2 But as for you, speak the things which are proper for sound doctrine: 2 that the older men be sober, reverent, temperate, sound in faith, in love, in patience; 3 the older women likewise, that they be reverent in behavior, not slanderers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things— 4 that they admonish the young women to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 to be discreet, chaste, homemakers, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God may not be blasphemed.
— Titus 2 1-5, NKJV
A few days back Rollo linked to a post on a missionary couple’s blog titled How to Make Your Wife Submit to Your Authority -6 Tips. The tone of the post is an attempt at comedy, mocking the idea that a husband would want his wife to follow the biblical command to submit to her husband. The author Caleb is clearly very uncomfortable with headship and submission as it is written in the Bible. This last part is key, because from the post it seems that he is very much in the mood for headship and submission if he can do a bit of crossdressing.
The very title of the post is designed to encourage feminist rebellion in an age defined by feminist rebellion. The title is a reminder to wives that they need to be on the lookout for what feminists and their own rebellious urges are already telling them: Watch out! Your husband is a brute who is going to try to dominate you and make you not be true to yourself! Don’t be a doormat!
Alright men here’s another post for you! Let’s not beat around the bush, the Bible commands our wives to submit to us!
Modern wives of course don’t need this reminder, but Caleb doesn’t leave this to chance. He reinforces this by implying that there are an army of Christian husbands chomping at the bit to make their wives submit to them:
While God’s Word commands women to submit to their husbands it never tells men that it’s their job to make sure their wives submit to them. Don’t think for second that you need to lay down the law and “show her who’s boss”!
This isn’t true, at least not in any meaningful sense. It is true that the Bible doesn’t say “show her who’s boss”. This is language feminists use to inspire rebellion. It isn’t biblical; it comes from Caleb. It is also true that the responsibility to submit lies with the wife; the Bible doesn’t say wives should only submit to husbands who are worthy of submission. In fact, it clearly says wives need to submit even to unworthy husbands. Ironically it is Caleb who frames submission as something the husband must be worthy of in order for the wife to comply. What the Bible does tell husbands is that we have an obligation to teach our wives what is right according to the Bible. You can find this in Ephesians 5:25-27 where husbands are commanded to wash their wives in the water of the word in order to present them as holy and without blemish. You can also see this in 1 Cor 14:34-35 where wives are told to turn to their husbands for biblical instruction.
But feminist rebellion is a sin that Caleb clearly finds funny, and one would be forgiven for suspecting Caleb quite likes this particular sin. Again, it doesn’t appear that Caleb is truly against the idea of headship and submission in the abstract; his objections appear to stem strictly from the ordering of the roles in the Bible. Caleb delights in the thought of wives refusing to submit to their husbands, and takes this as an opportunity to instruct husbands to submit to their wives. He instructs Christian husbands step by step in the theological equivalent of putting on a bra and panties, applying lipstick, speaking in falsetto, etc.
Caleb takes the Apostle Peter’s teaching to wives and applies it instead to husbands. While Peter teaches wives:
Wives, likewise, be submissive to your own husbands, that even if some do not obey the word, they, without a word, may be won by the conduct of their wives,
Caleb teaches husbands to win their wives without a word, by quietly fixing any mistakes she makes. This will win her love Caleb explains, and will thereby make her want to submit.
…suck it up and fix it for her without saying a word. She’ll love you for it and next time she’ll be a lot more likely to listen to your advice.
Caleb sprinkles this cross-dressing theology in with actual theology (the parts which don’t offend modern Christian feminists). He effortlessly switches between teaching men they have an obligation to lead their family in study and in prayer, to reminding men to be diligent in doing the things their wives command them to do (emphasis mine):
Take the initiative to be a spiritual leader in your family and lead by example.
Be regular in your Study of God’s Word and personal prayer time.
If you have kids make sure you have a regular time when you can read and teach God’s Word with them too.
Don’t be lazy about your “honey-do” list or anything else for that matter!
Be known for honesty and faithfulness at home and work.
Beyond the problem of Caleb’s fetish for cross-dressing, there is also the problem of him telling husbands to teach the Word in this part of the post, while at the same time claiming husbands aren’t to tell their wives to submit. This isn’t possible unless a husband censors the parts of the Bible which teach wives to submit to their husbands. A husband would have to blot out Eph 5:22-33, 1 Pet 3:1-6, Col 3:18, 1 Tim 2:11-15, Tit 2:1-5, and Gen 3:16 to avoid teaching his wife to submit to him.
Instead of teaching their wives to submit, Caleb wants husbands to take over as much of the role of home maker as possible:
When you come through that door after work don’t automatically expect that your wife has waited all day to run circles around you and make sure you are comfortable and well fed.
The fact is she’s probably glad you’re home so that SHE can take a rest!
As husbands we are called to love as Jesus loved and that means serving!
Ask her what you can do to help, find ways to lighten her load and she will thank you.
The irony here is that no doubt Caleb thinks in encouraging wives in their spirit of rebellion that he is sticking it to husbands while helping wives. While he claims that it isn’t a husband’s place to tell his wife to submit, the way he frames the post is that a wife withholding submission is something which primarily harms the husband. This harm is after all the very source of the intended joke in the post. But the reality is this is about far more than the husband. Peter tells us wives should submit because it is what is beautiful to God. With his framing of the issue Caleb is encouraging wives to do the opposite, to do what is ugly to God, in order to take his petty jabs at husbands. He is so concerned with taking feminist shots at husbands that he encourages wives to do what the Apostle Paul explains in Titus 2 causes the word of God to be blasphemed.
There is also the temporal cost in the form of men, women, and children suffering in families plagued by feminist inspired strife. This is a huge price to pay for a few cheap laughs, but of course this isn’t really about laughs at all.
Pingback: Relishing sin | Manosphere.com
Sadly, this is nothing new — it is part of the ongoing legacy of the fall. What is new (or at least since the latter half of the 20th century) is the institutionalization and widespread acceptance of this sort of rebellion in parts of the church. This is the fruit of cultural Marxism’s long march through the institutions.
I have written on this subject recently and will post a link with Dalrock’s permission.
[D: Feel freel.]
Pingback: Relishing sin | Neoreactive
Seems like the same guy in that movie you reviewed. Wouldn’t surprise me at all.
[D: Different Caleb, same teaching.]
I’m fed up with seeing these types of attention seeking self-deprecating opportunists.
Go away. I only have contempt for you. Liberals play games with vital issues for cheap status displays. Hold them accountable. Talk them off the stage with their tails between their legs for a change.
‘Don’t think for second that you need to lay down the law and “show her who’s boss”!’
Nope…because the government lays down the law for you because she is the boss.
In an ungodly society this is what happens. Whereas the Bible states that God both lays down the law and is boss. Rebel at your own risk.
It’s interesting to see the analogy between how modern Christians see the authority of a husband and how they see the authority of God. I’m struck by the resemblance between how this post (and so many others) tells men to lead by catering to their wives’ desires and comfort, and the description of Moralistic Therapeutic Deism as about God being “a combination Divine Butler and Cosmic Therapist”.
Thank you, Dalrock. My post is titled “The Root of the Poison Tree” and is at http://www.therealgeobooth.com/?p=770
What is most tragic about this article by Caleb is that he most likely BELIEVES what he’s saying! I know I did when I was a beta Christian.
Why would anyone believe such patent nonsense? Because it’s what we were indoctrinated with for years! We are told women are not innately sinful, that they are better than we are by nature and if we just do what is right they will naturally follow us in all that the Bible commands! And if they don’t (that is, won’t) it’s OUR fault.
What a nightmare such teaching created for me and my (ex)wife.
In actual fact, my “example” so condemned her rebellion when she divorced me she said it was because I deserved better! My example didn’t encourage her to rise up to my level, BT to RUN from the standard I was setting, that she refused to follow.
The fact that I did not LEAD HER in the alpha sense is what allowed her to divorce me. Had I been leading her she would have conformed, I believe.
Or am I just denying her agency?
The author Caleb is clearly very uncomfortable with biblical headship and submission as it is written in the Bible.
It smells like Caleb is feeling the threatpoint. Wonder how much editing his wife had to do with that piece.
“The fact is she’s probably glad you’re home so that SHE can take a rest!”
Because “Being a mom is the hardest job EVER!”
My step-mom was not a traditionalist by any means, but she knew what her role in the family was. As a stay-at-home mom with seven kids living at home, she managed to keep the house spotless, do all the shopping, cook all the food, plus do all sorts of community stuff. This while dealing with often-crippling arthritis. Money was stretched thin and my dad ran a side business that she also helped with. But the house was hers, she was proud of it and the work that she did to maintain it. My dad did not do housework, nor did we kids, except at spring cleaning time, when everyone pitched in.
I’ve lived overseas, in a place where woman do the work of keeping a house without all the modern conveniences we have in the West. Yet they manage to keep their houses well.
I don’t believe that women today are built of different stuff, but many are living under the tragedy of low expectations. And, sadly, they want us to applaud them for living down to them.
…claiming husbands aren’t to tell their wives to submit. This isn’t possible unless a husband censors the parts of the Bible which teach wives to submit to their husbands…
Sometimes it amazes me how audacious some professed Christians are when they approach the word of God. It’s as if they have a self-appointed authority to edit the Bible to suit themselves, removing the parts they don’t like, and adding the parts that suit them. I wonder if they thought the Author of the Bible was too dumb to know exactly what messages He wanted to pass across to us through His word, so His clearly writen word must be edited to conform to “our modern age”. Yet, the dire warnings are still there for those would-be Bible editors: don’t mess with Scripture! Simply learn it, believe it, and obey it.
I testify to everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: if anyone adds to them, God will add to him the plagues which are written in this book; and if anyone takes away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God will take away his part from the tree of life and from the holy city, which are written in this book. Revelation 22:18, 19
Do not add to what I command you and do not subtract from it, but keep the commands of the LORD your God that I give you.
Deuteronomy 4:2
See that you do all I command you; do not add to it or take away from it. Deuteronomy 12:32
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. Ecclesiastes 12:13
Dalrock you know better than this. There are workarounds for every verse you listed. They are common parlance. All women know the workarounds, and the vast majority embrace them, even those who do not speak the workarounds cling to them in their minds and consider them as source text as they go about being the modern evangelical feminist wives they are.
They should know the workarounds. Preachers use them when they brave the danger zone.
Empath,
What are the workarounds? (Do you have a post somewhere on them, or could you briefly list them?) I know there is one work around regarding summission to the husband, that it’s on him to make her willing to submit by being the kind of man she finds it easy to submit to. I remember being at one couples’ Bible study where a woman said to her husband, regarding submission, that it’s “all up to you,” because he can make it easier, or harder for her to submit. I guess there is a grain of truth in there, in that some people are easier to please or submit to. Though I wonder if there is a double bind, in that in being on top of your honey-do list and doing the dishes and always being attentive to her needs (waiter and butler) she might actually lose respect for you, and loss of respect makes submission harder?
In my case, my wife is not a churchgoing Christian and it has its advantages and disadvantages in that, she is not subject to nor aware of the Churchiantiy teachings on submission and I don’t have to deal with this. But of course, I’d like her to attend church with me. (I’d try to indoctrinate / prepare her in advance for this. I’ve sometimes told her about the anti-male messages I hear in church, from the most well-meaning people. The latest was for a book the mens group is going to read called “AHA.” The selling point was that “it needs to be broken down really simple for us guys, because, well, we’re guys.”)
@Dawg
One of the major workarounds on the headship issue is claiming that Ephesians 5:21 is the context for Ephesians 5:22-24. The claim is since we’re equal in Christ and commanded to submit ourselves to one another in fear of Christ, then obviously the husband is to submit to his wife just as much as the wife is to submit to he husband. This is a feminist favorite.
This argument was completely shot down by God in Numbers 16, Korah’s rebellion. We see a pattern in the two arguments. In both, there is a claim of equality before the Lord and following that a challenge to God’s ordained structure of Authority. Korah’s followers were some 250 men, leaders of the assembly, men of renown. God killed them when fire came out of the tabernacle and turned them into crispy critturs. Korah and the other chief leaders died when the ground opened up and they and their families went down to Sheol alive. Feminists tend not to know about this story because its Old Testament, the time of those icky patriarchs.
Equal in value is not equal in authority. Most interesting to me, though, is Korah’s rebellion came on the heels of God ordering Moses to bring the man found gathering firewood on the Sabbath before the assembly and the assembly was to stone him to death. Want to bet that didn’t go over well with the women in the camp? Want to bet that he had a wife who was probably complaining about not having a fire because of no firewood and now she not only had no firewood but no husband? Probably wasn’t popular with the men, either, so Korah and his men took action and confronted Moses.
Women will do the same thing- wait for political conditions are right and then make their move. That’s also known as “kick him when he’s down.”
There are so many. They range from simply the circular-i-wanna-have-the-last-word back and forth where (Im using brief blunt words to convey the nature of the dialog between a man or men and a woman or women)
Him: Wife is to submit as to the Lord
Her: yes but he is to love as Christ the church
That will repeat in various wordings until the man stops talking.
Other,s “but she isn’t to be a doormat”, “If he is loving her of course she will follow”, “she is not to submit into sinful behavior”, “he cannot lord over her”, “he is to be the SPIRITUAL leader of the family” (this one gets off the idea of ordering the family and more onto the task list husbands must perform per the large nondenominational churches….read scripture aloud to her and to the kids, pray aloud hand in hand beside the bed with her nightly [especially onerous, that] do the ubiquitous devotionals, for the couple and for the family, etc)
These things range from that last word bit of emotional oscilloscope management where she gets to stop it at her peak to more deeply “researched” ideas as can be found here:
A Wife’s Submission
Arttoad hits the biggy. The mutual thingy
I’ve often wondered if Christianity would be shrinking in membership if Christian women were known to conform to scriptural behavior. I wonder if a whole society could be “won over without a word.” I think it’s plausible that it could.
I have a niece in Christian School. She just turned 17 this past weekend. Last year, her father (my younger brother) called me and asked me to help her with writing a paper about Biblical submission of wives. I wrote a response to my brother’s request, and sent it to my niece.
Essentially, I started out with the fact that the central issue is not whether or not a wife is willing to submit to her husband. It is whether or not she is willing to submit to God, because it is God who commands it, not husbands. Then I went on to tell her that the issue is really one of believing. If a woman believes that 1) God is actually a good God, and 2) He has the best of intentions toward us, and 3) He knows what will make us happiest, then it is easier to follow his commands. But if you don’t really believe that about God, then rebellion is the result. We have to decide if God knows better, or we know better, and we have to make a choice to either trust God, or trust in our own understanding.
Finally, I quoted the verse, “There is a way which seems right unto man, but the end thereof is destruction.”
@AT, Well said, sir! Don’t forget that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. He is the husband, the head. She is to submit to Him as He submitted to the Father.
No doctrinally orthodox church would suggest or countenance the “mutual submission” model between Christ and the church, where she leads Him. Moreover, look at how Jesus spoke to His bride in the letters to the seven churches. Nowhere did He follow the “Yes, dear. I’m sorry, dear. You’re right, dear.” script that I hear at wedding receptions these days.
I am convinced that what we have in the vast majority of christian men “teaching” how submission and authority is supposed to work is simply this: modern (i.e., the last 40-50 years) conventional wisdom.
It is not Biblical wisdom. It is not Biblical teaching. It is not borne out of any serious study of God’s Word. It is simply the excellent job of feminist marketing that relies on repetition and shame to drive home their message. When you hear something over, and over, and over, and over, and over, you start to believe it. Or at least repeat it yourself because it is easy, and safe, and won’t be challenged, and won’t single you out as a brute, and won’t…
It is conventional wisdom for precisely the reason that it is unquestioned. And men buy into it because when they read what the Bible actually says, they have found ways to fit it into the feminist narrative, rather than allowing the Bible to actually dictate christian culture and challenge the feminist narrative to any degree. It is pervasive, and insidious because we know longer even recognize it. People covered in boils yet praising the virtue of Dove soap.
Caleb is likely young. He thus actually believes what he is saying. There is likely a massive amount of cognitive dissonance going on as he unconsciously mouths the platitudes while wondering why they aren’t working like the conventional wisdom says, but he’ll likely keep saying them over and over and over because he is sure what he says is true and at some point his experience will have to yield to the truth. This is what people do. Until one day they have no other option but to question what they considered to be unquestionable. I believe this is how most men become red pill, because God knows it is surely not being taught from most pulpits. There is very little to challenge their conventional wisdom other than the inconvenient truth of reality, and reality often takes many years to begin to tip the scales, so strong and unceasing is the conventional narrative.
I often wish wives in particular and women in general would understand just how much *&%# the average working husband has to put up with in terms of submission to unjust, irrational authority in the workplace. Men often put their money where their mouth is in terms of submitting to authority even when they disagree with it. They often stay in “abusive” working situations when the prospect of another job is appealing but may be very difficult to pursue and would have serious repercussions on those they love and support. Yes, they can always change jobs, so the “analogy” to marriage is imprecise, but the basic principle of submitting to authority is typically one that women have far more trouble with than men. Imagine if men went around only obeying those bosses and company leadership they agreed with or who were deemed “worthy” of obedience.
@Neguy – you have stuck the nail on the head.
“When Caleb writes “We can’t ignore this verse: Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her Eph 5:25 What are you ready to give up for your wife’s sake? You should be ready to give your life but hopefully for now giving up watching your favorite team play is a good start!”
He ignores all of Christ save the cross. Jesus taught with authority, He rebuked His disciples, He laid down the law to the scribes and Pharisees and then after His authority was acknowledged, He washed the disciple’s feet. He did not yield to the desires of His disciples nor of the public, yet He gave His life for them. He did not worship them, but demanded that they worship Him. The context is not give up watching your favorite team, but taking a bullet. It in no way infers the subordination of authority, but requires the husband act with authority as a responsibility given to him by Christ.
Jesus demands His bride worship Him, Caleb has husbands worshiping their wives. St. Peter tells wives to submit like a slave to a cruel master, St. Paul tells wives to fear their husbands, but Caleb tells husbands to submit to their wives as an example for them. Problem is when a wife sees her husband not submitting to God by being a leader, requiring her submission and ruling her well she follows his example and doesn’t submit either. The example he ought give is his submission to God and one way that manifests itself is by ruling his household well with his wife submitting to him in all fear and reference.
‘We are told women are not innately sinful, that they are better than we are by nature and if we just do what is right they will naturally follow us in all that the Bible commands!’
If that is true…it is either a pastor who doesn’t know the Bible or a false church. God didn’t put a particular gender down when it came to sin.
‘But now apart from the Law the righteousness of God has been manifested, being witnessed by the Law and the Prophets, even the righteousness of God through faith in Jesus Christ for all those who believe; for there is no distinction; for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, being justified as a gift by His grace through the redemption which is in Christ Jesus…’
Romans 3:21-15
has anyone here
realized yet
that the rebellious nature
of women
was leveraged to
conquer
YOU?
has anyone here
realized yet
that the rebellious nature
of women
was leveraged to
conquer
YOU?
Conquer and destroy, as it was at the fall. Yes this is plain to see. Only through Jesus are we saved. There is no other way to be saved.
Dalrock another excellent analysis. Well done.
“There are workarounds for every verse you listed.”
If you’re working around scripture you’re doing it wrong; and wasting your time reading it at all.
“Only through Jesus are we saved. There is no other way to be saved.”
Does that mean that we should wait for Jesus to fix it for us?
As the feminists don’t believe in Jesus, I imagine they would agree with you 100%.
@GBFM
“has anyone here
realized yet
that the rebellious nature
of women
was leveraged to
conquer
YOU?”
As you well know this is the Frankfurt School’s errand assigned to the Marxist feminists. To wit: Destroy the family by destroying the patriarch. The second-wave feminists sought to destroy the patriarch by enticing him through debauched sexuality. Going along with this program is entirely optional.
@TheRealGeoBooth says:
March 14, 2015 at 5:30 pm
@AT, Well said, sir! Don’t forget that marriage is a picture of the relationship between Christ and His bride, the church. He is the husband, the head. She is to submit to Him as He submitted to the Father.
Thank you for your kind words. However, nowhere in the Bible does it say that the church is the bride of Christ. This is one of those things that’s taught everywhere and it has a tremendous impact on our interpretation of many other passages, especially in the area of marriage.
When we are saved, we become children of God the Father. We receive the Holy Spirit and through the help of the Holy Spirit we become servants of the One who saved us. Christ is the firstborn, a wave offering, who will one day be the firstborn among many brethren. However His act of atonement was the key and He purchased us for a price and we are His servants. Children of God the Father, servants of the Lord Jesus Christ. This is the law of the bondservant. We were purchased with a price and we are to work out our salvation in the service of our Master, the Lord Jesus Christ.
Having said that, the bride of Christ is specifically identified in Revelation 21:9-27, which says the bride of Christ is the new City of Jerusalem and goes into great detail describing a city. Not the church (or churches, depending on how you take Rev. 1-3). This helps us understand common misunderstandings in a lot of passages such as the parable of the ten virgins. The common view is that the five wise virgins were Christians and the five foolish virgins were not. Wrong. All of them had oil in their lamps (the Holy Spirit) and all had a flame burning. But, look carefully here. Five of the virgins had an extra flask of oil. Where did that come from? If we receive the Holy Spirit when we are saved, why are we commanded to be filled with the Holy Spirit in Ephesians 5:18?
We get the answer in the next verses. When the five foolish virgins demanded some of the extra oil from the wise virgins, they were told to go purchase their own. This implies the wise ones had to pay a price to get their extra anointing of the Holy Spirit. They suffered, in other words, because they were doing all that they could when they could. So, the foolish virgins went out to purchase their own extra oil and the wise virgins went with the bridegroom into the feast. Later, when the five had purchased their extra anointing of oil, they arrived to find the door shut. They knocked and were told “I tell you the truth, I don’t know you.” This is why so many are told that the five foolish virgins were not Christians. However, this isn’t the case.
What was the difference between the wise and foolish virgins? The were all Christians, all filled with the Holy Spirit, so how can the Bridegroom say He didn’t know them? In both cases their lamps were lit and all of them had their extra filling of oil. How can He know five of them and not know five others just like them? There are two words used in the NT that are translated “Know.” One is objective, the other is subjective. The term translated as “know” in this parable is subjective, the same one used in the Gospel of John when John the Baptist said (speaking of Jesus) “I didn’t know him.” Objectively, John the Baptist knew his cousin Jesus (knew who he was), but subjectively he didn’t know Him.
The Bridegroom isn’t saying they weren’t Christians, because multiple passages state clearly that Christ knows (objectively) all of His believers. It’s the difference between subjectively knowing a servant who walks with Him day by day and leans on Him, as opposed to objectively knowing the servant He sees around town occasionally that waves at Him in passing by and only comes to Him when they need something but otherwise ignores Him. The foolish virgins were not punished, but the wise virgins were rewarded because they did all they could when they could. The Lord is just. How could He treat them all the same when some had been much more faithful?
The virgins were members of the wedding party, not the brides. To say otherwise is to say that half the Christians don’t get in even though they were Christians and were filled with the Holy Spirit. What? Because Christ didn’t know them? No way. Now, go back and re-read the epistles of Christ and look at the number of times He exhorts His bondservants (and in the only place the Risen Lord refers to the members of His churches, He calls them bondservants) to be overcomers and to hold fast because He is coming like a thief in the night. In other words, be faithful to do all that you can while you can because you really want to hear “My good and faithful servant. Enter into the joy of your Master.”
As nearly as I can tell the basis of teaching that the church is the bride of Christ is a tangential reference in Ephesians 5:25-32 which compares the relationship between husband and wife to that between Christ and the church, which Paul describes as a great mystery. Paul could have easily described the church as the bride of Christ, but instead he described the church as the body of Christ. In contrast, there is a direct and on-point reference in Revelation 21:9-27 that specifically describes the bride of Christ as being the new City of Jerusalem. It is the only passage in the Bible that specifically describes the bride of Christ, and in my opinion it’s generally ignored because that passage says the bride of Christ isn’t the church. This conflicts with what everybody knows (church teachings), so it’s ignored.
My only conclusion is the saints will be guests at the wedding feast, not the bride. This exegesis allows five of the virgins to be shut out for being foolish and one of the servant to be bound up and set off in the dark where he could see but wasn’t able to enter the joy of his Master. If your name is written in the Lamb’s book of Life, you get in… but everybody gets treated with justice at the bema seat. Remember: He said ” Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline, be zealous therefore and repent.” (Rev. 3:19). I suspect there will be a lot of women (if they get in) taken to the woodshed for a sound thrashing.
So, if you look at various passages concerning marriage and mentally replace “bride” with “body” then you start to see a shift in meaning, such as the parable of the virgins. Sometimes it’s subtle, but it has an impact on the relationship between husbands and wives. There is also some shift in meaning with respect to the epistles of Christ with more emphasis on being an overcomer. Churchians hate this because being part of the Bride is a feelgood doctrine that means you automatically get in for the goodies. Being part of the body isn’t so feelgood because it means if you don’t work you might be locked out or even tied up and thrown to the side. Why, why, that’s accountability!
/sermon
@Mrteebs
When you hear something over, and over, and over, and over, and over, you start to believe it. Or at least repeat it yourself because it is easy, and safe, and won’t be challenged, and won’t single you out as a brute, and won’t…
Spot on, sir. But the side effect is that people will convince themselves that it’s true to the point of arguing their catechism is correct even when it is clearly contradicted by what the Bible says. Once you’ve been in a few of those arguments you realize these “cliff’s notes Christians” much prefer the easy and safe. regardless of what the Bible says.
It is conventional wisdom for precisely the reason that it is unquestioned. And men buy into it because [ they seldom read their Bibles and almost never put in the hard work of study, but ] when they read what the Bible actually says, they [ check to see which way the feminist farts are blowing. Then they find ] ways to fit it into the [ noxious gas cloud of the ] feminist narrative, rather than allowing the Bible to actually dictate christian culture and challenge the feminist narrative to any degree.
There. FIFY
Folks, at some point we have to realize that God will answer this rebellion. Since this problem started in His neck of the woods. Feminists unknowingly mouth Satan’s talking points. You see, they don’t believe he exists. But they surely want the fruit of that tree. When we think of eternal truths, this one sticks in my mind……a land has to pay for the blood guilt. This is from an eternal viewpoint. He has said repeatedly that he will avenge innocent blood. Feminists and abortion, a sickening mess, but one that God will take care of. I personally believe in Armegeddon. That’s why I don’t really stress over things that I can’t control. As for having to deal with a rebellious woman, I certainly had my own problems. Peace and quiet are a blessing. GBFM! Eve set the pattern. Many mock and scoff, just like the days of Noah. The Bible speaks of a perverted inversion of values, doesn’t it? And as this perversion grows, well, the Landlord has to do something, doesn’t He?
Junkyard Dawg:
it needs to be broken down really simple for us guys, because, well, we’re guys.
I am so tired of this. 43 years in church and this has been the standard mantra.
I spend a tremendous amount of my energy countering this with my boys.
If Caleb has not currently achieved the lowly status of cuckold then he aspires to it. However offensive his message of abomination is the sickening truth is that he’s probably been spoon fed this kind of garbage his whole life if he was raised in ‘church’, where the current form of age old pagan female worship is at its strongest. The stupidest part of all is that following his idiotic advice will in the long run cause a wife to lose respect and ultimately attraction for any husband who tries to live it out.
I see these chumps everywhere, even in my own family, and the worst of the worst are usually Christian husbands or ex-husbands. Dudes who serve and grovel to demanding, selfish, 300 lb. wives who genuinely believe themselves to be entitled to damn near worship. It’s absolutely grotesque.
Hi Darlock, thanks for reviewing my post, I hope you found it helpful!
@ Tom K.
The fact that I did not LEAD HER in the alpha sense is what allowed her to divorce me. Had I been leading her she would have conformed, I believe.
Or am I just denying her agency?
I humbly submit that you are denying her agency.
Let’s apply this same standard to the ultimate husband: Christ.
Is He an imperfect leader? Not alpha enough? Not loving enough? Not a humble enough servant?
Not (insert any behavior incumbent upon husbands here)? Ad infinitum.
OK. So why isn’t everyone saved? Why doesn’t everyone respond? Do they lack moral agency? Or is the imperfection with the “husband” in this example?
Clearly not.
So, this is the big lie, and the one that I have heard repeatedly both implicitly and explicitly in many teachings: “Well, Eve may have sinned, but WHERE WAS HER HUSBAND?” (Implication: it’s his fault. He should have been protecting her. But if that’s the case, it means HE sinned first – not her. So it’s a non-starter according to scripture).
There is nothing worse than a Christian quisling, and Caleb is at the top of the list on this one. Recently the Press, at least in Australia and Britain has published a slew of articles on the implications of New Testament teaching on submission for wives. Unable to point to statistics, where hard numbers would show Christian men to be more abusive than their secular counterparts, they have stated that passages such as Ephesians 5:22, 1 Peter 3 and 1 Cor 7 “lay the groundwork” for abuse.
This is punishing a thought crime that hasn’t even been thought. The interesting thing though is that church spokesmen of various countries have come out with wringing hands, cringing and agonising about such reports. They cannot do, rightly, what they should: Stand by the Word of God and demand that writers of such articles, Christian or not, produce evidence in the form of hard statistics.
We have had successive generations of Christian men indoctrinated by feminism in the church, so much so that we and they cannot bring themselves to live by the Word of God. This is deeply disturbing.
Scott,
“it needs to be broken down really simple for us guys, because, well, we’re guys.”
No, no we are not. We are men.
“I am so tired of this. 43 years in church and this has been the standard mantra.
I spend a tremendous amount of my energy countering this with my boys.”
You’re doing God’s work. The churches which are growing today are the ones not even giving it the credit of countering it. Straight, courageous, orthodox preaching. The Lord of Lies merits no hearing.
“Does that mean that we should wait for Jesus to fix it for us?”
No. How else do you expect Jesus the Christ to fix it but through the work of his Living Body?
“has anyone here
realized yet
that the rebellious nature
of women
was leveraged to
conquer
YOU?”
You’re mistaking the symptom for the disease. The rebellious nature is human nature. The women followed the men, egged on by the Lord of Lies (in Marxist guise) as usual taking advantage of the opportunity offered by sin. He would have found no purchase without willing accomplices, first the male, then the female following the conquering strong horse, which is their nature.
See:
http://neoneocon.com/2014/04/10/brandeis-the-death-of-cornell-and-the-death-of-the-university/
That preceded the rebellion of the mass of women.
Of all the kooky feminist talking points, this is one of the most insidious, ridiculous, absurd.
There was an article here about an office colloquially called “Yiayia”. I think that’s Greek for бабушка, or at least it seems to function the same way.
A hardcore wife, who serves her man and bears his children, and is known to be a submissive and loyal woman, is arguably one of the most powerful individuals in the social microcosm of the village or neighborhood. Insult some older woman in Eastern Europe (or some other non-western patriarchal place) today and get the idea — you’ll be lucky if you get away before one of her sons, grandsons, sons-in-law is on your ass.
A woman who is faithful to her man, submissive and helpful, is universally respected and commands a huge amount of respect.
The actual “doormat” is the feminist in capitalist society, who runs around in the slutwalk and divorces to eat, pray, love. Insult her and passersby will join in. No quality man would lift a finger for a feminist, and none should.
Boxer
“Even among women who are not feminists, it’s difficult for many women to follow a husband’s leadership because our sinful nature is in rebellion against God’s plan. ”
http://lindsays-logic.blogspot.com/2014/12/are-women-naturally-good.html
@Artisanal Toad
The problem with insisting that Eph 5:21 is the context for what follows is also this: what follows makes absolutely no sense filtered through the mutual submission lens. Is Christ mutually submitted to the church? Is the church the head and Christ the body? This is what would naturally follow if 5:21 was the thesis and 5:22-33 the proof.
But this is not even a speed bump for today’s empowered army of egalitarians. Head doesn’t mean “one to whom you submit” – it simply means “one from whom the other was created.” And with a few more sleight-of-hand flourishes, we end up at this contorted destination: husbands, you exist for your wives. And church, Christ exists for you – for your happiness, for your prosperity, for your every whim. The servant leader who gives not out of love, but out of compulsion, guilt, and that most treasured of all gifts:
the Holy Spirita woman to keep him in line.And about that pesky business of respect in verse 33? Glad you asked. Respect, sir, must be earned. Love is always unconditional. We know this because women have told us. And because they’ve told us, we can now teach it with confidence.
And there we have it. Female imperative trumps scripture.
Are there degrees of ‘Honor your Mother & Father’?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=951009
Sad Engagement Results
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=951113
@MrTeebs
>The problem with insisting that Eph 5:21 is the context for what follows is also this: what follows makes absolutely no sense filtered through the mutual submission lens. Is Christ mutually submitted to the church?
And the pattern continues to fail with the following two paragraphs. Eph 6:1-4 teaches about children submitting to their parents, while fathers have a responsibility to not exasperate their children.
Eph 6:5-9 teaches slaves to obey their masters. And the responsibility for masters is “And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.” Unfortunately, the initial part, treat your slaves in the same way, could be used to claim mutual submission.
I think anyone with half a brain should correctly anticipate that it makes no sense to think an immature child should have the same authority as the father who provides for the home. Similar for thinking anyone would buy a slave, if it meant that the slave would have just as much authority over the master as the master has over the slave.
Similarly, the pattern in Eph 5:22-33 is that the wife is to submit to the husband and respect him, while the husband has a responsibility to love his wife.
@Dave:
Thank you for the list of verses. Very helpful.
@Artisanal Toad
Thank you for the challenge on the claim that the church is the bride of Christ. I’ll have to review that. Your suggested interpretations for the ten virgins parable, with the comments on the different types of “knowing”, are worthy of study and consideration.
@Dalrock
Thank you for making the effort to gave Biblical responses to the evil church teachings. Your efforts are appreciated and very valuable.
@Mrteebs:
Most Christians will not know Wisdom until the Devil is there for their soul. And, at that point, it’ll be too late.
@Caleb:
I hope you learn something of God. Otherwise it’s going to go very badly for you.
Some horse-faced wimminz is apparently being lauded in the press for (you guessed it) cuckolding her husband with dozens of men.
Pretty good write up on mpc, which denies wapo their ad revenue and doesn’t leave anything major out. (Not that there’s any difference between this story and the other thousand or so we have all read since EPL came out)
http://mpcdot.com/forums/topic/8342-she-took-a-year-off-from-her-marriage-to-sleep-with-strangers/
Relishing sin, yeah.
‘Does that mean that we should wait for Jesus to fix it for us?’
No…He fixed it about 2,000 years ago. It’s up to people whether they want to believe in Him or not.
‘Women aren’t naturally good and kind any more than men are. We’re all fallen. We have to work to develop good habits and learn to do what God wants of us.’
Now that’s the type of truth that needs to be spoken about more instead of dividing the sexes.
Some horse-faced wimminz is apparently being lauded in the press for (you guessed it) cuckolding her husband with dozens of men.
Pretty good write up on mpc, which denies wapo their ad revenue and doesn’t leave anything major out. (Not that there’s any difference between this story and the other thousand or so we have all read since EPL came out)
That’s been making the rounds for a few days — I think earl posted the link to it here.
It goes well beyond EPL, I think, which is why the Post’s review was such a panning. She doesn’t even really attempt to come across as sympathetic, so she isn’t read in a sympathetic way. Basically she threw a sexual tantrum in her 40s and paid the price, and the Post reviewer, to his credit, called her on it. Not a bad article in the Post, I think.
There was an article here about an office colloquially called “Yiayia”. I think that’s Greek for бабушка, or at least it seems to function the same way.
Yep, although the Slavs mostly shorten that to “baba”.
@ Tom K
“We are told women are not innately sinful, that they are better than we are by nature and if we just do what is right they will naturally follow us in all that the Bible commands!”
I do not agree with the concept of “original sin”. But it seems the logic of some of its adherents is that the curse is passed through the male line, rather than “mankind”. Maybe they really do believe theologically that woman are not innately sinful, but men are! Maybe its confirmation bias, but it seems like one more reason to find such doctrine (original sin) unbiblical.
@Artisanal Toad
I would counter challenge that assuming the book of Revelation ch21 and forward is talking about post judgement heaven & earth is the mistake. The new Jerusalem is the church, the church is the city of God and is part of Christ’s current kingdom where he rules with an iron scepter as the Psalms say. It has no night for God is its light, the gates never close because all are welcome in and God is its protector. Notice that it brings glory to all nations (seems hard or irrelevant to do that in post final judgement Heaven). It is established on the 12 stones of the apostles with the Christ as the chief cornerstone. It is measured to perfection just as the Temple was in Ezekiel. Which also fits with Hebrew describing all Christians as priests in this new system and part of a new heavenly temple. I will relent from this line of reasoning because using Revelation of John for doctrinal proofs is very sketchy because of the poetic/apoplectic/symbolic language.
Lets look at the more straightforward letters:
2 Cor 11:2 – a letter to the church at Corinth
For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, because I have promised you in marriage to one husband—to present a pure virgin to Christ.
Eph 5:22-32
The idea of husband and wife and Christ and church are clearly mixed all together:
Husband and wife become one flesh physically
Christ and church become one body
Wive submit to husdand
Church submits to christ
etc, etc, etc
Finally, most of the minor prophets treat Israel as the wife of God. See especially Hosea and Ezekiel 16. The Israel under that old covenant is supplanted by Christians of every nation under the new covenant Jeremiah 31:31 & Romans 9:6-8 and the majority of Romans says the old law was put to death and Israel is released from that covenant. But if Israel was the wife of God under the old covenant, would the church be any less under the better covenant? Certainly not!
One parable about being prepared to enter the kingdom and doing what Christian ought to be doing, and using 10 virgins at a wedding to illustrate that, does not fully counter balance what is more straightforward language and explanation from the epistles and OT prophecy.
“Women aren’t naturally good and kind any more than men are. We’re all fallen. We have to work to develop good habits and learn to do what God wants of us.”
Both men and women are flawed and both are capable of bad behavior.
But I believe that women definitely have an inherent greater inclination towards narcissistic, selfish and extractive behavior towards men – evolution selected for this behavioral trait in women. Women needed to provide for themselves and their children to ensure their survival, and could not become too attached to any one man in case he could not provide for her for whatever reason, injury, failure or death. The men that survived were those that gave priority for, or loved, their women and provided for them.
Women need men for guidance. Men civilize women. Matriarchies don’t last and descend civilization into chaos.
Artisanal Toad says: One of the major workarounds on the headship issue is claiming that Ephesians 5:21 is the context for Ephesians 5:22-24.
Ephesians 5:21 is the last verse in a section that runs from 4:1 through 5:21.
Start reading Ephesians at 4:1 and pause after 5:21. It will be obvious at that point that it belongs with the previous section, not with the section after it (and not as a standalone verse either).
OT: Let’s take a moment to honor another one of our fallen heroes.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2015/03/14/bristol-palin-engaged-to-medal-of-honor-winner/
Single mothers can still get the rock it appears.
desiderian writes, “The women followed the men, egged on by the Lord of Lies (in Marxist guise) as usual taking advantage of the opportunity offered by sin. He would have found no purchase without willing accomplices, first the male, then the female following the conquering strong horse, which is their nature.”
Time and again desiderian reveals his feminist nature. In this case he blames all men in general for cultural marxism.
The reason why cultural marxism has proven so successful is because of marxist feminists like desiderian.
Everything is always the fault of men everywhere, and thus men must be perpetually punished by the State.
Desiderian: “If you want a vision of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a man’s face – forever.”
Desiderian states that the reason the court system is corrupt is because of all men everythere, and thus that you must be punished by marxist feminists lead by Desiderian.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/03/12/she-took-a-year-off-from-her-marriage-to-sleep-with-strangers-what-could-go-wrong/
desiderian writes, “The women followed the men, egged on by the Lord of Lies (in Marxist guise) as usual taking advantage of the opportunity offered by sin. He would have found no purchase without willing accomplices, first the male, then the female following the conquering strong horse, which is their nature.”
Dear Desiderian,
who is this “conquering strong horse” you speak of?
why did Jesus allow the “conquering strong horse”?
is it every man’s fault that the “conquering strong horse” was followed?
do women have absolutely no blame for following the “conquering strong horse”?
when a woman follows your “conquering strong horse” and blows up her family, is this the fault of men everywhere, as you say?
Debating the interpretation of Bible verses with a woman is beta behavior. If a man isn’t dominant over his woman from the outset of the relationship then she will never submit to him or respect him on a primal level. Christianity teaches that meekness and servanthood are virtues, and that is why the majority of Christian men are beta makes.
desiderian writes, “first the male, then the female following the conquering strong horse, which is their nature.”
Dear Desiderian, when did you first follow the “conquering strong horse”? After you followed it, did the women in your life follow you? Is every sin of every women in your life the result of you following the “conquering strong horse”? Why did you follow the “conquering strong horse” and lead all the women in your life into sin?
over 50,000,000 children have been aborted since roe vs. wade, by a WOMAN’S CHOICE.
Desiderian stipulates that the blood of all the aborted is on men’s hands. Even if you are anti-abortion and pro life, because you, as a man followed Desiderian’s “conquering strong horse”, you made the women abort their children.
How many men here agree with Desiderian that the abortion of over 50,000,000, aborted by a woman’s choice, is YOUR fault?
GBFM! It seems that most of the men on this list either don’t understand the biblical view of women, or they ignore it. Something about not even one woman in a thousand is trustworthy. Eve set the standard. Women haven’t changed since then. Since the Bible teaches that Adam and Eve were perfect, that means she knew she was condemning the future to death. And she tried to hide from God and she lied about it. Unformed tissue, my white pimply butt! However, as God reads the heart, and His Son said that if we desire, so we are. What that means to me is that even if a woman hasn’t had an abortion, if she’s pro-choice, she’s just as guilty. Here’s the kicker…..if she will kill her own baby, well, she will do anything she wants to you. The banality of evil. Is her choice my fault? No!
easttexasfatboy writes, “Is her choice my fault? No!”
Yes!
One of Moses’ TEN COMMANDMENTS is to not bear false witness.
Desiderian the feminist marxist bears false witness against all men, by testifying that women choosing to abort over 50,000,000 babies is the fault not of women, but of men.
Desiderian the feminist marxist accuses you–the men of this blog–of following his “conquering strong horse.”
Desiderian the feminist marxist wishes to punish and condemn the innocent for the sins of his fellow feminist marxists.
Joe says:
“March 15, 2015 at 1:00 pm
Debating the interpretation of Bible verses with a woman is beta behavior. If a man isn’t dominant over his woman from the outset of the relationship then she will never submit to him or respect him on a primal level. Christianity teaches that meekness and servanthood are virtues, and that is why the majority of Christian men are beta makes.”
Dear Joe,
Please let us know when you have rectified and exalted all the corrupt family courts with your “dominant” behavior.
When are you going to man up and dominate the women on the Supreme Court?
Or, when are you going to man up and dominate the women at your local church or university?
As of now, if seems like you are all hat and no cowboy.
All talk and no action.
Extremely unmanly.
‘Something about not even one woman in a thousand is trustworthy.’
Some translations say it’s virtuous. What’s more important is the verse before it:
‘And I discovered more bitter than death the woman whose heart is snares and nets, whose hands are chains. One who is pleasing to God will escape from her, but the sinner will be captured by her.
“Behold, I have discovered this,” says the Preacher, “adding one thing to another to find an explanation, which I am still seeking but have not found. I have found one man among a thousand, but I have not found a woman among all these.’
Ecclesiastes 7:26-28
How many sinful men have been captured by sinful women? My guess is many. You can’t get away with sin gents without attracting a woman who is better at it that than you are.
GBFM! I entered this world naked, and so shall I go. The literal bloodguilt stays upon the wicked. For many shall cry “Lord, Lord”, right? He was referring to those who professed to worship his Father. You see, if a churchian even says in his heart that a woman has the right to choose, he shares in the bloodguilt. That will cover almost all, won’t it? Feminism, original sin, infanticide…..btw, that’s how God views abortion….well, wide and spacious the road……I’ve read your comments for quite a while, Books, and sometimes I actually agree with you…..fiat money and Bernanke…..lololollolzzzz
Earl! Thanks for the assist….here’s the point, Eve set the pattern. We were given plenty of info about what she did, and her motives. Remember, she was perfect until sin, right? So, that reptile gamed her, right? Picked the time and place, didn’t he? Paul says she was completely fooled. Jesus said something about the abundance of the heart. Women haven’t changed a bit, have they? Women are fallen creatures, just as we are, however, as you point out, they are better at it.
Dear easttexasfatboy,
The hilarious thing is how many churchians like Desiderian place all the sins of women upon h shoulders of all the good men.
Desiderian advocates the immoral “alpha bux beta bux” government, as it is the fault of all the men that their women have been bernankified, and thus all the men must be punished for it.
This is what Driscolla and Desiderian and all their fellow feminist marxists preach and teach.
They are so much better at it they’ve convinced a lot of people that men committed all the sins and women are innocent of all wrongdoing.
And man’s weak spot is women. That’s where our deception came into us.
Does that mean that we should wait for Jesus to fix it for us?
As the feminists don’t believe in Jesus, I imagine they would agree with you 100%.
If you are following Jesus, you are already working to fix what needs to be fixed. I’ve yet to meet a feminist that agrees with me.
it needs to be broken down really simple for us guys, because, well, we’re guys.
…I spend a tremendous amount of my energy countering this with my boys.
Ditto, only with me the time has been spent countering it at church and among other church goers I encounter through ministry.
I read somewhere that if a society has 3 generations of peace, the women ruin everything. Think about poor old Adam……there he is, stuck with a truly worthless woman, if there ever was one. And he has to raise a family with that rebellious woman. Here’s the point, gentlemen. Many are called, but few chosen. The daughters of Eve probably won’t make it. I’m concerned with my own conduct, and I figure God will handle the rest.
In the same way that Driscoll loves blaming all the men in the room
Dersidian also loves blaming all the men in the room
bearing false witness against all the innocent men
so that he can seize absolute power
as is in his marxist feminist nature.
Earl, I just realized that my post probably was’t written simply enough for most of your readers to understand.
To make myself clear let me put the cookies on the bottom shelf for you.
Here’s the basic message of my post.
1. Wives are exhorted by the Bible to submit to their husbands.
2. Husbands are never exhorted by the Bible to force their wives into submission.
3. Husbands are exhorted to sacrifice everything on behalf of their wives.
Is that basic enough?
Yea, no! Oh, right, so she can go off and screw around, run up the debt tab and you must just sacrifice for her. However, you go ahead and die, right now, for your wife. Crucify yourself!
Love your wife like Christ loves the Church, go ahead and die, little man. Gosh, even your avatar is freaking creepy. Go away, you fruitcake!
Yo Caleb, speak up, help the marriage rate decline a bit more! Go on, make our day, show us exactly what a modern day vagina worshiper thinks the leader should sacrifice for their rebellious follower. Go ahead!
Dear Cuckold Caleb:
Most of us here can read the text. While I’m no great shakes in the brains department, and not religious either, I can easily see that your innovative interpretation is pretty far afield.
I find this blog way too useful to litter it up feeding masochists and attention seekers. Not to worry, though. Greater minds abound here, and they’ll be along shortly to give you the negative attention you so desperately desire.
Regards,
Boxer
Caleb,
“To make myself clear let me put the cookies on the bottom shelf for you.”
You’ve already got the bottom shelf fully covered, Einstein.
Shouldn’t you be in the army, fighting in Ukrainian? You better get your wife drafted too!
It also says that it’s tribulation in the flesh. In fact, Jesus actually recommended a single life for those who could do it. As I’m chewing one of those cookies, I reflect on this rebellious, feminist society in which we live. Men owe absolute devotion to God. Everything else flows from that. If a wife chooses to transgress, the man is free to go his own way. In fact, he has been called to peace. Abortion is a touchstone for a Christian. Churchians say it’s her right to choose. One or the other. Most women agree with feminism. They aren’t christians. They may loudly profess they are, but they’re rotten fruit. Women are free moral agents. They can choose their own way, just as Eve did. A man’s sacrifice is conditional. Would that Adam had reflected on that. God could have created another woman. Feminism is rebellion. Eve was just the first feminist.
The basic premise of your misguided and utterly revolting and insulting post is that wives can do whatever the heck they want, the man mustn’t do anything to stop them or to correct them. No, instead he must bear all the mistakes she makes, fix them and continue to sacrifice even though she will not submit and she will continue to do whatever she pleases because she will have a mangina for a husband and not a man.
You cannot force anyone to submit, you can certainly redraw all your support as they continue to subvert your leadership. Only a stupid leader will support a mutinous follower as it will gut their leadership potential, which was exactly the purpose of your bile inducing post. To teach wives to rebel. You’re a cunt.
Dear Feminist Hater:
I have to chuckle at the thought that the fictional Caleb Holt (the protagonist in the Fireproof film) was perhaps named after our new friend Caleb. The authors had to get the inspiration somewhere, and this dork has a web page, so it’s entirely possible.
If you recall, the fictional Caleb believed in exactly the same nonsense that this guy espouses: even going so far as to liquidate his life savings, turning over all his worldly goods to his ungrateful wife who was screwing her co-worker. It was only when the skank wife was rejected by her paramour that she returned to her husband.
I got the feeling that Caleb may have been looking at homosexual pornography — not only because his wife threw such a fit, but also because he was so comfortable with the fact that other men were screwing her. Normal men would divorce a ho’ like that (and Christian teachings allow a man to divorce an unfaithful wife). A normal man certainly wouldn’t go grovel to his wife’s paramour as Caleb did. Caleb almost seemed attracted to the good lookin’ doctor who was banging Mrs. Caleb on the downlow, in that scene.
Like the fictional Caleb, I suspect many things about our new pal, just from looking at his web page and reading his (often wordsalad) prose. I’d be interested in a deeper analysis of this character, in order to understand the type better.
Men who crave a wife to “lead” him around are always damaged. Often they transferred repressed sexual feelings for the mother to the wife, and are thus turned on by a wife only when she demeans him or treats him like a child. Thoughts?
Regards,
Boxer
@Caleb
‘Earl, I just realized that my post probably was’t written simply enough for most of your readers to understand.
To make myself clear let me put the cookies on the bottom shelf for you.
Here’s the basic message of my post.
1. Wives are exhorted by the Bible to submit to their husbands.
2. Husbands are never exhorted by the Bible to force their wives into submission.
3. Husbands are exhorted to sacrifice everything on behalf of their wives.
Is that basic enough?’
I know what the Bible says.
I’m pointing out to you how it is now. Wives have decided to replace submitting to their husband because that is what God commands of them with submitting to the State and being rebellious to their husband because the world tells them too. More than likely if a husband tries to force a wife to submit to him, she’s running to the State. A husband can even sacrifice for his wife and she can still blow it all up because she is rebellious. We can’t keep covering up the lack of morality in modern women.
GBFM,
“who is this “conquering strong horse” you speak of?”
Here
“why did Jesus allow the “conquering strong horse”?”
Sin. Starting among the high, with the low following.
“is it every man’s fault that the “conquering strong horse” was followed?”
No, there is always a faithful remnant.
“do women have absolutely no blame for following the ‘conquering strong horse’?”
No, they bear the full blame for following their base instincts instead of the Way of their savior, who resisted the temptation of the Lord of Lies.
“when a woman follows your “conquering strong horse” and blows up her family, is this the fault of men everywhere, as you say?”
No, it is fully her fault. The fault of men was following the Lord of Lies rather than scriptural teaching in giving her the power to do so. They lead her into temptation. Both have sinned gravely.
Boxer, he sounds like the typical Churchian ‘Servant Leader’. He believes he must lead by following, which is absurd. There is a hierarchy, God, Jesus, Man, Woman. That is the order that leadership flows, submission flows in the opposite direction.
What I think is called for when it comes to women is some tough love, the kind of love they need so desperately, the kind Caleb could never give. They need to be shown the door.
Earl, they never were moral. As you pointed out, they are just better at deception. Churchian, not Christian.
Being better at deception doesn’t mean they don’t have a concept of morality….they are just better at hiding and deflecting their sins. Victimhood, shifting blame, white knights defending the behavior, etc.
However the Son of God came into the world through a woman. There are female saints. I’ve seen women go to confession. Some women do get that sinfulness is not a good route to take even if they are better at hiding it.
GBFM,
“Dear Desiderian, when did you first follow the “conquering strong horse”?”
From birth until about five years ago, never with much enthusiasm, mostly out of pride and self-conceit, in retrospect.
“After you followed it, did the women in your life follow you?”
Roughly half the women in my life follow it still, though several now seem to be having their doubts.
“Is every sin of every women in your life the result of you following the ‘conquering strong horse’?”
No, they made their own decision or were born into it and have followed without reflection
“Why did you follow the ‘conquering strong horse’ and lead all the women in your life into sin?”
I didn’t do much leading one way or another, then.
This review of my post is really ironic because just a couple of days ago I got accused of being domineering male chauvinist by people who read my post on how to get your wife to submit. I guess that puts me on neither side but rather squarely on the truth of God’s Word!
Caleb – I for one would like you to stick around and learn what you can.
1. Wives are exhorted by the Bible to submit to their husbands.
2. Husbands are never exhorted by the Bible to force their wives into submission.
3. Husbands are exhorted to sacrifice everything on behalf of their wives.
1) Yes, in all things.
2) Neither are they exhorted in the Bible NOT to use their God given authority to minister to their wives.
3) Wives are told to ask their husbands at home if their is anything they desire to learn (1 Cor 14:35). This flies in the face of you essay because husbands are to instruct their wives in the word. This would include the parts that instruct wives to submit to their own husbands.
The relationship between Christ and His Church is the model for the Christian marriage. The husband then should love his wife and give himself up for her that she may be sanctified, cleansed, holy, without blemish, and presented in splendor. Whether or not she agrees, or likes it, this is the goal.
No where does it say that he must do everything (or anything) in a manner she approves of. It is God a man should seek approval from. Often times in order to obey God a man must go against the wishes of his wife.
That essay you wrote has presented a false view that is very popular in this pro-feminist post Christian era. Your message is to reverse the roles in a marriage so that the wife is the one who is in authority by proxy (her feelings representing God’s approval), and the husband must win her without a word by his behavior. Yet the Bible clearly tells us that the husband is to instruct his wife, and she is to be in submission to her him.
I pray your eyes are opened and you stop teaching this nonsense as it is destroying families and turning people away from the Church. Non-Christians are mocking us because we (rightly) hold fast to the scriptures concerning homosexual behavior, yet we selectively ignore the scriptures concerning the roles of men and women. How sad it is when unbelievers know what the Bible teaches and Christians do not.
@ Caleb
If you have to manipulate your spouse into submitting to you…you are doing it wrong.
You should have stopped after this:
‘God’s Word commands women to submit to their husbands.’
Lots of typos
2nd to the last paragraph above should end with:
and she is to be in submission to him.
GBFM,
Reading the Great Books (Epicurus, Lucretius and the Cynics) has taught me that fighting a corrupt and decaying society such as ours is a waste of time.
Machiavelli and Neitzche have taught me that women bow to strength, which is why Christian men are doomed to betahood. Blessed are the meek? The servant shall be greatest among you? Submit to one another? Caleb is fully correct in claiming that the Bible teaches these things.
Jesus and Paul glorified eunuchs and celibacy, precisely because this is where their betafying doctrines will lead men.
Lolozzlll !
Joe – if what you wrote were true (it is not), then all men would be better off as “betas”. What does it gain a man to win the world yet lose his soul in doing so?
Lolz…funny you left off the last parts to those statements.
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.’
‘But the greatest among you shall be your servant. “Whoever exalts himself shall be humbled; and whoever humbles himself shall be exalted.’
‘Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.’
JDG,
Of course it is true. Women do not and never will submit to meek service-oriented men. The confused and contradictory teachings of the Bible in this regard will certainly never suffice to undo feminist dominance in our culture.
Remember the huge impact Promise Keepers made in getting married men their authority back? Neither do I.
“over 50,000,000 children have been aborted since roe vs. wade, by a WOMAN’S CHOICE.”
How many women were among the seven? God bless White and Rehnquist. Women are almost always the perps, with millions of men as accomplices.
“In the same way that Driscoll loves blaming all the men in the room
Dersidian also loves blaming all the men in the room”
That is a sin I have committed. Nowadays my sin is more a preoccupation with truth alone rather than daring to take substantial action.
“bearing false witness against all the innocent men
so that he can seize absolute power
as is in his marxist feminist nature.”
The witness is not false, nor the men I speak of innocent. I’ve more often shrunk in cowardice from the power that has been given me than sought it undeserved, nor am I Marxist or feminist, but you knew that.
The power in the blood of the Lamb is new life in Christ together through repentance from sin. Those who have lost the gospel have lost that power, looking without rather than looking within, and losing that power now find themselves conquered. It is those men and women who must be reached and that power rediscovered if that conquest is to be overturned
Yes, it is important to understand the forces arrayed against us, but that is only a tactical consideration. Without the power of repentance from sin – true sin, not the bullshit sins of churchianity – all the understanding in the world of our enemies will be to no avail.
Caleb,
“This review of my post is really ironic because just a couple of days ago I got accused of being domineering male chauvinist”
The accuser is gonna accuse. Why do you give equal weight to Satan as you do your fellow believers? That’s not a difference that can be split.
JDG,
Well said.
Joe –
Of course it is true. Women do not and never will submit to meek service-oriented men. The confused and contradictory teachings of the Bible in this regard will certainly never suffice to undo feminist dominance in our culture.
Remember the huge impact Promise Keepers made in getting married men their authority back? Neither do I.
The promise keepers did not try to get men their authority back. I was there, I know. They were teaching much of what Caleb teaches. I stopped participating the day they had one of the leader’s wife give a message to the men in attendance on how to be better men. Even as ‘blue pill’ as I was then, I knew that was wrong.
You are trying to making statements about something you know little of (the Bible), and then you point at people not abiding by the teachings in the Bible as your evidence. The basic teachings in the Bible are not confusing, nor are they contradictory. People are distorting the teachings to appease a culture that has become hostile towards genuine Christian teaching.
You misrepresent the Bible and Christianity (sadly like so many who bear the name) with nothing to back it up. 100 years ago most people in this country understood what the Bible teaches regarding the roles of men and women without much difficulty. Much of what you call alpha was instilled into boys as they became men, and this in a culture based on Christian values.
desiderian says:
March 15, 2015 at 5:13 pm
Thank you.
Basically people are trying to take what the world is saying and interpreting Scripture. It should be interpreting Scripture and taking it out into the world.
Joe – I find it interesting that as Christian values in this country have decreased, the number of passive and effeminate males has increased.
JDG,
How presumptuous of you. I sat in Mile High stadium in 1996 and heard with my own ears the Promise Keepers instruct men that they need to take authority back from their wives. They said you might need to have a gentle but firm discussion with her, telling her that you had been wrong to concede authority to her but you are now taking it back. They said to tell her, don’t ask her. I’m sure a quick Google search along these lines would turn up text or video of this teaching, as I’ve seen it online many times before.
I studied Biblical theology, apologetics, hermeneutics, homiletics etc. in college. As far as women are concerned, that is all worthless. They submit to alpha dominance and nothing else. Single Christian women are hooking up with unbelieving dominant alpha men these days. They have no use for the blessed meek servile Christian men in the pews, and routinely announce that “there are no good men in the church” in the presence of these poor betas.
Christian doctrine does not align with the hard truths of reality. That is why meek and servile Christian men are doomed to involuntary celibacy, divorce, and lifeless marriages in the best case scenario
Yes, Christ willingly sacrificed Himself for the Church, but he will also bring judgement to all. In fact, He promises to bring DISCIPLINE and judgement on the Church FIRST, in this life, so that Christians can avoid judgement later. (1 Pet 4:17, Heb 12, etc). There is no hypocrisy with God, and He will hold his Church to standard see Rev ch2- ch3. There is more to the Christ – Church relationship than Christ giving blood. His Christians are expected to be SLAVES to God, Rom 6:22. God expects it and will enforce it. Christ is a King who rules with an iron scepter (Ps 2:9 & 110).
Ignoring this two sides of the relationship is part of the problem. If Christ is held up as the ideal husband, then we must consider all relationship pieces that implies.
Caleb, your being dressed down by ardent Christo-Feminists isn’t surprising, but do you not see their doing so only highlights the points Dalrock made in his review here?
Who were you writing this post for? Those christo-feminist women who you thought would appreciate your magnanimity for scolding Christian men into an unending performance to ‘earn’ a wife’s submission? Or did you write it for men you expected to affirm your very feminized assertions dipped in just enough scripture to appeal to their faith?
You’re a pussy beggar Caleb. You can dress it up in Christianese all you like, but you’re only advocating male submissiveness and calling it sacrifice in the hopes your wife will appreciate it and reciprocate in kind.
Joe,
“Christian doctrine does not align with the hard truths of reality.”
Cool story, Nick.
You can’t pick and choose which elements of 2,000 years of history you wish to remember in order to create your own personal reality and expect anyone to give what you say credence. It doesn’t matter what you heard in that stadium; once McCartney’s daughter got knocked up, it was clear he couldn’t even lead his own family, let alone a whole awakening to true doctrine among millions of men. The instructions to the church in 1 Tim still stand.
“That is why meek and servile Christian men are doomed to involuntary celibacy, divorce, and lifeless marriages in the best case scenario”
Orthodox Christian doctrine does not teach men to be meek and servile to their wives. You followed heretical teaching, and now have traded even that for moribund philosophy. Repent and seek true doctrine.
Dear Rollo:
I always like your comments here and read your blog fairly often.
That is probably an accurate deconstruction; but, it doesn’t go to the root of the problem, in my opinion.
I have to wonder what sort of relationship Caleb had with his father. I’d guess his dad was distant, or perhaps even absent, for most of his childhood. This led to the breaching of the protected emotional space with his mother that Freud named “Oedipal Complex”*. Like the literary character, our contemporary Oedipus is still fixated on his mother, which leads to his being an incontinent husband, who endlessly prods his wife to lead him around by the nose, the way mom used to. At some level, he probably feels deep guilt and shame whenever he has sex with his wife, and can only perform if his wife takes the mother role in his relationship.
Caleb himself isn’t important, except as an example of the sort of twisted, broken halfmen that are produced by this culture, which strips fathers from the lives of their children as a matter of policy.
I’d be interested in more thoughts on this phenomenon.
Best,
Boxer
*For a good rundown and examples of this psychopathology, see Chapters 4 and 5 of The Interpretation of Dreams
Caleb was pretty cool in this scene form the Matrix:
Joe – As far as women are concerned, that is all worthless. They submit to alpha dominance and nothing else.
This is only partly true. While many women submit to “alpha dominance”, others will only submit when they have to, period. Still other women, having been brought up correctly, submit to there husbands because they have been trained in righteousness. We all have to deny the flesh if we are going to walk according to the Spirit of God.
“For those who live according to the flesh set their minds on the things of the flesh, but those who live according to the Spirit set their minds on the things of the Spirit.”
Single Christian women are hooking up with unbelieving dominant alpha men these days.
In college you studied Biblical theology, apologetics, hermeneutics, and homiletics (I’ll take your word for it, but thus far your writings do not reflect it). Then you of all people should know that single women who hook up with unbelieving “alpha men” are not behaving like Christians at all. This kind of woman is not wife material to begin with (few in western nations are).
They have no use for the blessed meek servile Christian men in the pews, and routinely announce that “there are no good men in the church” in the presence of these poor betas.
Once again your examples (“blessed” meek servile – poor betas) are not representative of Christianity as taught in the Bible, and even if it where why on earth should attracting women be given a priority over pleasing God?
Christian doctrine does not align with the hard truths of reality.
This is where I ask you to defend your statement using scripture, theology, and hermeneutics. I ask this because I maintain that true Christian doctrine better aligns with the hard truths of reality than any other teaching.
That is why meek and servile Christian men are doomed to involuntary celibacy, divorce, and lifeless marriages in the best case scenario.
Also false.
It’s funny, because my Christian brothers in 3rd world countries don’t seem to be doomed to involuntary celibacy, divorce, and lifeless marriages.
If actual Christian men are doomed to involuntary celibacy, divorce, and lifeless marriages, it is not because true Christian doctrine is at fault. There are a several other reasons why this could be so, if it is so.
desiderian,
The majority of single men who follow “orthodox Christian doctrine” cannot even get a wife these days, as a high percentage of Christian single women are hooked up with unbelieving alpha males. Being a committed Christian is an attraction killer, even in many cases where a man is in the top percentage in terms of looks and fitness. Jesus taught all of his followers to be meek, servants, to die to self, to take up your cross, to lay down your life etc. That is orthodox Christian doctrine and women are repulsed it. Women submit to selfish dominant alpha men who are sexually demanding and unrestrained. Men who debate Scriptural hermeneutics with their wives in an attempt to establish dominance/headship have already lost the war.
JDG,
What, are you expecting me to write a post in koine Greek or patristic Latin or something? I could care less about whether or not you doubt my educational history.
I’ve already provided plenty of examples of betaizing Christian doctrine that has yet to be adequately addressed.
@Drew says:
I do not agree with the concept of “original sin”
That puts you directly at odds with what the Bible says: Psalm 51:5 states that we all come into the world as sinners: “Behold, I was brought forth in iniquity, and in sin my mother conceived me.”
With a statement like that, I’m convinced that you’re one of those who desires to conform God’s word to your own vanity rather than allow God’s word to conform you to His image. However, I’ll continue.
I would counter challenge that assuming the book of Revelation ch21 and forward is talking about post judgement heaven & earth is the mistake.
Obviously you didn’t read the text and even more obviously you haven’t studied it. However, you then went on and tried to turn a very straight-forward description of a city into a metaphor.
I will relent from this line of reasoning because using Revelation of John for doctrinal proofs is very sketchy because
of the poetic/apoplectic/symbolic languageI didn’t read it and it sounds like it doesn’t agree with my opinion.There. FIFY. And, FYI, the book of Revelation is the “O’Hare Field” of the Bible. There are over 650 direct references to both OT and NT passages. Again, you need to read and study a bit more before offering counter-challenges. If you want a better understanding of eschatogy, I suggest you begin with a book called “The Sign” by Robert Van Kampen. When he died he was the largest private holder of Biblical era manuscripts in the world. Oh, and I rarely play the grammar nazi, but that should have been apocalyptic rather than apoplectic.
2 Cor 11:2 – a letter to the church at Corinth
For I am jealous over you with a godly jealousy, because I have promised you in marriage to one husband—to present a pure virgin to Christ.
Who, pray tell, has the authority to betroth a pure virgin? If Paul didn’t have the authority, this is metaphor. If you claim he did, where, pray tell did he get it? Or don’t you remember his rebuke of the factions: You are not of Apollos, you are not of Paul, you are of the Lord Jesus Christ! (paraphrasing from memory) You take a very clear description and try to turn it into a metaphor in order that you can view a metaphor as clear evidence of your opinion.
One parable about being prepared to enter the kingdom and doing what Christian ought to be doing, and using 10 virgins at a wedding to illustrate that, does not fully counter balance what is more straightforward language and explanation from the epistles and OT prophecy.
One of the basic principles of exegesis is you’re not allowed to have the interpretation of a passage of Scripture create a conflict with the interpretation of another passage (I’m speaking generally). It’s called an antinomy and if you wind up with an antinomy then you got it wrong. I should also point out that with the parable of the virgins, Jesus begins with “Then the Kingdom of Heaven will be compared…” I could have also included the parable of the talents. All were servants of the master, all were given talents to use in his service. Just like the virgins parable and the “I don’t know you” this one has the same problem.
There are two separate passages that are both translated as “outer darkness.” One outer darkness is hell, the other- in this case is at a wedding feast. The pavilion is brightly lit for the bridegroom, his bride, the families and their important guests. Just outside is the inner darkness where the minor guests might be if there wasn’t enough room under the pavilion. They got food and drink and could easily see but the wicked servant got bound and thrown into the outer darkness where he could watch but received nothing and was not allowed to participate.
Same as in Matthew 8:12 where the “sons of the kingdom” would not be able to recline with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, but would be relegated to the outer darkness. Unlike the foolish virgins who were not punished but rather simply not rewarded as highly, this idiot got punished. Perhaps it was the cavalier attitude, perhaps it was for calling the master a hard man and a thief (you pick up where you did not put down and you reap where you did not sow). I don’t know, but he was *still* as servant of the master and even though he was punished, he was not sent away.
@new anon
Start reading Ephesians at 4:1 and pause after 5:21. It will be obvious at that point that it belongs with the previous section, not with the section after it (and not as a standalone verse either).
I’ve noticed that both Peter and Paul both write to distinct groups, both to covenant entities and those defined by specific relationships. I am in complete agreement with you, but I think the Numbers 16 argument is the better one because claiming there are two sections gets the response “well, I don’t agree with your interpretation of that” even though it is the correct interpretation. God created the family as the first covenant entity, the state as the second covenant entity and the church as the third. Each has their own mission (Family: be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and take dominion over it. State: keep the peace and punish evildoers. Church: go forth and make disciples of all men.) In Ephesians Paul spoke first to the church in general, then to the families, then to a relationship- masters and servants. He followed that with a general exhortation to all and signed off.
Being a committed Christian is an attraction killer,
There it is everyone. Throw away you Bibles and give up your faith because pampered princesses everywhere aren’t attracted to you.
Jesus taught all of his followers to be meek, servants, to die to self, to take up your cross, to lay down your life etc. That is orthodox Christian doctrine and women are repulsed it.
According to Joe, women are repulsed by Christian teachings, so choose this day. Do you want eternal life, or do you want to attract immoral women?
What, are you expecting me to write a post in koine Greek or patristic Latin or something? I could care less about whether or not you doubt my educational history.
I don’t doubt that you were indoctrinated at a university. I do doubt that you understand Biblical theology, apologetics, hermeneutics, and homiletics.
I’ve already provided plenty of examples of betaizing Christian doctrine that has yet to be adequately addressed.
No you didn’t. You misused a few words from the Bible and claimed your misrepresentation as proof of lunacy.
I was indoctrinated at a fundamentalist Christian seminary, yes.
JDG,
Your implication that an unbeliever cannot understand those subjects reeks of Gnosticism.
@Joe @JDG
I have a buddy who at the time was the general manager of a large hotel in Indy, which was completely booked for a Promise Keepers event. An entire large hotel filled with nothing but vocally Christian men. Of course, as the GM, he knew exactly what everyone was watching as PPV or a premium channel for their room because he got the reports. He told me it was about 80% porn. The Churchian mice get to play when they’re away from that cat, but most of them did it in the conceit of thinking their wife was sitting at home.
Well, the Bible says that unless you have the Spirit of God, you can not properly understand the scriptures. Nevertheless, that is not what I was referring to. I’m not saying an unbeliever can’t understand Biblical theology, apologetics, and hermeneutics. I’m saying that based on what you’ve written so far I don’t think you do. Your case is extremely weak, as desiderian and I pointed out above.
Artisanal Toad says:
March 15, 2015 at 8:39 pm
Yes the porn problem is well known. Sadly the feminized teaching problem is rarely recognized for the problem that it is.
March 15, 2015 at 8:40 pm was for Joe.
@Caleb
1. Wives are exhorted by the Bible to submit to their husbands.
2. Husbands are never exhorted by the Bible to force their wives into submission.
3. Husbands are exhorted to sacrifice everything on behalf of their wives.
1. Wrong. Wives are not “exhorted” but rather they are commanded.
2. Wrong. Reflect on the doctrine that husbands are to be Christlike in how they love their wives and then you go find all the ways in which Christ loves the church. Don’t leave out Revelation 3:19. Then do a word study on that. Then ask yourself what the difference is between rebuking your wife for rebelliousness and holding her accountable to be obedient to both God and to you.
3. Wrong. He is to lead her, love her, teach her, support her and hold her accountable. Per Genesis 1:27-28 and 1st Timothy 2:13-15, he needs to make sure he put some buns in that oven. In doing so he will have to make sacrifices, but the only one with the task to sacrifice everything was the Lord Jesus and He already did that for us.
If men are supposed to be looking for a Proverbs 31 woman (and they are) then women should be looking for a Job 29 man (and they are). Job was a serious bull alpha.
JDG,
There are thousands of Christian denominations that cannot agree on any aspect of the Bible despite centuries of heated debate, so it’s hardly my goal to open that can of worms here. Suffice it to say that appeals to the Bible will not save Christianity from the grim fate that is unfolding for it in this country and elsewhere.
Good day sir.
Looks like MGTOW is biting hard:
Bachelor Nation: 70% of Men Aged 20-34 Are Not Married
Suffice it to say that appeals to the Bible will not save Christianity from the grim fate that is unfolding for it in this country and elsewhere.
No one here has argued that Christianity will escape a grim fate in this or any country. I am not concerned for Christianity. God knows who are His and He will determine what will come and what will go. If I were you I would be more concerned about the fate of this once great nation now that it has abandoned Christianity. Good day to you as well sir.
Suffice it to say that appeals to the Bible will not save Christianity from the grim fate that is unfolding for it in this country and elsewhere.
True dat. Rivers of ink have already been spent in heated debates about Bible doctrines, and things have only gotten worse. The culture seems to have degenerated even further. The only thing that can halt this progress of sin is a genuine, heaven-sent, Holy Ghost revival, and this can only come if Christians work hard for it:
And ye shall seek me, and find me, when ye shall search for me with all your heart. Jeremiah 29:13
@Joe,
You said above, “Machiavelli and Nietzsche taught me….” I was thinking about Machiavelli just today. I’m going to return to my old theme again because it’s critical. We have to believe in the sovereignty of God. If we don’t believe in the sovereignty and goodness of God, all roads lead straight to Machiavelli: “A man who wishes to act entirely up to his professions of virtue soon meets with what destroys him among so much that is evil. Hence it is necessary for a prince wishing to hold his own to know how to do wrong, and to make use of it or not according to necessity.”
Machiavelli’s dictum comes from a place of having our treasure on earth instead of heaven, and of recommitting the original sin of the Garden: believing that it is to our advantage to violate God’s laws because God is somehow screwing us over.
But isn’t it amazing that violating God’s laws tends to lead us not just into eternal destruction, but into terrible dysfunction in this world? And that doing things God’s way generally seems to work out best in the long run (and most assuredly does from an eternal point of view)?
Let’s face it, the world can look bleak out there, but we have to believe, as Dallas Willard might have put it, that this world is a perfectly safe place for us to be. Why? Because nothing can separate us from the love of Christ. Because no good thing will God withhold from him who walks uprightly. Because he who did not spare his own son but freely gave him up for us all, how will he not also with him freely give us all things?
I’ve written elsewhere that I have a hard time seeing how it’s possible for me to get married. As a general rule I find most Christian women unattractive in a variety of ways. And I can’t imagine how it’s possible to land the plane to marriage sans sex without her losing the tingles, thinking I’m not into her, assuming I’m gay, etc.
That may be. But I have great hope. Because ultimately the person that’s in charge of it is God. Because of that, I don’t have to whip out my exquisite replica of Dark Triad pump and dumps to believe there’s all the possibility in the world to have a successful marriage. And if that marriage doesn’t happen? While I don’t have the gift of celibacy, God will be faithful regardless.
The gospel is Good News. Most of us tend to sound like we’ve got nothing but Bad News. I’ve long been a Capt. Negative kind of guy and I’ve gotten convicted about that this year. As Christians, we have plenty of reason to be positive and full of joy. I’m trying to make a commitment to myself to remember the great and precious promised of God and how amazingly good he’s been to me. Think about Paul’s attitude in writing Philippians. I won’t claim to be there yet, but that’s a pretty amazing model of the fruit of the spirit in action. As he said in Ephesians:
“I pray that the eyes of your heart may be enlightened, so that you will know what is the hope of His calling, what are the riches of the glory of His inheritance in the saints, and what is the surpassing greatness of His power toward us who believe. These are in accordance with the working of the strength of His might which He brought about in Christ, when He raised Him from the dead and seated Him at His right hand in the heavenly places, far above all rule and authority and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this age but also in the one to come.”
‘Women submit to selfish dominant alpha men who are sexually demanding and unrestrained.’
Do they? Because I’ve read some of their tales and these women are still just as rebellious to these men as the ones who are rebellious to Christian husbands. They are in fact manipulative just like the selfish dominant alpha man. The only thing these women submit to when it comes to these men is sex. When it comes to their heart they are rebellious…and that is the crux of the matter. Whether the man is the sexy selfish dominante alpha or a weak effeminite this woman will eat them both up.
‘I’ve long been a Capt. Negative kind of guy and I’ve gotten convicted about that this year. As Christians, we have plenty of reason to be positive and full of joy. ‘
Same here…once you really dig into the faith you begin to realize there is plenty of reasons to be full of joy. You start to focus less on what the world is portraying and focusing more on what God is saying.
@JDG
According to Joe, women are repulsed by Christian teachings, so choose this day. Do you want eternal life, or do you want to attract immoral women?
Christian teachings as a whole are a large set that encompasses all of Scripture, but only a smaller beta subset is actually taught in most churches today along with made-up feminist teachings that are completely unbiblical. The problem is we now bang right up to subjects that can’t be discussed here. The issue for the women is they’re repulsed by the totally feminized beta beta men who have internalized those teachings and concepts like “mutual submission and servant leadership.” There’s some seriously hard-core alpha stuff in the Bible, but it’s been totally rejected by the women and their white knights. Because patriarchy. If churches taught real Biblical masculinity and the men practiced it I bet there would be a tingle explosion and a whole lot less divorce.
So, how would that work?
Husband: Comes home, takes off his coat and wife sees blood all over his shirt..
Wife: “OMG! You’re bleeding! What’s wrong?!”
Husband: Laughs. “Nothing, it isn’t my blood.”
Wife: “What happened!”
Husband: “I’d just left the dojo and was walking down the sidewalk to the parking garage and this guy snatched an old woman’s purse up ahead and ran straight for me.”
Wife: Eyes get big. “What did you do?”
Husband: “Remember the old WWJD bracelets? Well I asked myself the same question- WWJD?”
Wife: “WWJD? You think Jesus would have gotten into a fight?”
Husband: “Well, Jesus certainly wasn’t a wimp, but what I meant was ‘What Would Job Do?’ Job said he broke the fangs of the wicked and snatched the victim from their teeth, so that’s what I did. I barely had time to take my coat off and it took longer than I thought, but at least I got souvenirs.” He reaches into his pocket, pulls out some large front teeth and puts them on the counter. “She was really happy to get her purse back because she had just cashed her social security check and the money was all in her purse. So, I got a twofer- I made the widow’s heart sing with joy.
Wife: Stares at him in astonished disbelief.
Husband: “I’m going to get cleaned up and changed. See if you can find me some band-aids for my knuckles and if there’s anything in the washer get it cleaned out and start a cold cycle so I can get the blood out of these clothes.”
Wife: Slowly nods her head as he heads for the bathroom staring after him.
Assuming their marriage is still working, I think that in all likelihood she’s going to wear him out later that night. If he can maintain frame and keep improving it will keep happening. Oh- and I bet she’ll save the teeth too. By the following Sunday half the women in their church will know he took down a mugger and he’ll get more attention. Tingles will follow.
Neguy says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:04 pm
I know your words were meant for Joe, but I just wanted to say that I found your words encouraging. Thank you.
Neguy,
I think it’s tortured (pun intended) logic to consider a God “good” who would demand that one endure life without sex. Such a God would put DeSade to shame. To each his own though.
Artisanal Toad says:
March 15, 2015 at 10:15 pm
I’m not sure I completely agree with some details in your example, but I agree with your premise. It’s the same premise I was trying to make to Joe. In the past, when this country enjoyed Christian values, men where much more attractive to women. Much of that attraction could be linked to a biblical patriarchal structure which gave most men some type of status as well as instilled masculine attributes in them. The overall picture that Joe painted representing Christian men was not a biblical representation of Christian men, and the women he was describing were not worthy of Christian husbands (not even the “beta” ones).
Joe,
“There are thousands of Christian denominations that cannot agree on any aspect of the Bible despite centuries of heated debate, so it’s hardly my goal to open that can of worms here.”
You might want to check the doctrine of the ones who were/are able to attract wives if that is what you seek. Likewise study the life of Jesus, all of it. He meekly followed the will of the Father, but he was not mild, and nowhere did he submit to the whims of a woman.
You could also study game – particularly inner-game, recognizing anti-game, and the nature of female desire – as a thread to lead you out of the labyrinth of feminist programming to non-Christian headship, then rediscover true Christian headship from there. This is the path I took from a situation similar to your own.
Churchian teaching on these subjects is vanity, in both senses.
To put it another way, many a man sitting in a church pew these days is a product of the culture, not the Bible. Ditto for the women.
Joe,
“To each his own though.”
No woman wants a man so weak as to say that, let alone believe it. It is not Christian doctrine that has denied you a wife.
“To put it another way, many a man sitting in a church pew these days is a product of the culture, not the Bible. Ditto for the women.”
Yeah. That culture seeks to make women men and men women, so it is no wonder that each is unable to attract the other.
desiderian,
You seem to be under the mistaken impression that I’m seeking a wife and don’t have women in my life. I sleep around regularly with various women and do not plan on ever getting married again. I left Christianity during my college years and have lived completely selfishly since that time, so attracting women has not been a problem.
lzozoozlol
just posted this
“Methinks too many women violate the #1 RULE these days, made famous in this hit song last summer:
”
here:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married
@JDG
Jesus was a man on a mission and the reason He came to earth was to do the will of His Father. Because He was faithful and obedient He has a name above all other names. The problem is women see Jesus as a beta, at best. Any serious study will prove that’s not the case, but the point is every man in the church today should think about what God said to Satan: “Have you considered my servant Job? There is none like him upon the earth.”
Granted, it isn’t often that you see a purse-snatching and get the chance to take down the guy who did it, slamming his face against the curb until you get your souvenirs, but the first decision toward being able to display a little righteous violence is being trained to do violence. A man who trains in a dojo or boxes carries the latent implication of violence. Tingles follow.
@Neguy
I’ve written elsewhere that I have a hard time seeing how it’s possible for me to get married. As a general rule I find most Christian women unattractive in a variety of ways. And I can’t imagine how it’s possible to land the plane to marriage sans sex without her losing the tingles, thinking I’m not into her, assuming I’m gay, etc.
In any given church or within a local network of churchs, the MMP of “unmarried women in church” contains multiple independent cohorts of women:
The young never-marrieds (hopefully virgins)
The older (30+) never-marrieds (If looking for a virgin, this is a unicorn hunt)
The widows, with or without children (widows are a special category)
The never-married moms (unavailable as a kitten, she wants you to take the cat… with kittens)
The divorced women (who are in all likelihood ineligible for remarriage, having divorced their Christian husband)
Observably, the marriage utility of these women declines as one goes down this list regardless of their beauty, with the exception of the widow (unless she’s literally an alpha widow, in which case all bets are off). Each cohort has its own theme and each is informed by a different experience; however, even though they are competing for different cohorts of men, each of these cohorts has significant interaction with the others (Team Woman). I observe that it really is ‘tingles uber alles’ when it comes to their attraction to men, although pre-selection is certainly a component of that.
The men are divided into several cohorts as well:
The young never-marrieds
The older (26+) never-marrieds
The widowers, typically older than 40.
The divorced men (who may or may not have a wife who could desire reconciliation at some future point per 1 Cor. 7:10)
The men who desire marriage all desire the best woman they can get (most beautiful, submissive, loyal) from the cohort of women highest on the list, but observably the men do not cooperate and work against each others interests by blocking each other, white knighting and the glorifying unattractive beta traits. However, despite the blocking and white knighting, sooner or later a guy is going to get a date.
This private pairing (known as dating) occurs as the two try to assess each other. Or perhaps not. Perhaps she’s just looking for fun. What some might call fitness testing should be described as mutual boundary hunting. The woman will unconsciously test because she wants to confirm confidence and dominance, which is attractive to her. She doesn’t want a poseur. As part of this testing, the man will be expected to test for the sexual boundaries because this culture trains women to expect confident and dominant men to attempt to confirm her sexual availability and submission. Boundary hunting by men is attractive to the women because it signals interest and confirms alpha traits.
But, Wait! Christian men aren’t supposed to be pushing the women for sex because that’s immoral. It’s a paradox, isn’t it?
The man who signals attraction and receives a reciprocating signal of attraction from her… and then refuses to test where the boundaries really are… is seen as weak. He didn’t have the balls to risk rejection to find out what she really wants.
In my experience in a traditional dating environment with middle-aged women from cohort’s 2, 3, 4 and 5, I’m expected to make physical contact on the first date (hugging, kissing), escalate to mild physical exploration on date two (Are those boobs real? Really? I’ll need to confirm that; but then only mildly push for sex on date three so she can demonstrate what a good girl she is by waiting until the fourth date before we go at it like crazed weasels. This is the “Good Girl” frame or expectation on their part. And that’s the women I meet in church.
I conclude men (or at least me) are being measured with an evil-alpha evaluation matrix that responds positively to dominantly aggressive behavior expressed in a sexual manner and responds negatively to Godly behavior of the self-control variety. They will say they want to be respected, but they want to have their boundaries pushed because that’s what dominant men do.
The tragedy of this feminism induced nightmare is the woman loses no matter what happens.
1. If the man refuses to play without a commitment, she rejects for weakness on his part and loses the best marriage candidates.
2. If he plays the game and she continues testing for dominance by putting up a fight right to the very end (at which point she’s so aroused she predictably submits), she is participating in immoral behavior in which she will probably blame the man (“He seduced me!!!” or worse yet “HE RAPED ME!!!”). The man has to keep pushing because he can’t win the game until he comes up against a hard boundary and then “respects” her by stopping. He has very few options to shut things down at the last moment while retaining his dignity, short of an absolutely nuclear rebuff after some clothes come off: “No, I can’t do this. You’ll have to lose fifteen pounds first. I’m sorry, but I have standards.”
3. If she enthusiastically encourages his advances, displays an aggressive attitude and sheds her clothes without a fight, she’s acting in a promiscuous manner, proving herself unsuitable as a marriage candidate. Yet, even as a Christian, she’s simply responding to the cultural indoctrination and training she’s familiar with.
I conclude dating is a lose/lose situation for both Christian men and women, but especially the Christian man who desires to remain chaste. The women have been culturally trained to react to a man’s hunt for their boundaries in a positive manner because it’s an expression of his dominance and there’s the thrill of the chase… and who is really chasing who? The problem is the Christian man who desires to remain chaste is either violating his own standards in the hunt for sexual boundaries or rejected for his beta-boy gentle and Godly behavior if he won’t.
I think the only reasonable way to combat this is a two-step process that begins with rigorously public fitness testing the women by men working together in teams. This is the only way a chaste Christian man can counter the test of the boundary hunt. Her boundaries are irrelevant because it isn’t about her, it’s about his decision as to whether she’s fit. What follows are some suggestions from my experience.
(Continued)
Fashion Designers Dolce and Gabbana Publicly Blast Non-traditional Families!
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=951213
How important is sexual pleasure in marriage? What would you do if unable to experience it?
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=951239
Hubby told me I’m addicted to God
http://forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?t=951198
It never ceases to amaze me when Churchianity is shocked that mocking God and His Word results in a lack of peace and joy. Look at the symptoms that women are suffering (discontentment and hatred) and you really have to look no further than what is residing in THEIR hearts.
Joe,
If you believe it is torture equivalent to De Sade to live without sex then the problem really is with you, and not God, Christianity, or anything else.
I want to interject one point that’s gotten lost.
“Meek” does not equate with “weak”. We don’t have a problem of “meek” Christian Men, we have a problem of Cowards sitting in the pews.
I was going to dig out the further explanation of “πραεῖς” (praeis), but even the basic citations give a solid explanation. http://biblehub.com/greek/4239.htm “Strength with Control”. “Strength” being the operative issue here.
“I think it’s tortured (pun intended) logic to consider a God “good” who would demand that one endure life without sex.”
I’m sure God gave Jeremiah a little extra “help” in that regard.
One of the best things I’ve come to realize is that God isn’t nearly as sadistic as many have made Him out to be. In fact, He’s actually kinda nice.
By the way Caleb, I wrote an article about the plight you find yourself in with the Evangelical Feminists:
https://empathological.wordpress.com/2013/09/13/into-the-maw-of-the-matriarchy/
Hope you like hyena slobber.
malcomthecynic,
Life without sex is actually a moot point since very few do so nowadays, Christian or no. A small percentage of those who have low sex drives probably manage it, but I’m sure if we could see the true stats on porn use, masturbation, prostitution etc. , we’d all be shocked. Single Christians largely operate on a don’t ask don’t tell policy in this regard. Celibacy is certainly something to be cynical about. People are wired to have sex, and have it they will.
Looking Glass,
Strong’s Concordance is not a Greek lexicon. Do a quick Google search on the previous sentence to see the many reasons why it is not authoritative and why properly scholarly works do not cite it as a source. For one, it is based solely on the King James translation of the text.
Regarding the Greek word ‘praeis’, the “strength under control” rubbish is found only in Strongs. If you look it up in an actual Greek lexicon, you will see that the word is the equivalent of gentle, lowly, humble.
LG
I’ve got to side with Joe on this one. It wasn’t until the 1700’s that we got a real Greek to English lexicon. Prior to that it was Greek to Latin to English and that introduced a number of errors, which were compounded by political pressure to translate this way or that. The Geneva Bible (the one John Bunyan preached from) had extensive footnotes written by Calvin, Luther and others which were causing tremendous difficulties for the crown. However, the Geneva Bible was expensive. One classic example is Numbers 25 and this ties in with the word “meek.”
Moses was the meekest of men and his decision to disobey God at Baal Peor cost the lives of 24,000 of his people. Baalam had gone back to Balak and told him to send the young women into the camp and lure the men out for a bit of Baal worship followed by a bit of hokey-pokey, God became angry. He told Moses to gather the assembly and then crucify the leaders before the whole assembly. Moses didn’t do it, but instead told the very men he had been ordered to kill to execute any of the men who had joined themselves to Baal-Peor. The anger of the Lord burned and He sent a plague into the camp. It wasn’t until Phineas manned up that God stopped the plague. One of my favorite Bible stories.
The Geneva Bible had extensive footnotes for this text, pointing out that the leaders were to be held responsible. Naturally this did not sit well with the crown. In the original KJ, Moses is commanded “Hang ye the heads before the sun” and of course, there are no footnotes in the KJ Bible so how was the average Englishman supposed to know what that meant or the implications? Take a look at any modern translation of Numbers 25:4 and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Same thing with the Decalogue. “Thou shall do no murder” became “Thou shall not kill.”
What’s funny is when more modern translations came out and then the transliterations, the “Only King James” crowd called it a plot by Satan to pollute the Word of God.
This Caleb creature needs to learn from you, Dalrock and Rollo Tomassi. There’s no doubt that his wife has lost the genuine desire for him.
Look at #8 on this list:
http://imgur.com/7d9Mkr4
The latest book from Rollo Tomassi made #8 on the AMAZON.COM TOP 100 BEST SELLERS LIST last week. Since then, he’s lowered the price of the paperback of “The Rational Male Preventive Medicine” to less than $10. The Kindle version is $8.99.
It’s not reprint of his blog, it is filled with NEW material. If you haven’t bought it for yourself, buy it for another man that needs it.
Once it makes it to #1 above Tony Robbins and Tim Ferriss, it will be simple to have it being the most popular book in written in the last 500 years! Make it #1!
‘People are wired to have sex, and have it they will.’
People are also wired to have a relationship with God.
“People are also wired to have a relationship with God.”
How?
Thanks, JDG.
Joe, you wrote, “I think it’s tortured (pun intended) logic to consider a God “good” who would demand that one endure life without sex. Such a God would put DeSade to shame. To each his own though.”
Honest question: are you a Christian? I believe you wrote about your Christian educational background, but I’m not sure if you still identify as a Christian.
God’s laws are very clear, as are his claims about his character. It’s also clear that “in this world you will have tribulation” and that we are called to deny ourselves. There are multitudinous scriptures in the New Testament about the danger and evil of sexual immorality. Yes, it may well be that this world has some pain we have to endure. But again, our treasure is supposed to be in heaven, remember?
But even so, I think there’s reason to be optimistic even in the shorter term. I’m in my 40s, so past peak sex drive age, but can assure you lust remains an issue. What’s more, I have a long and sordid sexual history prior to becoming a Christian. Over the last few years, the Spirit has cleansed me of that unrighteousness. And while let anyone who thinks he stands take heed lest he fall, I’ve been walking in sexual purity – including no porn despite living alone – for some time now. It wasn’t easy to get there I can assure you, but God was faithful.
I can’t begin to describe my life here, but what I can say is that despite giving up sexual pleasure, and losing many “benefits” of a worldly, sinful life in general – I mean we are talking complete life breakdown – I take stock of my situation and and realize that I’m healthier in basically every dimension than I’ve ever been before, and happier and more fulfilled in life. Last year, my first full calendar year of complete sexual purity, was by far the best year of my life. For maybe the first time ever I’m experiencing actual joy. As far as I’m concerned God has vindicated his character in this regard.
I’m going to be content with what God chooses to give me. Contentment doesn’t mean that I’m happy being single. If I didn’t have a powerful desire for a wife and sex, I’d have the gift of celibacy after all. But I can stand firm on sin and can abstain from making an unwise decision to get married despite seeing red flags on a relationship.
Now, practically speaking, one thing I’d caution us all about is focusing too much on sexual sin. If we are trying to eliminate sexual sin in our lives, but are otherwise worldly, selfish, greedy, unloving, etc., don’t think God’s going to bless us with the fruit of the Spirit in that. As John Owen put it, we need to be pursuing universal obedience to God to successfully kill sin. If we are only selectively trying to avoid sin, it shows that our motivation is really selfish. We only want to stop doing the things that are causing us personal problems. I don’t want to set my life up as a template for yours. But I believe if we sincerely do things God’s way – which includes understanding that it’s really him who is doing the work – it produces good fruit even in this world in the long term.
Every basic principle of religion can be found in nature. The reason women are submissive is because our male ancestors were basically rapists, vicious animals driven by primal sexual urges with no governmental law to restrain them, which as a result turned our female ancestors into rape victims with Stockholm Syndrome.
The truth is not pretty, but unless you are a vegetarian, then you’re not perfect either. We all “murder” animals for food. I am not suggesting we legalize rape. We’re smarter than that now. I am only suggesting that it is natural for women to follow a man’s lead, even by the rules of evolution.
Feminists are an aberration, similar to homosexuals. They look like women on the outside, but inside they are not.
Life without sex is actually a moot point since very few do so nowadays, Christian or no. A small percentage of those who have low sex drives probably manage it, but I’m sure if we could see the true stats on porn use, masturbation, prostitution etc. , we’d all be shocked. Single Christians largely operate on a don’t ask don’t tell policy in this regard. Celibacy is certainly something to be cynical about. People are wired to have sex, and have it they will.
Sin abounds, but the ubiquity of sin doesn’t mean it is righteous to engage in sinful behavior. “Everybody does it” is not a moral argument. Celibacy is a challenge, there is no question in that, but it is what people who are not married are called to be, as Christians. There is no other *moral* alternative. Yes, there are lots of people who sin in this regard, but the fact that there are lots of them does not make it any less sinful that they do so.
In any case, this is kind of an academic argument, because what I get from your comments in this thread is that you are no longer a Christian, and that some of the reason for that is that you think that Christianity isn’t compatible with human sexuality. This is an odd perspective, given the last 2000 years of history. It’s rather more accurate to say that contemporary hedonistic anything-goes sexual mores are incompatible with Christianity — that’s certainly true — and that this makes it *difficult* to be “sexually successful”, as defined by the culture which exalts these mores, and yet still be a faithful Christian. That’s true, but it is what it is — it wasn’t very easy to be a Christian when they were being fed to the lions, either (or, say, when the Bolsheviks were chasing down Orthodox monks and nuns and murdering them en masse), and I’d say that these situations were considerably harder than the sexual challenges faced by today’s faithful Christians. But, as has always been the case in history, someone looking for a life that is wholly compatible with Christianity and yet still wholly compatible with the values and priorities of the world is looking in vain, and not really understanding what the religion actually teaches about itself.
Beeker,
“People are also wired to have a relationship with God.”
How
Matthew,
The female is as fallen as the male, it’s not Stockholm. Her base instinct draws her to the dominant so that her offspring can be dominant themselves. See: sexy son hypothesis.
Nova,
“But, as has always been the case in history, someone looking for a life that is wholly compatible with Christianity and yet still wholly compatible with the values and priorities of the world is looking in vain, and not really understanding what the religion actually teaches about itself.”
As usual, spot on. The irony in this particular case is that orthodox teaching on headship produces outcomes that are better by any standard, Christian or worldly, than that currently offered by either heterodox churchianity or the latest secular trends. But I repeat myself.
“This review of my post is really ironic because just a couple of days ago I got accused of being domineering male chauvinist by people who read my post on how to get your wife to submit. I guess that puts me on neither side but rather squarely on the truth of God’s Word!”
Completely false. Do you really believe that the so-called “mid point” between two points of view is, by definition, “The truth of God’s Word?” This statement is laughable.
The truth is the truth, regardless of who argues what, and you know better (or at least your seminary should have). Your sneering response to valid criticisms of your position and other passive-aggressive behaviors make you a poor spokesman for your beliefs. If you cannot refute these arguments from the Word and the Word alone, then they are false, no matter what you or your wife may say.
You don’t “trick” your wife into submission. She is commanded by the Lord to do/be so. It is her choice to obey God or not, but if not, she is in rebellion. The concept isn’t that hard, even though the execution is difficult, particularly in this day and age. This does not justify the corruption of the Word to make it more palatable for you or your flock.
If this is the best you can offer in defense of your beliefs, better that you stay out of the arena.
@Caleb
You read that, folks? We’re just too simple-minded to understand the Great Wisdom of Caleb.
No, it’s not as if he’s yet another paid-preacher pushing feel-good “churchianity” for pay.
He’s just far too smart for us to understand.
So he’s going to “put the cookies on the bottom shelf” for us.
@Joe
Nowhere does Jesus promise that if you follow Him, you’ll get a chaste, obedient, submissive virgin bride who won’t divorce you.
Instead, Christ promises you’ll be hated by the world (that would include women) and your reward will be in Heaven.
Let’s face it – very, very few will enter the Kingdom of Heaven.
It’s far easier to pay some money to the Caleb types – or complain on manosphere blogs (Christian or non) about women.
“The churches in America today work just like a whorehouse – you pay them some money, and they make you feel good.” — Steve Drain
Caleb, why did you delete all my posts on your blog from your 6 steps to submission? There was nothing unBiblical of what I wrote.
I don’t even know why you are guys are trying to communicate with him. With posts like this…
…it is obvious you are wasting your time. Caleb makes money from being a pastor. Therefore, he has a conflict of interest since he must serve the needs of the feminist imperative. Therefore, he is spreading churchianity not Christianity. Therefore, it does no good try and argue with him. He’s gonezo…
Caleb, let me help you. You are NOT squarely on he truth of God’s word. If you were, you wouldn’t have cowardly deleted all my posts for fear that my words would have harmed the earning power of you ministry.
In many ways Dalrock’s blog is not only a Bible study group for men, but it is a boxing gym for men.
The posters here spar a lot, but what makes the sparring different from many other blogs is that most every poster acknowledges that Greater Referee–God. Dalrock lets everyone spar in his gym with that tacit understanding–everyone is welcome to train, as long as they acknowledge His Rules.
Folks come here to hone their jabs of wisdom and upper cuts of Truth and right hooks of the Word against fellow fighters.
And what’s really funny is when someone from the feminist marxist gym on the other side of town, like Caleb, shows up in Dalrock’s classical gym.
Then all that training goes to good use. 🙂
Everyone should read the comments here–what Dalrock/Heariste have been saying is going mainstream–not in the articles yet, but in the comments!! Not a single Caleb/mangina in the sight in the comments!:
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/bachelor-nation-70-men-aged-20-34-are-not-married
I just added some PG-13 versions of da GBFM’s wisdomslzozooozozo:
Dear Barbara,
There is a famous poem which sums up the predicament–google it for thousands of threads on it:
“da professional womenz ode”
alpha f#*%s and beta bucks
dat is how we roll
da butthexting cockass we f&%*s and sucks
and in our anuthesz it doth deosul
alpha f#&$s and beta bucks
it is da way of da fed
to transfer assetss to dose who butthext
cuckold dose who pay for our bread
beta bucks and alpha f&$*#s
it’s what day teach us we;’re entitled too
da assetts from betas we plucks
after da alphas desol us through our hole for poo
lzozozlzzolzlzlzlz
cuckold da betas cockhold da alphas
datsz what day taught us in mba grad school
as da femiisnsits see no truth nor justice in their laws
and say da great books for menz was all fools.
yes, yes, i did very good on my gmats
dey bernenakifed my soul away, left me with cats
zlzlzzozozozo
• Reply•Share ›
Avatar
GBFM GBFM • 11 minutes ago
When women turn twenty-eight or so, they generally wake up and ask two questions:
1. Where have all the good men gone?
2. Why is my butt sore?
lzozozololzozoz
Since I know Caleb will just purge this from his comments:
Become her best friend:
http://therationalmale.com/2014/12/30/mutiny/
Take responsibility for your mistakes and hers:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/11/16/sorry/
Become a man worthy of her respect:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/05/29/respect/
Pray for her:
http://therationalmale.com/2013/08/07/appeals-to-reason/
Give her time with God:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/27/dread-games/
Serve her:
http://therationalmale.com/2012/03/19/letters-from-the-pedestal/
Give up your favorite things for her:
http://therationalmale.com/2011/10/14/dream-killers/
GBFM,
It is extremely hard to swallow that very first red pill. Because to swallow it, means you are swallowing not only a pill but also your pride. You are admitting to the fact that everything you were led to believe, is wrong. That is a realy hard thing to do (almost an impossible thing to do for most people.)
Of the seven deadly sins, pride and envy are the worst. They are the worst because pride gives you a sense of justification for everything about your existance. To admit your entire existance is wrong, yeah, think about how hard it was for YOU the first time YOU tried a red pill? And envy? Envy is the justification to hate others, the justification for your unChristlike sense of entitlement.
Caleb deleted all our posts. When your daily diet is blue pills, all you see in the manosphere is what feminists want you to see, the lie that they are selling that we all hate women. In truth, red pill people LOVE women. We hate feminism. That is an important distinction, one that Caleb is not yet mature enough to understand. Hopefully, someday he will understand it and if he does, he might be welcome in the kingdom of God. But for right now, he is doing the work of satan. He’s just too blue pill to understand it.
Pingback: Dalrock Relishing Sin | Honor Dads
Yes IBB! “In truth, red pill people LOVE women. We hate feminism.”
Just read all of Shakespeare et als. great love sonnets! 🙂 And constrast it to the bitch/hos lyrics and porn the marxist ferinists exalt in!
It is quite remarkable the feminist marxists deconstructed the Greek culture which exalted women (As well as men!)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athena
Athena is the goddess of wisdom, courage, inspiration, civilization, law and justice, strategic war, mathematics, strength, strategy, the arts, crafts, and skill in ancient Greek religion and mythology. Minerva is the Roman goddess identified with Athena. Athena is portrayed as a shrewd companion of heroes and is the patron goddess of heroic endeavour. She is the virgin patroness of Athens. The Athenians founded the Parthenon on the Acropolis of her namesake city, Athens (Athena Parthenos), in her honour.
Like the Virgin Mary, she too was a Virgin.
Thus the feminist marxists had to destroy her beautiful archetype–the helper of heroes–the “patron goddess of heroic endeavour.”
Truly, Homer and Shakespeare loved women and men–good, moral men and women–not the sloooots and douchebabbdgsg buttxxingaz the marxist feministssz exaltz inzlzlzoozoz
Yeppers, a training gym indeed. I’ve enjoyed Dalrock’s for a while now. Thing is, this society is in the toilet. Actual men of God should rejoice!
IBB, the red pill is bitter in the mouth, most of us got force-fed by feminism and maybe a woman or two in our lives. I’m thankful God sent someone to bring me to the truth.
Hey, Dalrock! You have to got to watch “White Bird in a Blizzard.” It’s the most accidentally red pill movie I’ve ever seen, even has some decent actors in it. The woman who played Vesper in Daniel Craig’s “Casino Royal,” Tom Jane from the 2004 Punisher, and the girl from Divergent. It’s literally dripping red. It’s from a daughter’s perspective in a miserable family, watching how her mom hates her dad “she treated him like shit, and he let her. He was her doormat.”
It even has the girl go hookup with a cop, Tom Jane, after musing earlier “he was the opposite kind of man than my father. He was the sort of man who got into fights and killed things with his bare hands.”
[D: Thanks.]
White Bird in a Blizzard shows the divergent girls booooobs too. 🙂
Eva Green. Forget boobs. She went way beyond that, did full frontal nudity in The Dreamers and had multiple s-x scenes with Michael Pitt.
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-03-16/how-hollywood-can-save-our-families
@chiggerrrrrrzzzz!!!
You’ve been doing this over on Tomassi’s manor too. Was prepared to give benefit of doubt, but no longer.
You are Amanda Marcotte (o.n.e), or I’ll eat your Dutch Cap.
“our male ancestors were basically rapists, vicious animals driven by primal sexual urges with no governmental law to restrain”
Which, like, tod-a-ally explains concealed ovulation. And the rest of it. You .. utter .. muppet.
IBB-
That article is a pretty good analysis of [one of] the problem[s] we are facing, not just as a “nation” but as a culture. Culture is necessary to sustain a nation. I have absolutely no hope that Hollywood will somehow get on board as this writer is suggesting, but she is right on the money about one thing. Cultural heterogeneity accross the entire socioeconomic, racial, and relgious strata are tearing this country apart. We whislte past it as if we just don’t want to acknowledge it.
If I was going to destroy a society, I would first destroy the nuclear family and the communities in which they survive. I would take away men’s reasons for marrying. I would make masculinity and the phrase “head of household” a sitcom punch line. (I would even have so-called “conservatives” snickering at the idea). I would make divorce REALLY easy. I would remove any and all social stigma against illegitimate births, premarital sex/cohabitation. I would make people distrustful of their neighbors. I would make sure they had no involvement in each others lives to the point of not even knowing their names. Oh wait, we have already done all that.
On the topic of relishing sin, here is yet another woman who wrote a self-congratulatory book about cheating on her husband: http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/book-party/wp/2015/03/12/she-took-a-year-off-from-her-marriage-to-sleep-with-strangers-what-could-go-wrong/
Scott, did you see my post? I don’t want to sound arrogant but I believe that McMegan wrote that article just for me to respond to it. She wrote that article specifically FOR the manosphere. One person even replied saying as much to me.
Yes sir, we are “breaking through.” Red pills… everywhere.
Some interesting comments, Joe. Sounds like you trusted the Churchian leaders, got burned badly and quit. That’s understandable these days. If I may deprogram you…
“I think it’s tortured (pun intended) logic to consider a God “good” who would demand that one endure life without sex. Such a God would put DeSade to shame.”
Yes. This is why the symbol of Christianity is the Cross. God loved us so much He tortured and murdered His own, admittedly innocent Son. Now it’s our turn to suffer for doing good.
“Celibacy is certainly something to be cynical about. People are wired to have sex, and have it they will.”
Yes. Celibacy is frustrating and unfair. In line with my previous comment, however, what God wants is not a sinless life so much as a life spent struggling against sin and recognizing both its evil and our weakness. God is happy with us if we keep trying, not only if we win. If it wasn’t celibacy then it’d be some other problem. God promised us suffering, not happiness.
“Jesus taught all of his followers to be meek, servants, to die to self, to take up your cross, to lay down your life etc. That is orthodox Christian doctrine and women are repulsed it. Women submit to selfish dominant alpha men who are sexually demanding and unrestrained.”
Yes. This is why women must be taught to respect men, because it doesn’t come naturally. The Bible is clear on this. Men are in the same moral position, only we’ve been overtrained on self-restraint.
Although neither Christ nor His successors were doormats.
“I was indoctrinated at a fundamentalist Christian seminary, yes.”
Exactly. Indoctrinated. What you learned wasn’t Christianity. Game and Christianity are compatible. Churchy men are trained to be weak and eager to please only so they won’t rock the pastor’s boat. Put the blame where it belongs, on the false Christians who abused your trust and taught you lies. Not Christ.
“People are also wired to have a relationship with God.”
How?
Prayer is a good start.
‘Celibacy is frustrating and unfair.’
Involuntary celibacy is frustrating in a marriage. Every single (not married) person is called to celibacy…or if you will, chastity. There is nothing unfair about it…sex is meant for marriage only. What is unfair is when a guy/gal wants to fulfill their selfish needs without realizing the consequences down the road for them and their spouse should they get married.
Folks, red pill is spreading. We can’t save marriage. The problem is that perversion has gone mainstream. Once a human is perverted, they are no longer human, but bestial. Their brains are rewired. That’s why God commanded certain nations to be put to the sword….men, women,children, and even the animals. Their belongings were to de destroyed also. There was a serious reason for this. The demons behind this are still alive. Up to the same perversions. This isn’t a surprise to those who love the Bible.
@Scott
The root word of culture is cult, which implies a common system of beliefs. This is what allows the community of families to function. It isn’t PC to say so, but there is a racial component to the idea of cult as well. It’s openly acknowledged as “white culture” and “black culture” because any idiot can see that (at least in the US) it really is two separate cults divided by race. This is why the intentional balkanization of the US is a prelude to destruction. In virtually every area you might care to look, the US has never been weaker or in more danger. SJW’s don’t really worry about this, thinking that we’ll get humanitarian relief from the “community of nations.” Nothing could be further from the truth.
We went into the Balkans and the cover story was to pacify the regions and stop the war crimes, but the real reason was for the massive resources that certain *ahem* connected people picked up for peanuts.
All of the things you listed for destroying a society will weaken a society, but not kill it. However, when the killer event comes all those cracks and weaknesses will cause that society to go tits-up in a hurry because they prevent the people from coming together and working together to defeat the threat. In fact, simply crashing the financial system such that little plastic cards don’t work would generate a civil war within a week. Ditto for a massive natural disaster, even if said natural disaster was man-made.
A massive eruption of the Yellowstone caldera and Cumbre Vieja, combined with several major faults (San Andreas, New Madrid, etc.) caused by scalar weapons at the beginning of winter, followed by record cold temperatures and an Ivan sized hurricane… and by spring at least 80% of the US population would be dead. On the bright side, part of the collateral damage would be the death of feminism and the welfare state, but what a price to pay.
@TFH
The basic elements of a Biblical marriage are the permission of the father, the agreement of man and woman, the consummation of the marriage and cohabitation. These elements, however, must exist within a specific context in order to be marriage: commitment for life. That makes it a Biblical marriage. Marriage 1.0 was an attempt by both church and state to usurp the authority of the husband by “sanctioning” the validity of the marriage.
This is recognized by the acceptance (until the last 50 years ago) of what is known as a “common law marriage.” As the power of the state grew and reduced the power of the church, the state sought to take control of marriage as a means of social control. That was marriage 1.0. Once the state was firmly in control they began changing the rules and did so to the extent that we now have what is known as marriage 2.0.
Why would anyone want to go back to marriage 1.0 with the government still involved in the marriage? That’s how we got to marriage 2.0.
Toadster:- “We went into the Balkans and the cover story was to pacify the regions and stop the war crimes, but the real reason was for the massive resources”
Say wut?
The copper’s been gone for several thousand years. So unless it’s dodgy sheep-cheese or slivovitz type firewaters (neither of which are to be despised, in my opinion), I’m at a bit of a loss as to what they might be. The Danube?
“Trainwreck” movvie trailer begins with a Dad teaching his daughters to say “Monogamy isn’t realistic” in unison… The ONLY hope for marriage: “The Rational Male – Preventive Medicine” by Rollo Tomassi
‘No. Only in a society with solid Marriage 1.0. The sentence above gives far, far too much legitimacy to Marriage 2.0 and all the evils ensconsed within it, just because the M-word is used.’
This has nothing to do with what society says…it’s how God designed marriage and sex.
The evils of Marriage 2.0 are what happens when God is taken out of the picture.
‘If you admit that Marriage (as defined by Marriage 1.0) no longer exists, and all that exists now is a government relationship contract, then I would agree with you’
It still exists but it has more to do with the sacrement of it and not the secular part. The government relationship contract is just the temporal sense of marriage.
“I agree that Marriage 1.0 will not return.”
It will return because God will not suffer the current state of affairs forever. Gov’t is not eternal.
”That sounds like a belief that God will save the man from ruin, in the event the wife wants out. Remember that Jenny Erikson and others spiritualized their divorce theft, and went to great length to say that it was consistent with God’s wishes.”
That was Jenny Erikson’s decision, not God’s. Just because she said her decision was in line with God’s (which if she ever read a Bible she would know it’s false) we can tell that’s false. A woman’s belief in God can save her from ruin too.
‘No belief in God will save you in court (unless you are in the UK and pre-emptively converted to Islam before the divorce filing).’
Who said anything about court. This is eternal life I’m talking here. Besides it can also save you during temporal affairs and false accusations. Joesph went from being successful in Egypt, to being accused in a false rape accusation, to being imprisoned, to becoming ruler of Egypt…and all through it he believed in the Lord.
https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Genesis+39-41&version=NASB
@empathologism have you had a look at that blog you linked to? It’s the worst kind of evil. Insidious. I must say more but I’m not going to take too much time out of this day to get my head around what she’s saying.
@Dalrock have you read https://hupotasso.wordpress.com/ ? I’ve been lurking for a couple months but I wouldn’t know how to find out if you’ve addressed this particular flavour.
The key to understanding the hupotasso blog is somewhere early in her postings where she reveals she was abused in earlier years. Her entire blog is a 4-year form of catharsis where she convinces herself that her rebellion is both biblical and spiritual because without women to ride herd on men and make sure wives do not submit “in all things,” it will lead to women as chattal.
At one point, she actually calls her husband a sexual glutton not because he demands sex more than twice a week — no, merely because he has the audacity to want it more than twice a week. This told me everything I needed to know about her. Her world can be summarized as: “If your way is not my way, your way is wrong.”
She wraps it all up in Greek word studies and pseudo-scholarship, but at the end of the day she is basically a woman with an axe to grind against The Patriarchy(R). I would imagine that she leads from the back, moving her husband’s mouth via marionette strings to mantain that veneer of “mutual submission.” But perhaps not, as she can fathom no reason why God would be so unjust as to actually appoint someone to lead based on gender when the woman might be sooooo much more qualified in
anyevery given relationship. And I’m sure we know whom she deems most qualified to lead in her own marriage.I can only imagine what living with this woman is like if she could devote 4 years of her life to one treatise after another on why the Bible cannot possibly mean what it says because it does not align with her personal grid.
Another one that seems to be an acolyte of hers is Kay Bonikowsky over at The Happy Surprise. Based on her bio picture, she appears to be well into her 40s and is persuing a MDiv, so that alone might clue you in to the amount of free time she has on her hands to do “really important stuff.” Stuff that moves the kingdom of God forward like dealing with “problem passages” on submission by mutualizing them and – after great
deceptionintrospection and soul searching – decisively concluding that christianity and homosexuality are perfectly compatible.@Caleb If you come back (I pray for your sake and mine that you do), can you tell me your opinion on the nature of the relationship between Christ the Lord and his disciples? Can one be a disciple, a member of his glorious Church without spot or wrinkle, but only on their terms? Only if their relationship with Jesus gives them what they want? Only if they get health and wealth out of the deal?
Curious minds.
Yes, this is a real conundrum, and I haven’t figured out the answer yet. I had a situation with a church girl: sparks flew right from the start, and at the end of our second date (both dates being good group affairs with friends to keep things casual) she signaled that she was ready to come home with me. I passed, wanting to do things “right” and keep things proper. We kept finding ways to spend time together, but the tingle eventually died down. It’s hard to maintain a process for months that biology thinks should happen in hours, or a few days at most.
That’s a real problem for the Christian man. Of course, I can console myself in saying that she wasn’t worthy if she was willing to jump in the sack that quickly, but that just makes her normal. Even if a girl is as dedicated to chastity as the man is, that doesn’t mean she can keep the tingle on tap until the appropriate time, anymore than he can keep generating it without escalating.
Cail,
You probably dodged a bullet. How many others has she followed home?
Blech.
Gunner Q,
“I agree that Marriage 1.0 will not return.”
It will return because God will not suffer the current state of affairs forever. Gov’t is not eternal.
I would second that thought. People errantly think things will stay as they are or only get worse.
Society is certainly sinful and will remain so until a massive external change is forced on His return, but it still goes back and forth. Anything that can’t keep going, won’t, as the saying goes.
Pingback: Hierarchy equals abuse. | Dalrock
Pingback: Their love for crossdressing is sincere. | Dalrock