema to suss it out.
Buck
That is male headship. Just handle your business and she will come along on her own free will. No woman wants to be a spinster if her ex husband has bitches on his jock. Outstanding comment and one any Christian man should heed over some churchian pussy worshipping garbage.
@Earl
This comment is as bad as the one about being a priest. Mary mother of Jesus was one of a kind; picked from all history, and STILL had the extreme dispensation of having original sin blocked in passage from her parents[1].
[1] According to Roman Catholic teachings.
You think your transgression is that you’ve said something that others disagree with. In fact it’s that you opened your mouth at all. You, among married men discussing married men things, are to play the son’s/woman’s role: Shut your mouth and listen hard because you are in a position of less authority.
You are like the women I described above who say things under the guise of meaning well, but really just because they can’t stand to be quiet; afraid they will be overlooked.
This is what Dalrock meant by “armchair husband”. I don’t care how good a man’s fantasy football score is and how bad a team’s play is: Nothing gives that man the right to storm into the team’s lockerroom and tell them what’s up. Even if he’s right. However right he might be, he is wrong because he is not one of them.
However; our game is bigger than a stadium and longer than a lifetime. So under the banner of solidarity, charity, and tradition we allow we allow and welcome initiates and candidates to participate in the discussions. As long their comments are respectful: They get encouraged.
You’re not respectful, Earl. You never have been. You’re subservient to the point of embarrassment to whomever you think the cool kid in the room is (CH, SSM, Rollo most of the time, Dalrock most of the time), but you demand to be not only treated as an equal, but heard as an equal…when you simply are not. This undermines the whole learning process; for you, those who you could teach you, and for everyone around you.
@Rollo
Thanks.
Matt King’s comments at FemX were enlightening. I am blessed/cursed with a long memory, so it’s always curious to compare what people say–and how they say them–on different sites. It’s one thing to get caught in a contradiction (these things happen), but a whole other to Matt King one place and Carlos Danger in another.
You and I often do not agree, but we disagree in the same ways even in different places.
Pingback: The Longer Matt King Matt | Lucius Somesuch
Stepping Up™Softly
The name Stepping Up™ is from the book by Dennis Rainey. Jay-Z calls his process ‘Rain Man’ flow.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/home/you/article-2394446/With-biological-clocks-ticking-broody-adults-like-Rachel-finding-new-way-bring-baby-dreams-life.html
Dang, Mr. Caldo! I am disappoint. I consider you one of the leading lights here (though I sometimes confuse you with that Corishev fellow), just as I respected Mr. Dalrock himself for bringing a measure of disinterest and equanimity to these often tightly-wound controversies. How the idols fall. “Put not your trust in princes, in a son of man, in whom there is no help.”
I don’t want to come off as defensive in the least, so let me emphasize that there is not a jot or a tittle I’d change in my correspondence with FeministX, especially since ankle-biters like Mr. Tomassi have taken to waving it around like telltale underwear every chance they get. I am happy to provoke, though why they think my exchange with her is significant remains mysterious (if not particularly interesting) to me.
Do you not love your brothers and sisters? What does that love look like? How does the action of caritas appear in the world? How would it appear on this crude social simulacrum of the internet? I make no claims to being a perfect or even particularly good Christian — “And I am the foremost of sinners” (1 Tim 1:15) — but this is how I attempt to apply Christianity.
This is how I “go forth and preach the Gospel.” This is why I participate in this He-Man-Woman-Hater-o-sphere at all. I know my execution sucks; I know it is a poor imitation of the Master. Help correct me and make me better. But what’s with the awful secular interpretation of my motives? I have to conclude you do not take the power of the Holy Spirit where it is needed most; you are theoretical clinicians rather than corpsmen bring medicine to where the deadly sins are. Your theologizing is an essential vocation too. But what is this hate for the missionary effort all about?
In Christ,
Matt
It is a shame when men must spend more time defending themselves than defending their ideas.
Most of the time these calculations don’t even occur: They just blurt out whatever is in their pretty little heads.
I know you just said that we should shut up but I’m still chiming in to let you know that I LOL’d at that.
Well actually, I smiled a little than stopped (SALTS).
Pingback: Christian Women in Revolt
I think it was a bit much with the dialog with Earl and Matt King. The commits do show what happens when you build a house on a foundation of false hoods. I do not doubt the sincerity and strength built on a loose foundation. The whole point of the last two OP of Dalrock show how flawed a churchian base is. I remember when some regular commenters here where comment from that same base an over time they have become red pill with a Christian foundation. A christian man with game is the most powerful man in the room. Bucks Comment was the best comment of the day for a married Christian man (https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/08/17/the-sin-of-modern-christian-men/#comment-89948)
I’m married 13 years with 3 kids and I’ve been in the MGTOW as a married man not as effective as commented but I have completed the last thing I needed to do to insure the long term well being of the household of lives. It is interesting with what was learned here over the years and watching the lives of people around you and slowly changing behavior with a focus on long term benefit. God does seem to step in.
Blow harder Matt. A few more 5 dollar words will surely convince us of your massive superiority and the error of our ways. Trying to dazzle people with sophistication didn’t work, have any other tricks?
lozozolzlzolzo
a funny thing to note is dat because Earl and King write no blog, they can only feel bigger by tearing Dalrock down, even thoughz jealousy is da rpimest eldest curse in abel vs cain zlzllzlzol
here is da GBFM’s breakdownz of matt kingz & earl’s general idiocizy and faux scholarshizpz z;zpz
General Earl comment: “everyone here should man up like me and women will follow naturally. although i am not married and do not date, today i was at the grocery store, buying my own groceries as i often do because that is the manly way to buy fgroceries, and when it came time to pay, the cashier ( a female) said “the total is $53.74.” as i pay my own bills, like a man, i took out my wallet and lead the cashier by handing her $55. she responded to my Godly leadership and gave me $2.26 in change. when she said “paper or plastic” i provided Godly leadership and said “paper” in my Godly, dulcet tones, thusly ministering unto her, fulfilling Christ’s testament “ask and ye shall receive.” If everyone here could only man up like me and lead women as i do, all your marriages would last and the families would be saved–all the aborted babies would come back to life, and all the anti-male laws would immediately disappear from our courts. trust in God, go to confession, pay your bills on time, and women will naturally follow as shown above. Stop your complaining, lead women as I do, and all will be well.”
General Matt King comment: “non sequitur, red herring, quote from bartlebies sans context, attempted insult, pause to scratch butt and sniff, random chest thumping, mental/verbal masturbation, asinine conjecture, Shakespearean saying which makes absolutely no sense in his endless sentence, illogical fallacy, random h8, hackneyed expression with no context, cliche, wordpress code for bold italics, meaningless declaration in bold italics, Shakespearean quote out of context, pause to tell wife he will take out the trash in a few minutes, cliche from thesaurus, biggest word he could think of so as to confuse the issue, cliche with no context, scholarly quote from bartlebies without context, bizarre accusation, empty condescension wrapped in words nobody ever uses, attempted insult, red herring, asinine conjecture contradicting previous conjecture, insult from the 80s, call on others to man up like him, mental/verbal masturbation,hackneyed expression with no context, cliche, cliche, attempted insult, asinine conjecture, hatred on men and mankind, scholarly quote from bartlebies without context, pause to scratch butt and sniff, attempted insult, red herring, wordpress code for bold italics, asinine conjecture contradicting previous conjecture, mental/verbal masturbation, biggest word he could think of so as to confuse the issue, apology to wife for not having taken out the trash yet.”
lzozozozzozlolzz
I was thinking more about the married priests. When we get old, 30 or 40 years of our life seems short, which at times causes us to confuse when something happened. So, I do not remember when those articles on the high divorce rate of priests were printed. I am guessing pre-Internet.
They did a study on married priests. Many of them said, “When I told married couples to use abstinence as the only moral birth control, I had no idea of the strong feelings between a man and his wife.” Yeah, I don’t suppose they did. Thus, useless advice.
Others, perhaps already divorced, admitted they simply could not make the change from being God on the planet to being a partner of a women. All their life before marriage was, “Yes, Father No, Father. Right away, father.” Their words were treated as divinely inspired. Then to be married where they actually were dealing with a wife on her terms? Yeah, it didn’t work out really well.
That wonderful marriage advice given by priests in pre-marital counseling is actually to some extent hypothetical, not practical, for the reasons I have just listed. Also, it may well be a training course they took in seminary, developed by committees including married people. It does not prove a priest knows anything about being married.
Off topic, sorry, but not sure how to communicate it to Dalrock.
Maybe 20 years ago, I attended a non-denonminational Fundamentalist church.
One day in Sunday school, the teacher (I now realize a heretic) told us a man should NEVER interrfere with a mother’s discipline. Having had this discussion over many years, I promptly asked, “What if she is violently abusing the child?”
He said, “Nope! Never correct her in front of the children. Later, when you are alone, tell her you do not approve of that.”
Yes, they are that stupid in churches. I admit I was very offended, for reasons of personal shame.
My first wife was an abuser. One day she got angry at our little girl, and started pounding on her. This was in the 70’s. I tried to get her to stop, and she screamed at me, if I interefered with her discipline, she would file for divorce and I would not get to see the kids at all. Which even in the 70’s was obviously true.
That was when she still had me down and out with her constant emotional abuse, and I did not have the will power to do much more. So, I ended up not doing anything, when defenestration was the correct response to that violence against a small child.
I have had other discussions of this type with women as well. Anyone who says a father is not supposed to take immediate and direct action to stop a woman who is engaged in violence against a child is evil.
advice all prietestz should give:
to her: no buttcocking before, after, or during mariregas. no ginacockingsz with anyone other den your husbandsz before, after, or during mariregas.
to him: honor god and show godly leadership. be kind. watch out that the legal system doesn’t get you through your bungholzozizlzo and seize your children and assettztz. in fact, until they reform the laws, i recommend that you do mnot marieesz lzlzozzlzoz. after all, there is no penalty if your wife butcocksa nad ginacocks with redmm dudes before during and after marriegwas.
dis has been a GBFM sermonzz lzozlzozlzl AMENEZ! lzozozozl
Well, it’s hardly surprising that a man who broke one very serious set of vows would have trouble with another. I’ve met a few ex-priests and ex-nuns, and every one was pretty loony. Good priests who follow traditional teachings can give good advice on marriage (or anything else), because they start with a good foundation and learn a lot about the reality of it in the confessional. Of course, they wouldn’t give “Just lead her better and it’ll all work out” advice to a man with a rebellious wife, either.
The irony of all this is that men today DO need to man up in a lot of ways: we need to man up and lose weight, man up and take our government back from the totalitarians, man up and take our male-only spaces back from the feminists. There is a need for men to challenge each other to do better and call each other out when we slip, which has nothing to do with women.
Of course that’s just the opposite of what these Churchian preachers mean by it; they just mean, “Work harder, don’t complain, and serve women more.” They believe what every blue-pill teenage boy with a crush believes — “If I’m just devoted to her enough, I’ll win her love” — except that they extend it to marriage and to society at large: “If we can just get men to treat women right, they’ll be happy and loving and faithful and motherly and everything will be roses.” But the opposite is true: men already serve women too much, and in the wrong ways. We stopped holding the car door for them, but we started letting them drive and pick out the family car instead! We changed every institution to try to make it more comfortable for women, right down to pink ribbons on football players. Many men are even forced to go on serving their wives financially even after their wives have divorced them. Men have become nothing but servants to their wives and to women in general — which is their main problem. Any “man up” advice worth hearing has to start with opposing that, because you can’t be much of a man in any real sense if your biggest concern is herding women’s emotions.
Heheh,..apparently it looks a lot like this:
http://feministx.wordpress.com/about/
Amongst all of your self-righteous indignation with the manosphere it’s interesting how your Christian charity, love and forgiveness begins here.
I’m not the only one waving underwear around,..
@ Matthew King
“I don’t want to come off as defensive in the least, so let me emphasize that there is not a jot or a tittle I’d change in my correspondence with FeministX, especially since ankle-biters like Mr. Tomassi have taken to waving it around like telltale underwear every chance they get. I am happy to provoke, though why they think my exchange with her is significant remains mysterious (if not particularly interesting) to me.”
Your exchange with her is significant because it surprised even me, and I started with a quite low opinion of you.
Since I never bother with the likes of FeministX, I always thought that you were just an over-educated, under-intelligent, self-important, pompous blowhard, who uses too many words in great circles to say nothing much, and who is always demanding that everyone else live inside his head.
But now I see that you are exactly what the always incisive Rollo Tomassi said: “a more moralistic and over-puffed version of Mark Minter”.
My image of you now is that of a silly man, imagining himself a wise wizard, while eagerly rimming FeministX, as she gazes longingly into the distance, fantasizing about her Indian Male 10.
Dalrock,
I agree with everything you said. And all the points you have made in the article are spot-on, and none of it matters.
As long as there are full-time Pastors who make a living (and a good living at that) from Protestant churches, and as long as women control the spiritual direction of their households (the women pick the church) then this will continue. It must continue. Pastors (be they televangelists or a small-town Congregation) need to make the WOMEN happy because the women pick the church, not the men. And the women are going to pick the church that makes them feel better about themselves and their own gender. Yes, that is how you get pro-Abortion Protestant congregations even.
If a Pastor starts preaching that a good Christian wife needs to be submissive to her husband (and starts quoting scripture to that end) the Pastor jeapordizes his earning power in two ways: #1) the church might take a vote to fire their Pastor or (more likely) #2) people will simply stop coming to the church and take their tithes with them. If women aren’t happy in a Protestant church, there are 10 other Protestant churches down the street, anyone of them will do so long as the Pastor says what the wife wants to hear.
So OF COURSE Pastors are going to shame men. Of course they are, there is no financial risk in shaming men. There is only financial reward (as that brings in the wives which brings in the money), never any risk. Now before the people on this blog go off the handle saying that you all left your churches because your Pastors did exactly what some of these guys did in shaming the men, just know that you are such small percentage of Christians that you don’t count. There are not enough of you to matter and as Tucker Carlson says with regards to Dr Helen’s book…
…there are a lot more White Knight husbands (many mutltiples more) than there are men in the manosphere. We are drastically outnumbered. And we are drastically outearned. So no one will care Dalrock.
@Matt
No idols have fallen in your mind. What you are calling idols are mirrors. When we fail to show you what you most want to see, you reject them. Your idol is still perfectly intact.
It does not look like your online persona. I can absorb the five-dollar-words, sophistry, etc. for which you have already been mocked. Sometimes I even appreciate them. What I can’t bother with is your doublemindedness and your forked tongue. You argue against disagreement. You weisenheim against sarcasm. You rant against those who rail. Sometimes those things are necessary. What’s really damning is that you only praise when you are about to condemn; if not the object of your adulation, then as opportunity to attack another.
This is rubbish; practically and theologically. There is no biblical prescription in which God sends forth hate-minded choke-fuckers (your words about yourself) to minister to harlots. Fathers, husbands, and older women are to instruct young women; not young men. All Christians are to keep themselves holy and above reproach. In this way will sinners be drawn to them; which is to Christ. Christians are to keep themselves holy, but your ointment has a fly in it before you even charge in. You are aware of this; which leaves no conclusion but that your motives are more about flies and injecting your own balm, than healing anyone.
Even if you were acting in earnest, the game is “seek and ye shall find”; not, “Throw your pearls before swine”.
All in all, I take your interactions as Satanic, and not Christian. As you introduced St. Paul’s epistles to Timothy, let’s return to them. Not all of it applies to you, of course (no one is a total failure); so I’ve only highlighted the portions that seem relevant about how you reveal yourself online.
@greyghost
I think, if you look back you’ll see that my core message is still the same, and that my original question (How is Game, for the Christian man, not a call to man up and marry those sluts?) is still unanswered, and I am convinced it will remain so because it is. From the Christian perspective we are all idolators; which the God over and over again equates with adultery. When men marry, it is to wash a wifer with the water of the Word; which means she is dirty. The fact that you value (or I) value fidelity to ourselves above fidelity to God only speaks to our shortsightedness, and our own duplicity. We witness against ourselves, and the horror of it all should provoke our own submission to God. It has a happy ending in eternity, but it is a very black comedy with a cast of very complicated characters and interactions.
Then, just as before, that is not a command to marry, but to understand for what project it is to which we are signing if we do so.
+1 Cail Corishev.
Adding on to that: any advice to men must be realistic in terms of effects to be expected. Talking with married men, or men in LTR’s, about Game one has to include “And when you apply some of this, she’s very likely to behave worse in the short term”. Some of the men who have posted here over the last 2 to 3 years can testify on that. Getting a woman from various forms of rebellion – overt, covert, etc. – to submission almost certainly will involve a stage of management. Managing her all but inevitable pushback against any instruction, managing her fits of temper when she’s told “no”, managing her sullen pseudo-compliance, and so forth. A man in that situation will have to be sure of his own self control, early in the process. He’s going to have to remain calm in the face of various provocations by the woman, in order to manage her properly in to compliance in the short term, and submission in the longer term.
Maybe some men avoid confrontation with women in the home because they are afraid of themselves; knowing what they are capable of doing, they fear possible loss of control more than they fear the endless, grinding, soul-destroying henpecking. A case can be made for such a man spending time learning some empty-hand fighting skill, in order that he can be certain of his own ability at self control.
And a PS for Earl – sometimes all a man can do is manage the situation, and minimize damage.
Because at some level a woman has to want to submit. Until she wants to submit, she ain’t gonna. Game used properly surely nudges the process along, but as Dalrock made quite clear more than once, if Game is the foundation of a marriage, it won’t last. She has to want to submit at some point in the process, if he’s going to lead her in the Captain/First Officer model or any other model I’ve seen.
This is just another way of restating what Anonymous Age 71 has clearly written, over and over again in terms of BIble quotes, by the way. Try looking up his most recent reference to Proverbs…
@IBB
This simply isn’t true. If you believe it’s true that earning-power trumps the power of obedience to God then you are remarkably over-valuing money and the wisdom of men. If you think the Federal Reserve is going to save people, or bring them peace and comfort and sustenance then you are in for an enormous let-down.
The answer is obvious: Men should pick the church. Men should pay the tithe of that church. If you need to move: Move. If you bankrupt yourself supporting your church while your wife attends and financially supports another: It will be worth it when you divorce. Better a good church have it than a rebellious wife; especially since you will need the support of that church when you’re flat broke, or in divorce proceedings fighting over custody. These things work together as Christ is the lord of life and death, the good and the evil.
We were never promised a wealthy life on Earth. The desire for wealth is repeatedly named as one of the greatest stumbling blocks for those who would be righteous.
I don’t overvalue it. The Pastors do. If they don’t, they lose their jobs. And because almost all of them have wives and children, they can’t lose their jobs.
Who said that?.
They should, but they are not allowed to do so. Man’s laws are meant to empower women in marriage. Consider the following conversation:
(husband) “I don’t like what the Pastor said about men in church today.”
(wife) “Oh I do! I think he’s right, men are scum. You should hear some of the things Neighbor Nancy said about her ex-husband yesterday.”
(husband) “He is taking away Christian headship from husbands, telling men to submit to their wives, not the other way around…”
(wife) “I think we both know I NEVER submit to you, never-EVER! I set the rules in this marriage.”
(husband) “I would like to find a new church.”
(wife) “You do whatever you want, but I will be taking the kids to our church next Sunday. If you don’t want to go because of whatever silly problem you had with the Pastor this morning, that’s your business. But I am going and the kids will be going with me and that’s that.”
(husband) “What if I don’t want you to go? What if I wont let the kids go?”
(now ver ANGRY wife) “KIDS ARE GOING! SO AM I! If you dont’ like it, you can get the HELL out of MY HOUSE right NOW!”
…and so it goes.
@IBB
It’s an unavoidable implication of your argument. You present the problem as if it were a battle between God and Mammon (a money god), with Mammon winning, and would-be Godly husbands being thwarted. Thwarted from what, though? Again, you present it as being thwarted from peace, comfort, and (I’m assuming you’re not a frivolous person) real needs like food, shelter, clothes, etc. …all those thing we really need.
The imaginary argument is not how these things are done. It is faithless, and supplicating (bendy) to the wife’s will. Here’s what I would say.
Cane: “I don’t like what the Pastor said about men in church today.”
Mrs. Caldo: “Oh I do! I think he’s right, men are scum. You should hear some of the things Neighbor Nancy said about her ex-husband yesterday.”
Cane: “He is taking away Christian headship from husbands, telling men to submit to their wives, not the other way around…”
Mrs. Caldo: “I think we both know I NEVER submit to you, never-EVER! I set the rules in this marriage.”
Cane: “I see it’s already had its intended effect. We’re going to find a new church.”
Mrs. Caldo: “You do whatever you want, but I will be taking the kids to our church next Sunday. If you don’t want to go because of whatever silly problem you had with the Pastor this morning, that’s your business. But I am going and the kids will be going with me and that’s that.”
Cane: “You don’t get to set the rules here, and you better get your big mouth under control before it starts writing checks your ass can’t cash.
(now very ANGRY) Mrs. Caldo: “KIDS ARE GOING! SO AM I! If you don’t like it, you can get the HELL out of MY HOUSE right NOW!”
Cane: Pssh! I’m not going anywhere except a different church. Now, are you going to fix me something for lunch, or are you worthless as well as contentious?
Not everything there is advisable, but I think the gist is accurate. For the record: Unlike some others here I have dealt with these situations, but they generally don’t involve yelling on her part. When she said she wished she had never married me I made her dreams come true and walked out the door. I have thrown her phone (which I pay for) out of the car window; once while moving, and told her if she wanted it she’d have to go get it because that phone was causing me more problems than I cared for. Here’s how that conversation went down:
Mrs. Caldo: Are you out of your MIND?
Cane: If I have to be. It’s worth it.
You don’t even have to have retorts, though. God Himself is known for His stone-cold silence. There is something to be said for going quiet and just doing. Get up the next Sunday, load up the family like normal, and drive to a new church. You must follow-through, though.
Well Caldo, it appears that you are already frivorced, yes? If that is the case, then you’ve already lost everything she could take from you.
Most men do not want to be frivorced and if they treated their wives the way you treated yours, they would be. That is a non-starter, better to suck it up and attend a church with NO Holy Spirit present then spend the rest of your days on this planet in frivorced misery. The Lord our God will understand because you are doing whatever you must to keep His commandment of staying married for the good of your kids (you are putting your familiy’s needs well above your own.) So…. I think your advice will fall on deaf ears here.
@IBB
“That is a non-starter, better to suck it up and attend a church with NO Holy Spirit present then spend the rest of your days on this planet in frivorced misery.”
Better to serve the wife than God? That runs counter to my dictum either God>Husband>Wife or Wife>God>Husband almost perfectly. If you cannot be obedient to God, hear and obey His voice you aren’t His sheep. Not following God’s pattern is what kept Moses out of the land why do you suppose any of us will fair better? What you propose is precisely the error of Adam and the breakdown of the husband as redeemer of the wife. The pattern is God>Husband>Wife and as Samuel told Saul, obedience is better than sacrifice.
@ iart lauphing,
Not following God’s pattern is what kept Moses out of the land why do you suppose any of us will fair better?
great post: you even threw in the archetype for good measure 🙂
You are not serving God if you are divorced. You KNOW what you have to do to stay married (for the good of the kids.) You KNOW that God values that above everything else (at least you should.) God is NOT going to want you to put your foot down with a screaming harpy when she holds all the legal cards to trump your @ss right out the door with a BS restraining order and a frivorce. Your kids will pay the ultimate price then in this lifetime, not you.
Best you suck it up for 60-70+ years and when you go to meet God for His final judgement of you, He will take all that into consideration (that you knowingly attended that unwholesome church) because you followed another of His biggest and most important laws, you swallowed your pride.
Pride is one of the worst sins there is IAL. Swallow it. Put up with her crap (particularly if you have kids.) You already totally screwed up when you married, don’t compound that error by doing something (anything) that will motivate her to frivorce you.
Wrong. The surest way to get a woman to divorce you is to supplicate to her, to let her know that you’ll cave in on absolutely anything in order to try to make her happy and keep her around. The only way that won’t end the marriage is if she really, truly believes she can’t do as well without you. If she thinks it’s you or starvation, she might stick around. Otherwise, she’s gone just as soon as she can hamster up a reason that sounds good.
@IBB
Still married to the first and same women, and I love her lots even when she is a turd. The phone incidents were after our separation.
This is all untrue; the whole comment. You have never read your Bible have you? I don’t mean that as a cut-down, but a serious question. You can take it as rhetorical. What you have said is not–at all–in Scripture. It’s just not. We worship a God who KILLS HIS OWN SON for the sake of our unrighteousness, but you think He values children above all things? We worship a God who said
And ignored his mother and brothers to show he meant it.
Do you really know what it is you say you believe?
@IBB
So your argument is that sacrifice is better than obedience? What do you suppose faith in God entails? Maybe doing what He requires and leaving the consequences to Him? If you think taking control of the whole situation to try to get the outcome you think everyone wants is NOT pride we have very different definitions of that word. Only God is in control, not the husband or the wife. Serving God requires humility and it is based out of this humility that we can actually love our wives as God has commanded. Get this out of order and you fail in everything.
I can do all things through Christ who strengthens me. How many things can I do without Him?
@IBB
I want to stress that my advice should not be divined as: Do what I did, and you’ll get the results I got. It is: I did what I believed to be right, to the best of my abilities, for the sake of God and others foremost, and regardless of how it made me feel at the moment. Mrs. Caldo could stab me in the heart as I sleep tonight. It would still have been the right thing to do.
You have to love God–you have to love the Way, the Truth, and the Life–more than life itself. But that’s also all you have to do.
Mr. Caldo concluded:
I appreciate your taking the time to confirm my suspicions. I won’t be correcting your misimpressions and wild-ass-guesses, nor will I split your casuist hairs any further than you already have (there is a difference between dining with sinners [Matt 9:10-13] at your place or theirs?); as you have claimed to have not the “ears to hear” it; as FeministX, Earl, the adulteress of that always suspicious and perhaps apocryphal John 8, and I are “swine” to be sniffed at.
I see your Matt 7:6 and raise you 10:14, and maybe even throw in a John 4:44. Everyone can play this game! I am scripturier than thou.
In that regard, your assignment is to read the entire chapter of Luke 15 and write a two-screen combox report for me by Wednesday. Then, if your interpretation makes a lick of sense, I might countenance your cursing me in the strongest possible terms without writing you off as one more Pharisaical internet fraud indistinguishable from the charlatans with which you identify here.
Matt
@Matt
That’s a strange response. I WANT to be written off by the diabolical sort. Be gone.
Cane,
What you have said is not only, not Scriptural, it isn’t even historical. I believe it is you who has not yet read the Bible.
We could argue til we are blue in the face if you think that Jews (fearful of the Romans) killed Christ or if it was merely Pilot and the Roman government. I’d take the latter. But we do NOT worship a God who KILLS HIS OWN SON for our unrightousness or for anything.
We worship a God who allowed US to KILL His Son, our Lord and Savior. Our God (that we worship) gives us Free Will. Of our own Free Will, we crucified our Savior. We did that, not our God. God did not kill his own Son We killed Him..
If you die a natural death, then yes, God takes you to go be with Him. Yougto Hospice at age 93 with congestive heart failure, and36 hours later you pass away, that is a natural death, that is God taking you home. There was ZERO natural about the Crucifiction of our Lord and Savior. That was man spitting upon God’s Law.
Christ died to save us Cane. Yes He did. And thank God we are saved. But don’t tell me that God the Father killed his own Son when we both know who the guilty parties are (us.) And don’t tell me that God does not value the children when we both know He does. We are commanded to bring children into the world, be fruitful and multiply, and replenish the Earth. That also is Scripture.
Earl,
I am not one to pile on and above all else would encourage you to continue on your path in our shared faith. Like Random Angeleno, I am another fellow Catholic traveler who was thrown overboard by the Church in countless ways in my hour of need as my marriage crumbled. With that in mind, I would kindly proffer that you do not know of which you speak, and encourage you to listen far more than you hold forth on this topic.
The RCC in the United States has all but abandoned any meaningful defense of traditional marriage. You would do well to consider this.
Cane and Dalrock – WP just said my comment couldn’t be posted, and ate it.
[D: I just checked the spam filter and there is nothing there from you. I’m not sure what WP did.]
This has been happening to me quite a bit. WP is hungry these days, I guess. If you hit the Back button, the text is usually still in the comment field intact. That said, I learned many years ago to always copy to clipboard before posting.
@IBB
Re-read Abraham offering Isaac as a sacrifice for atonement, and God saying that He will provide an alternative. Understand that God is the lord of life and death, and hold’s the power of both in His hands. Understand that God hates sin, and destroys is when His wrath is provoked, and that He destroys with men, fire, and whatever He chooses because we are all tools in the Master’s hands.
Understand that When Christ took our sins upon Himself that He. Took. Our. Sins. Upon. Himself. And became unrighteous for our sakes. Seeing that unrighteousness upon His own Son drove them apart–because sin separates (My God, My God! Why have you forsaken me?) and that separation by unrighteousness causes death to anyone. God does not break His own law.
God sacrificed His Son for our sakes; else you think the Romans or the Jews had power over God.
You don’t know what you believe, but you can.
IBB, you are clearly a humanist. Your argumentation is derived by poor human reasoning and a lack of Biblical understanding.
“But we do NOT worship a God who KILLS HIS OWN SON for our unrightousness or for anything.”
Yet it pleased the LORD to bruise him; he hath put him to grief: when thou shalt make his soul an offering for sin, he shall see his seed, he shall prolong his days, and the pleasure of the LORD shall prosper in his hand. He shall see of the travail of his soul, and shall be satisfied: by his knowledge shall my righteous servant justify many; for he shall bear their iniquities.
(Isa 53:10-11)
The Jews decided to use the Romans as a vehicle to kill Jesus who they had been plotting against throughout His ministry:
And one of them, named Caiaphas, being the high priest that same year, said unto them, Ye know nothing at all, Nor consider that it is expedient for us, that one man should die for the people, and that the whole nation perish not. And this spake he not of himself: but being high priest that year, he prophesied that Jesus should die for that nation; And not for that nation only, but that also he should gather together in one the children of God that were scattered abroad.
(Joh 11:49-52)
The problem was that the Jews were cast out of the land precisely because they rejected Jesus Christ.
Completing the thought I started by quoting John 11:
Pilate saith unto them, What shall I do then with Jesus which is called Christ? They all say unto him, Let him be crucified. And the governor said, Why, what evil hath he done? But they cried out the more, saying, Let him be crucified. When Pilate saw that he could prevail nothing, but that rather a tumult was made, he took water, and washed his hands before the multitude, saying, I am innocent of the blood of this just person: see ye to it. Then answered all the people, and said, His blood be on us, and on our children.
(Mat 27:22-25)
I did Cane. Did you read the part about God sending the Angel to stop Abraham just in time? Apparently you missed that part, because if Abraham had done to Issac (what YOU Cane did to your own brother Abel) Abraham would have done that of his own Free Will. And that action is NOT of God. That is of man.
Abraham made quite a few mistakes, not the least of which was listening to his wife after Sarah got on her rationalization-hamster-wheel and told him to have sex with Hagar. That act was not of God but of man, and was a real big NO-NO!!!!! That started the whole bullsh*t Islamic relgion and we are ALL STILL PAYING FOR THAT ONE! (But hey, God promised them a son and Ishmael was at least an alternative?)
God the Father did not kill His Son. We killed Christ. If you want to say the Jews did (the way I-A-L appears to be saying) that is up to you. We can debate that Biblically. But what can not be debated is that God the Father did not strike down his own Son (our Lord and Savior) the way my he took my grandfather in Hospice 3 years ago, I know what is of man and what is of God.
“Diabolical”?
I can’t decide whether you’re being over-the-top or whether you’ve gone over the edge. From apparent calm to clinically paranoid in the space of three comment posts. I missed the signs, if there were any.
What a rolling disaster this place is.
All together now: AROOOOOOOOOOOO!
No I most certainly do NOT. The Romans and the Jews had the same power that God gave all men (and women), the power of Free Will. And they acted upon that power and sent Christ to go be with His Father. The same Free Will that allowed David to slay Bathsheba’s husband and make her pregnantl. The same Free Will that allowed Abrhama to impregnante his slave girl. The same Free Will that allowed you to kill your own brother. The same Free Will that allowed Eve to eat of that Apple.
This is the thing that most Christians (and even some Jews) can’t get about the Bible. Although it is entirely acurate, all things that are in The Bible (all actions done by man) are not OF GOD and are therefore NOT necessarily good for all of us. The Bible also shows a whole bunch of terrible MISTAKES made by entirely too many people. And it appears you have not learned of that.
IBB,
What part of those scriptures I shared do you dispute? What parts are unclear? I gave you scriptures and you answered with what? I thought they were pretty clear.
IBB:
Have you fellas ever read Kierkegaard’s Fear and Trembling?
http://www2.webster.edu/~corbetre/personal/reading/kierkegaard-fear.html
You’re arguing about one of the most commonly argued about things in history. It never ceases to generate interesting responses, which is why I suppose it’s been so popular a subject, for so long.
I-A-L,
It is not that there is anything in “dispute” per se. You have quoted Scripture perfectly. But just because man takes an action, it does not mean that the action (of man’s own Free Will) is of God’s Will. Just because it is Biblical, it does not mean that God wanted it to be this way.
Get it? That is whole thing about Free Will. As Al Pacino said playing Satan in The Devil’s Advocate:
You think Lot having Incestual sex with his own two daughter’s thus creating two sons and two grandsons at the same time is God’s Will? No way, no how. I’m sure it happened that way, but that doesn’t make it good.
King A.Matthew King
From apparent calm to clinically paranoid in the space of three comment posts.
Psychiatric evaluation over the Internet via text? How very 1990’s. What next, “Make Money Fast” chain letters? Give it a rest…
I don’t pretend to know God’s will (apart from what He reveals).
And we know that all things work together for good to them that love God, to them who are the called according to his purpose.
(Rom 8:28)
So even Ishmael was and is “good”. It’s all been redeemed by the blood of Jesus Christ.
And all that dwell upon the earth shall worship him, whose names are not written in the book of life of the Lamb slain from the foundation of the world.
(Rev 13:8)
God knew before He created the world that Jesus would go to the cross and decided to create it AND call it “good”.
Agreed with Cane and IAL.
In a war between light and darkness. God is the general of the army of light, and Satan the general of the army of darkness. God sent His son literally on a suicide mission to earth, the battleground which Satan had taken ahold of, such that those who had fallen sway to the darkness may be redeemed.
In effect, God sent His son to earth knowing that He had condemned Jesus as a sacrifice in His physical death because He loved us such that Jesus may bear our iniquities to save us from a spiritual death.
John 3:16-18
For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. 17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but to save the world through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe stands condemned already because they have not believed in the name of God’s one and only Son.
God sacrificed His Son for us, though, even as we bear the responsibility of killing Him, we are saved through Him.
Empathologism –
State marriage vs Religious marriage:
For the jews, living in a theocracy, the state of marriage was meshed together so you couldn’t tell religious institution from state institution.
For Ephesus and a new church in Ephesus with new gentile Christians, the marriages in question would’ve been state marriages – because Rome and most other governments in ancient times institutionalized marriage through the state.
Sorry Deep Strength, that sounds a lot like dualism.
Satan is doing the work of God. God is completely sovereign.
Behold, I have created the smith that bloweth the coals in the fire, and that bringeth forth an instrument for his work; and I have created the waster to destroy.
(Isa 54:16)
Well I think that depends on how you look at Satan.
In Judaism, he’s just an Angel doing a job. He’s not even interested in getting people to follow him, he’s just doing the job that God gave to him. He is not interested in tempting man and man falls into temptation without the help of Satan. That said, he and God had a little bit of wager on Job and God got Job right.
In Christianity, he is an Angel that was cast out of Heaven like a lightning bolt from the sky, a fallen Angel who DOES do all that he can to trip up man and take him away from God and Christ. He also temped Christ multiple times (and failed every single time.) This planet Earth is Satan’s playground, he is everywhere and among us at all times, ever tempting. And that makes perfect sense if you believe (as I do) in Free Will, man could (and often does) screw up and gives into the Adversary.
I don’t see the difference. He is the Afflicter, the persecutor of the Brethren and we must overcome him by the blood of the Lamb, the word of our witness, and loving not our own lives even unto dying. He is the obstacle God set before us to overcome, the enemy we must place under Christ’s feet. We will be rewarded based upon our overcoming Satan (the adversary).
Who made Satan our adversary? Is God sovereign or not?
Well I-A-L, the entire concept of Satan being “the adversary” is what we learned from Christ. This is New Law (The Gospels of the New Testament) not Old Law (The Torah.)
Remember, there are a multitude of differences between the Old Law and the New Law, but that is because Christ came here to fulfill God’s Law (the Old Law) in such a way that we mere mortals can understand it. Yes Christ simplified the Ten Commandments into Two, but that was just part of it. There are greater details. I’ll give you an example:
In the Old Law, sex is sinful if it is in Adultry (you are married but not to her, or she is married but not to you, or you both are married, but not to each other.) If neither are married, you have fornicated. In the Old Law, fornication is not sin. That is because God was being clear that this sex act means that you two are now married. In the New Law that Christ has come to fulfill, he clears this up that man didn’t get everything clear from God. (Remember God said in the Old Law that if you fornicated, you need to marry that person, Christ just stipulates that the act of fornication is sin.)
Christ cleared things up on Satan. He is the adversary, the tempter. In Judaism he is not, just an Angel doing a job. So long as man has Free Will (and he does whether you are Jew or Christian) than as sovereign as God is, He still allows man to screw up and reject God’s Law. And if man screws up and does not repent, your soul might be Satan’s! In that sense, the adversary has power because he steps in and takes those souls who are not worthy to share eternity with God.
I can see how you got dualism out of my post. Perhaps I worded it a bit incorrectly.
Regardless, the analogy is generally correct; spiritual warfare is being engaged by humans… I suppose angels and demons and Satan as well on either side. Actually I believe Scripture says the Holy Spirit and Jesus are mediators as well.
God is indeed sovereign that He can end the conflict whenever He wants but chooses not to according to His plan that we can see via Revelations.
Correct. All of it.
God chooses to end the conflict whenever He wants but chooses not to according to His plan.
IBB, I think that Satan is an angel doing precisely what he is commanded while using the latitude he is given by sovereign God. When Jesus speaks Satan (and his minions) obey.
Behold, I give unto you power to tread on serpents and scorpions, and over all the power of the enemy: and nothing shall by any means hurt you. Notwithstanding in this rejoice not, that the spirits are subject unto you; but rather rejoice, because your names are written in heaven.
(Luk 10:19-20)
What’s wrong with Matt K talking to me? I thought that was Christian stuff and all. Like how Jesus was pals with that Magdeline ho. If Jesus could be close to a prostitute, why can’t Matt have intimate conversations with me? What is unchristian about it?
Mary Magdalene repented because of her contact with Jesus.
And he turned to the woman, and said unto Simon, Seest thou this woman? I entered into thine house, thou gavest me no water for my feet: but she hath washed my feet with tears, and wiped them with the hairs of her head. Thou gavest me no kiss: but this woman since the time I came in hath not ceased to kiss my feet. My head with oil thou didst not anoint: but this woman hath anointed my feet with ointment. Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little. And he said unto her, Thy sins are forgiven.
(Luk 7:44-48)
She didn’t remain a prostitute.
Yeah, but Matt K doesn’t have Jesus powers, so one can’t expect me to repent my ways just because he came into my presence. He has only the powers of internet commenting. Using that to transform the character of feministx must take time. It’s like he can post once on my blog and then alacazam! I became Christian!
Jesus didn’t have intimate conversations with Mary Magdalene either. The woman at the well was scandalous and that was in public and broad daylight. Matt’s comments speak for themselves. Just hanging out with you is not ministering the gospel, neither is gaming you.
Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? And what concord hath Christ with Belial? or what part hath he that believeth with an infidel? And what agreement hath the temple of God with idols? for ye are the temple of the living God; as God hath said, I will dwell in them, and walk in them; and I will be their God, and they shall be my people. Wherefore come out from among them, and be ye separate, saith the Lord, and touch not the unclean thing; and I will receive you,
(2Co 6:14-17)
Letting you forget that there is that division is a mistake. He seems to be as happy stroking his ego over there as he does here. How do you convert someone you pretend is a peer? How do you call someone to repentance when you flirt with sin yourself?
Well, the conquistador days are over, so how do you convert someone if you don’t act like they are your peer?
“Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? ”
Christians are not allowed to have non Christian friends? Since when? And if someone is your friend, why can’t you speak intimately with them?
Matt hasn’t had sex with me. To my knowledge, he isn’t trying to have sex with me either. He’s just someone who offers me some advice on my blog. Since when is a Christian not allowed to listen to a non Christian and offer them advice?
@I Art Laughing: You’re too hard on him. He is the only one I see even trying. Most commenters set up shop on one particular blog or concern themselves with only one particular topic or field. He’s a missionary who goes from this realm to that, touching lives. It may be- like everyone and everything- imperfect, but he is doing something.
@feministx That is just it, if he is in Christ, which I have reason to doubt, he cannot be your peer. I cannot be your peer. There is a gigantic distinction between abiding in Christ and not. One means you are alive and the other means you are dead in your sins. Have any people you hang out with that are dead? Would you call the dead you peers?
I am the vine, ye are the branches: He that abideth in me, and I in him, the same bringeth forth much fruit: for without me ye can do nothing. If a man abide not in me, he is cast forth as a branch, and is withered; and men gather them, and cast them into the fire, and they are burned.
(Joh 15:5-6)
He that hath the Son hath life; and he that hath not the Son of God hath not life.
(1Jn 5:12)
@Kate, You don’t really know what anyone else here is doing. For example I have a blog that has nothing to do with male/female relationships. I minister by participating in volunteer organizations in the community and mentoring. I participate in a broad cross-section of interests on Youtube (including with Atheists). If he is a missionary, who has he lead to Christ? Are you one?
And as far as “being to hard on him” do you see what he actually posts here?
“Have any people you hang out with that are dead? Would you call the dead you peers?”
You have to actually talk to people who are not christian in order to convert them. And this process is not going to be as simple as quoting the bible. Christianity is an expansionist and converting religion. Your belief that one must avoid closeness with non Christians is strange. Before people were christians in Rome, they were non christians. And then what? Were the Christians supposed to just keep to themselves? How far would that have gotten them?
And besides that, Matt talks down to me. He doesn’t talk to me like I am his equal in every way or something. Not sure how anyone got that impression. I never heard of this before- Christians are not supposed to have non Christian companions.
That’s a humanist perspective. And of course you haven’t heard of it, because Matt wasn’t doing anything remotely like preaching the Gospel. He talks down to everyone as far as I can tell, even those that he should have fellowship with. The thing it seems like you are missing is that you have not been quickened by the Holy Spirit, what do you have that I can have companionship with? What are we going to talk about? How we are going to sin today? Or maybe just how YOU are going to sin today? How long are you going to hang around for that before you repent or move on? I can’t imagine it would take long.
Then spake Jesus again unto them, saying, I am the light of the world: he that followeth me shall not walk in darkness, but shall have the light of life.
(Joh 8:12)
And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved. But he that doeth truth cometh to the light, that his deeds may be made manifest, that they are wrought in God.
(Joh 3:19-21)
Yes, I have acquaintances that are in darkness and I minister to them as I am led, trying to remember not to seek the fellowship that we have in Christ from them. I work with men who are unbelievers and carry on conversations. Forgetting that there is a distinction doesn’t do anyone any good. I’m not trying to win popularity contests or appeal to egalitarianism or fairness.
@I Art Laughing: I didn’t mean to suggest you aren’t doing valuable work of your own. It certainly sounds like you are and that is wonderful (and I appreciate the passages you quoted for me on the other thread. Thank you.) What I meant is that he is the only person I see at various places around the sphere dropping this message- especially in the dark, scary places.
Can two walk together, except they be agreed?
(Amo 3:3)
My old boss is a member of Baucham’s church, and I have listened to several sermons of his and read several things Baucham has written. He is absolutely grounded in The Truth. If he wasn’t my boss would have walked out a long time ago.
The problem is Kate is that when he comes here he does repeatedly discount the rest of our lives. He mocks us for doing nothing but coming here to whine. Guess what, this is not our sole outlet. Pointing out bad teaching and networking that is a good way for men to recognize compromised pastors/congregations. That is something that we apply in many places besides here. Does he get the right to come here and bash us because he does that other work? Does my other work give me carte blanche to bash other people for not doing exactly what I am doing?
And the eye cannot say unto the hand, I have no need of thee: nor again the head to the feet, I have no need of you.
(1Co 12:21)
“The problem is Kate is that when he comes here he does repeatedly discount the rest of our lives. He mocks us for doing nothing but coming here to whine. Guess what, this is not our sole outlet. Pointing out bad teaching and networking that is a good way for men to recognize compromised pastors/congregations.”
So, he bashed you for something and that was wrong of him. Now you bash him for bashing you, but this is somehow not wrong of you. IE, you can bash him and it’s ok. He can’t bash you because that’s not ok.
This thread has guys here agreeing that Matt K did something hypocritical on my blog. What that thing was exactly, I’m not sure. He seems to have committed the sin of reading my posts and responding to them in detail.
Since I don’t know anything and I am just talking out my arse let me ask a question.
Did you guys have sex before marriage with your wives…or use birth control?
And I fully expect to be insulted, ignored, diverted, or otherwise talked down to about that question.
If you are married…didn’t do either of those things…and your wife still rebelled, then you have my attention.
I do know one thing…every woman I’ve been involved with…I didn’t have sex or use birth control. Because both are sins. The rebellious tendencies I saw weren’t overwhelming.
Earl
I wouldn’t marry a chick I had not fucked in all her openings big guy
Women rebel because by law and culture they can and do. The church is fucked up because they went along with it too so as to keep the women happy.
Earl, you are not doing the RCC any favors here. So all we are waiting for to find a perfect non-rebellious woman is a perfect non-sinning man to marry one up? That is perilously close to saying that women are without original sin there buddy. Are you suggesting that if a guy who was an unbeliever used a condom with his fiancee and then converted and repented that the wife has every reason to rebel and that men should sit down and shut up?
I’m really curious now what you do with:
Likewise, ye wives, be in subjection to your own husbands; that, if any obey not the word, they also may without the word be won by the conversation of the wives; While they behold your chaste conversation coupled with fear.
(1Pe 3:1-2)
Once her husband sees the light and stops using condoms is she off the hook where she can rebel (after all he screwed up)? You seem to have problems with agency and causality.
The other thought I have is that if a man can live for 20 years without being tempted to fornicate why is he bothering getting married at all?
But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.
(Mat 5:28)
Maybe you looking for the guy that doesn’t need a woman in the first place?
“Earl
I wouldn’t marry a chick I had not fucked in all her openings big guy”
AhahhhaahahhhaaahahHA… and at least twice!
By the way Earl, you seem to think that women are some type of waldo-arm extension for Godly men. All they are waiting for is the “pristine” controller and their lives of sin and rebelliousness are behind them. You make out like they lack agency altogether and are mere puppets. That is the height of paternalistic sexism and I actually find what you are saying misogynistic. That is saying something.
@crowhill
“”having been an Evangelical and then a Catholic””………..
Sorry,but I do not understand this.To me they are basically all the same.Being a Jew I am not very familiar with the difference in denominations.The way I see it is they are all “New Testament Religions”
@Marlon
“”we need to institute manhood rituals for young men going to church,””
Go to a Synagogue and you shall find what you are seeking.
@Infowarrior
“”There is the bar mitzvah which may be a measure of intellectual prowess that we may learn from the jews. There may be days of wilderness dwelling akin to a temporary spartan lifestyle for the boys led by a wise men where by the campfire he reads them scripture and he imparts biblical manhood on them. There they are discipled by men””
Correct!………and thank you!
@Christina
“”For the jews, living in a theocracy, the state of marriage was meshed together so you couldn’t tell religious institution from state institution””
Huh?????
I thought the whole point behind a theocracy was not being able to tell the religious and state institutions apart from God. I saw that earlier and scratched my head for a bit too.
@IBB
“”In Judaism, he’s just an Angel doing a job. He’s not even interested in getting people to follow him, he’s just doing the job that God gave to him. He is not interested in tempting man and man falls into temptation without the help of Satan. That said, he and God had a little bit of wager on Job and God got Job right””
Interesting analogy.I have never heard it explained like this.
Feministx, watching Matt come in here and complain about the “manosphere” and what a waste of time it all is and then pop in on someone named “feministx’s” blog and proceed to start running game on them while calling it “ministry” is hypocritical in more ways than I can begin to explain. It’s not merely that he comes here and bashes on us, guys can handle bashing, its that whenever he makes an argument he turns around and undermines what little argument he had with his actions. That makes him a poseur, that earns a mocking almost anywhere men still roam freely.
Hiding behind the skirts of unbelieving feminists isn’t really helping his case here either. Why would anyone really drag unbelievers into a doctrinal dispute? Are you here to count coup for him? Does he now get to try to AMOG Dalrock’s blog for your titillation? You aren’t a believer, nor are you a man, you don’t even know how to keep score. You don’t seem to have really learned anything about the Bible or Christ from Matt which is truly a shame. From what I’ve seen Matt prefers to keep you in the dark rather than explain why what he did was really wrong.
Maybe Matt can explain to you what relationship light has with darkness and what the difference is between a sister and an unbeliever. From what I’ve seen I would not hold my breath. Most people passing off as Christians have no idea what Christ actually is, their ignorance is glaring.
“Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven. Many will say to me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in thy name? and in thy name have cast out devils? and in thy name done many wonderful works? And then will I profess unto them, I never knew you: depart from me, ye that work iniquity.”
(Mat 7:21-23)
Unless we know Jesus as our Lord and hear and obey His voice, He doesn’t know us and we are not His.
@Mark The only problem is that Lucifer’s job title never changed. He was a serpent in the Garden and he was tempter in the wilderness. We are going to be tested as sons just as Job was if we live long enough.
And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together. For I reckon that the sufferings of this present time are not worthy to be compared with the glory which shall be revealed in us.
(Rom 8:17-18)
And it was given unto him to make war with the saints, and to overcome them: and power was given him over all kindreds, and tongues, and nations.
(Rev 13:7)
His job was the same in Job as it is in Revelation. Standing before the throne accusing the saints as he accused righteous Job.
And I heard a loud voice saying in heaven, Now is come salvation, and strength, and the kingdom of our God, and the power of his Christ: for the accuser of our brethren is cast down, which accused them before our God day and night. And they overcame him by the blood of the Lamb, and by the word of their testimony; and they loved not their lives unto the death.
(Rev 12:10-11)
@I Art Laughing: I agree that no one should be bashing anyone. I enjoyed hearing the things you do outside the blog and, in the event that is it safe for people to share those kinds of personal experiences, I think it would be great if more people talked about the practical application of their beliefs, putting the focus on some positive ways to improve things: books to read, inspirational posts, etc. Not to say we should forget or ignore the difficulties that are all around us, but allow ourselves to be lifted up once in a while.
Pingback: GreatBooksForMen(TM), for the win | Lucius Somesuch
Kate, I believe that their are male spaces where, for the most part, men are not required to incline towards what women find uplifting. I believe that Dalrock has designated this blog as one of those spaces. What lifts a woman up and what lifts a man up are often two different things given the divergent circumstances we face in modern society. Knowing we are not alone and realizing that other men are seeing what we are seeing in the “church” seems to be one of those things. I think most of the “church” is female space; which is ironic given that the head is ostensibly and distinctly male.
What you think is positive and what men think is positive (and really is positive to them) may be very different things. Also, Jesus bashed, he bashed a lot.
@I Art Laughing: Of course you aren’t required to cater to women on men’s blogs. And there certainly are innumerable differences in the way men and women view things. I often find King inspiring and as someone who has been touched by his gracious nature, I simply come at this whole debate from a different perspective. Some of us have formed strong bonds with one another and, as all brothers and sisters, have each other’s backs when we aren’t picking on each other ourselves. That “trolls” such as myself and others speak up for him ought to demonstrate that his work is effective. I have enjoyed conversing with you and if I ever came across a blog post focusing on how you didn’t know what you were talking about, I’d be likely to chime in and say: “Actually, I once had a very nice exchange with him. I think you might be incorrect in your assessment.” I simply believe everyone has a seat at the table. King Arthur made his round so that no one was at the head. I believe it was a noble model.
Welcome to the lacrymodome, Kate, FeministX. Everyone is a victim here, the world is their nemesis. Don’t tarry too long, it will enervate you.
Here we are agents of Satan — literally demoniac, according to the testimony of heavy breathers. Expect irrelevant citations plucked from scripture and hurled at you like holy water. Or plain hissing.
No matter. Your indefatigable cheer is your best weapon, inspiring ten silent readers for every one who is provoked to comment. I wish you were professing Christians, like me. I wish you knew the Name of “the hope that is in you” (1 Peter 3:15). But compared to my dour brothers nominally in Christ, these law-scrupulites and pharisaical dividers, you cut attractive, even seductive figures, drawing more souls to God than their Scripture as Incantation ever could.
What is a Christian, after all? The one who wears his cross on his sleeve (Matt 6:1-8), or the one who loves first and asks questions later? “By this all men will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another” (John 13:35).
Matt
@Matt
“”Welcome to the lacrymodome, Kate, FeministX. Everyone is a victim here, the world is their nemesis. Don’t tarry too long, it will enervate you””
I am not a victim here…….nor do I view the regular posters here as victims.I view the regular posters as “enlightened” as they have stories to share with everyone and hope that their experiences that they endured may help others. I think you view yourself as the “victim” because not everyone here buys into your views of the world.If anyone should feel “victimized” it should be me.I am a Jew surrounded by Christians!…….LOL…….But,I do not feel that way!
Congratulations Matt, you have once again put on display your Biblical illieteracy and you abject misunderstanding of Christ:
“Everyone is a victim here, the world is their nemesis.”
You in your perpetual state of snark have actually stumbled upon a Biblical truth. You mock the Word like it is second nature and expect less than mockery from Christ?
Ye adulterers and adulteresses, know ye not that the friendship of the world is enmity with God? whosoever therefore will be a friend of the world is the enemy of God.
(Jas 4:4)
You’ve made friends with the world Matt, now you want a pat on the back from God. Wow, you are quite an amazing man.
Paranoid literalist.
“The world” in that context is a metaphor for “everything” — an indication of your persecution (victim) complex — not a reference to “The Kingdom of This World.”
I deserve better opposition than this.
The fact that you cannot draw a distinction between the world and Christ is telling. The fact that I do see a distinction doesn’t make me paranoid. You don’t posit anything significant to oppose. Pointing out that you are a vacuum doesn’t require much besides a passing understanding of the Bible. How great is that darkness Matt? You should know.
Oh, yeah rather than simply belittling my interpretation like the complete sophist that we know you are why don’t you tell us what is meant by God being at enmity with the world? I know that you can’t be troubled but I ask to shine a light on your vacuity.
Pingback: Cowards, Chauvinists, and Dalrock | Secular Patriarchy
Maybe matt could also explain Ephesians 5:16 for us as he strolls by armor free, gloating at the fact that we are so paranoid as to believe that our enemy prowls about as a roaring lion seeking who he might destroy? How we wrestle not against flesh and blood but powers and principalities. What does that look like to the natural man who has decided to make peace with the enemy and to abide in the flesh? Like paranoia? I suspect so.
God has no “enmity” toward his creation. Deus caritas est. (1 John 4:8)
“And God saw everything that he had made, and behold, it was very good” (Gen 1:31).
How else can I help you?
And then Adam came along and turned everything over to new management. I guess you missed that part.
“Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this world, against spiritual wickedness in high places. Wherefore take unto you the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand.”
(Eph 6:11-13)
To which Matt declares Paul a paranoiac and suggests that God has no enmity towards his creation, even the darkness worrying about some nonsensical evil day, right? If everything is and was so “good” why did Jesus bother coming to die?
“And you hath he quickened, who were dead in trespasses and sins; Wherein in time past ye walked according to the course of this world, according to the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that now worketh in the children of disobedience: Among whom also we all had our conversation in times past in the lusts of our flesh, fulfilling the desires of the flesh and of the mind; and were by nature the children of wrath, even as others.”
(Eph 2:1-3)
What is the “course of this world” that caused us to be dead in our trespasses and sins? One last verse to consider carefully:
“And he said unto them, Ye are from beneath; I am from above: ye are of this world; I am not of this world. I said therefore unto you, that ye shall die in your sins: for if ye believe not that I am he, ye shall die in your sins.”
(Joh 8:23-24)
LOL
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/08/19/nir-arieli_n_3767849.html?utm_hp_ref=mostpopular.
Pingback: Lightning Round -2013/08/21 | Free Northerner
Interesting that Kate breaks her manosphere silence in defense of Matt
MinterKing,…hmmm,..@Rollo
Matt won’t be able to respond (here) as I’m implementing a policy of tough love. Hopefully he takes my advice and takes the first steps towards standing on his own.
Interesting that Rollo *still* cannot let this rest. I really can’t tell if he’s jealous of Mark or jealous of me…please, try to grow up. For everyone’s sake, but mostly your own. You embarrass yourself to continue to degrade others who supported you both emotionally and financially. Yep, I donated to your charitable cause because I believed in what you were trying to do. As a mature, married man, I though you would be happy for Mark. Not only could you not say anything remotely positive about it, but you chose to slander the both of us directly and indirectly. And mocked us for wanting to invite you to participate in our good fortune. Mark is not what these ridiculous rumors say and you know he brought a lot to your blog. So, good luck, Rollo. Congratulations on your book and your two year anniversary. This must be an exciting time for you and I hope your book will be a success.
Excuse me, Dalrock, this is not appropriate, but I find this kind of gossip abhorrent. You were one of few to look at the situation and proclaim we were well-matched. I appreciated that very much. I pity anyone who cannot see the beauty of two broken lives being healed and who seek to cause even more damage to people struggling as it is.
Pingback: Links and Comments #15 (The “Where’s Poochie?” Edition) | The Society of Phineas
Why do you think so many young Christian men are now MGTOW? I guess there are so many MGTOW that the late Mrs. Edwards had to shame them by telling people (young men) in her last book before her demise- that she was ashamed of young men for not doing their duty by dating and marrying the single young ladies in the churches that she visited. Since when is it my responsibility or any man’s responsibility to date and marry? Please give me that verse- that’s right there is no such verse in the Bible about that. This is called prenuptial-ism. I’ve been MGTOw before i even knew about the men’s movement. I decided early in life that I hated dating and the dating game. I’m a nice looking guy and I’ve had my share of ladies interested, but I was never was interested in them. I saw right through many of them. Not all are gold diggers and overtly worldly but most Christian church ladies are. Besides I am a very independent person and i’ve never met a lady that didn’t try to manipulate or change a guy or try to tell me what to do. Sorry but I do what I want and when I want- if you have a problem with that- too bad- don’t let the door hit your a$$ on the way out.