French poets, in the eleventh century, discovered or invented, or were the first to express, that romantic species of passion which English poets were still writing about in the nineteenth. They effected a change which has left no corner of our ethics, our imagination, or our daily life untouched, and they erected impassable barriers between us and the classical past or the Oriental present. Compared with this revolution the Renaissance is a mere ripple on the surface of literature.
— C.S. Lewis, The Allegory of Love
Harvard University has a page with excerpts from De Amore (1184-86), a poem with a list of rules for what we commonly know as chivalry and what literary scholars call courtly love. The English translation of the title is A Treatise on Courtly Love.
What is the Effect of Love
This is the effect of love: that the true lover can not be corrupted by avarice; love makes an ugly and rude person shine with all beauty, knows how to endow with nobility even one of humble birth, can even lend humility to the proud; he who loves is accustomed humbly to serve others. Oh, what a marvelous thing is love, which makes a man shine with so many virtues and which teaches everyone to abound in good customs. . . .
As C.S. Lewis notes in the opening quote, we can’t imagine a period when romantic love wasn’t thought of as ennobling and sanctifying. As a result, we assume this is a Christian perspective even though it comes from a parody of Christianity invented over a thousand years after Christ. While the concepts have been expanded and tuned over the centuries, much of De Amore is strangely familiar:
The Rules of Love
1. Marriage is no excuse for not loving.
2. He who is not jealous can not love.
. No one can be bound by two loves.
4. Love is always growing or diminishing.
5. It is not good for one lover to take anything against the will of the other.
6. A male cannot love until he has fully reached puberty.
7. Two years of mourning for a dead lover are prescribed for surviving lovers.
8. No one should be deprived of love without a valid reason.
9. No one can love who is not driven to do so by the power of love.
10. Love always departs from the dwelling place of avarice.
11. It is not proper to love one whom one would be ashamed to marry.
12. The true lover never desires the embraces of any save his lover.
13. Love rarely lasts when it is revealed.
14. An easy attainment makes love contemptible; a difficult one
makes it more dear.
15. Every lover turns pale in the presence of his beloved.
16. When a lover suddenly has sight of his beloved, his heart beats wildly.
17. A new love expells an old one.
18. Moral integrity alone makes one worthy of love.
19. If love diminishes, it quickly leaves and rarely revives.
20. A lover is always fearful.
21. True jealousy always increases the effects of love.
22. If a lover suspects another, jealousy and the efects of love increase.
23. He who is vexed by the thoughts of love eats little and seldom sleeps.
24. Every action of a lover ends in the thought of his beloved.
25. The true lover believes only that which he thinks will please his beloved.
26. Love can deny nothing to love.
27. A lover can never have enough of the embraces of his beloved.
28. The slightest suspicion incites the lover to suspect the worse of his beloved.
29. He who suffers from an excess of passion is not suited to love.
30. The true lover is continuously obsessed with the image of his beloved.
31. Nothing prevents a woman from being loved by two men, or a man
from being loved by two women.
However, in some cases we still hold the rule but with a different meaning. For example:
1. Marriage is no excuse for not loving.
We believe that romantic love is the only moral context for marriage and marital sex. This is sacred to us as a society, and as a result we have made it the foundation of our laws on marriage. But the original meaning was a glorification of adultery, as this “ruling” from De Amore illuminates:
XVII. A Knight was in love with a lady who was already in love with another; he received some hope to be loved in the following manner — that if she was ever deprived of the love of her present lover, then certainly this knight would have her love. After a brief time the lady married her lover. The aforesaid knight then demanded that she grant him the fruit of the hope granted to him, but she refused, saying that she had not lost the love of her lover. In this case the queen answered thus: “We do not dare oppose the decision of the Countess of Champagne, who in her decision decreed that love can exercise no power over husband and wife. Therefore we recommend that the aforesaid women grant the love that she has promised.”
Once we moved our worship of romantic love from adultery into marriage in a misguided effort to tame courtly love, removing the permanence of marriage was a foregone (if unforeseen) conclusion. As C.S. Lewis explains:
…where marriage does not depend upon the free will of the married, any theory which takes love for a noble form of experience must be a theory of adultery.
I must add the caveat that rejecting the idea that romantic love has moral force, that it is sanctifying, doesn’t imply having an aversion to romantic love. To not revere romantic love is not to hate it. We don’t need to eschew romantic love, we just need to stop worshiping it.
Several other rules of love are now articles of faith for modern Christians:
18. Moral integrity alone makes one worthy of love.
…
20. A lover is always fearful.
As Roger Boase clarifies* the fear in rule 20 only goes in one direction:
…the lover continually fears lest he should, by some misfortune, displease his mistress or cease to be worthy of her; the lover’s position is one of inferiority; even the hardened warrior trembles in his lady’s presence; she, on her part, makes her suitor acutely aware of his insecurity by deliberately acting in a capricious and haughty manner; love is a source of courage and refinement; the lady’s apparent cruelty serves to test her lover’s valour
We’ve rolled rules 18 & 20 together to create a sacred obligation for husbands (servant leaders) to always make their wives happy. This is the foundation of Pastor Doug Wilson’s theology of the aroma of love, and Fred Stoeker & Stephen Arterburn’s theology of the wife’s “soul essence” as her husband’s “master” in Every Man’s Marriage:
What I’m trying to say is that the “master” defines your rights (and remember again that though we refer to your wife as your “master,” it’s our shorthand for the fact that becoming one with her essence is actually your God-given master). Why? Because you’re called to oneness and her essence sets the terms.
…
Oneness has terms. Comply with the terms and emotional closeness follows. If you don’t comply, the emotions will die. We need to act right, or more precisely, act righteously. If we do, the feelings will follow.
…
Who sets the terms [for our relationship with God]? Christ. More accurately, Christ’s essence. What is Christ’s essence? Holiness.
…
Who sets the terms for oneness in marriage? Your wife. More accurately, your wife’s essence.
Related:
*Summarizing Gaston Paris, the man who coined the term courtly love.
It is quite something to see all these rules spelled out explicitly. They’re so… juvenile. Things that many of us felt in junior high/high school, codified into a standard of behavior for adults.
Beta.
Part of the problem I see with trying to explain the romantic love problem to people is how many are binary thinkers. As you note Dalrock, we don’t need to eschew romantic love, just stop worshiping it. But the binary thinker can only imagine one or the other extreme. The staid Puritan view of missionary sex only for child bearing, or the free wheeling hippy view of following your heart.
I love the thought provoking topic! In my own thoughts take exception to many of these rules. Without writing a novel, I would argue that all are worthy of love, not based on actions or contributions, but solely based on the value God has put on us based on the imago deo. We being His greatest creation are valuable because and only because He values us.
And He has called us to love our enemies and love one another. As husbands we are called to Love our wives as Christ loved the church. Not based on anything she does or provides, but rather because God has created her in His image. This brings me to a very important distinction. Loving your wife DOES NOT mean getting her or giving her anything and everything she wants. But rather acting selflessly without desire or because of what you might receive back, giving her what she needs.
Sorry, typing on my phone… to clarify without desire or requiring anything in return. We love because He loves us and only through the power of Christ can we truly love the way he has called us to love.
First, I will say this: It is a very good thing that C.S. Lewis died in 1963 at the age of 65.
He was a true Christian idealist, and wanted to share that idealism in his writings.
The sexual revolution, feminism and the systematic destruction of the American family that soon followed would have shaken Lewis’s strong Christian faith to its core, and no doubt broken the poor man’s giant heart into tiny pieces.
Second, it is fascinating to read how jealousy and coveting seems to be expected/allowed/permitted within these rules of love. I always considered jealousy and coveting as a Christian sin to be avoided at all costs, noted within God’s Ten Commandments. Not something one should indulge in within the context of romantic love for a woman, or a woman’s love for a man.
On the other hand, jealousy is just a more extreme word for dread, isn’t it?
For those men foolish enough to have gotten married over the last 55 years, a minority of them have no doubt discovered the remarkable utility and efficacy of applying even the slightest bit of dread within their marriage to force different behavior and more desirable outcome (or even a slightly improved one). The husbands who simply start working out, fasting, losing weight, buying new duds, making lists of priorities and knocking them out of the park, and devoting more time to their careers and hobbies instead of pedestalizing her presence, her demands, and her self-asserted marital authority.
I actually agree with the rules (which are actually assertions) noted here because for women – who can only bring themselves to love men from an already-filtered-you, already-sorted-you, conditional, opportunistic, realist and pragmatic perspective- jealousy and fear of loss can indeed fuel their love and adoration for her man. This of course assumes that you were ever her “Hell Yes!!!” man in the first place. Most of us were not / or will not be her first choice. And you probably never will be.
As for being jealous of her, and the attention of other male suitors, this too does fuel feelings of love, and or fear of loss. For one of the most painful yet appealing and motivating triggers from love, is the feeling that it could disappear, or that it is elusive right now, something we so badly want and need, but cannot ever quite have all to ourselves. How can you control the feelings and lust that reside within a woman’s head? Or a man’s head? You cannot.
A criminal act or criminal thought may have been committed before God, but it’s still not something you can control or prevent or own.
As the Vicomte Sebastian de Valmot (John Malkovich) in Dangerous Liassons said: “It’s quite beyond my control.”
If she comes to love another man, it’s beyond your control.
If you love another woman, it’s beyond her control.
Wraithburn
The staid Puritan view of missionary sex only for child bearing,
Is a myth. Probably from the 19th century.
This rule is a huge tell:
Dalrock:
To not revere romantic love is not to hate it. We don’t need to eschew romantic love, we just need to stop worshiping it.
Worship of romantic love has become the root password to marriage itself.
How?
Dalrock again:
We believe that romantic love is the only moral context for marriage and marital sex.
Let me restate a point others have made in other comments:
Romantic love is the Achilles heel that disarmed most people’s opposition to homosexual “marriage”. “If two people are in love, why shouldn’t they marry?” being but one argument.
It also may do the same for various forms of poly”marriage”, age-of-consent changes, etc.
@fortnitefatherhood
There is another critical distinction that you didn’t note. God’s love for us, and the love we are commanded to have for our wives and our enemies isn’t romantic love. But since we have adopted the religion of romantic love in place of the religion of God’s love we automatically think of romantic love when we think of a husband’s command to love his wife.
@constrainedlocus
“He was a true Christian idealist, and wanted to share that idealism in his writings.
The sexual revolution, feminism and the systematic destruction of the American family that soon followed would have shaken Lewis’s strong Christian faith to its core, and no doubt broken the poor man’s giant heart into tiny pieces.”
Perhaps, but he was also a visionary who almost predicted some of those things. So was Flannery O’Conner in a different way.
@FFY
It really is striking to see the obvious silliness of something we collectively hold as holy. It is the daydreams of lovesick adolescent boys and Harlequin novels.
@Echo4November
It is everything that is cringeworthy about betas*. One way to look at the red pill is as a rejection of chivalry. This even works across the different meanings of the term:
*Some Beta traits are noble, like selflessness and loyalty/fidelity. But the pedestal is truly cringeworthy.
“It is the daydreams of lovesick adolescent boys and Harlequin novels.”
And technology/government programs (the pump) has continually extended adolescence and expanded buying power for women. And these are the stories that they love; and now are free to dwell in these stories isolated from reality for longer and longer (if not their entire life).
Chivalry/Courtly Love is the lowest standard of love even by Plato’s standards. In the Symposium, Socrates mentions the priestess Diotima’s ladder of love:
1. A particular beautiful body. This is the starting point, when love, which by definition is a desire for something we don’t have, is first aroused by the sight of individual beauty.
2. All beautiful bodies. According to standard Platonic doctrine, all beautiful bodies share something in common, something the lover eventually comes to recognize. When he does recognize this, he moves beyond a passion for any particular body.
3. Beautiful souls. Next, the lover comes to realize that spiritual and moral beauty matters much more than physical beauty. So he will now yearn for the sort of interaction with noble characters that will help him become a better person.
4. Beautiful laws and institutions. These are created by good people (beautiful souls) and are the conditions which foster moral beauty.
5. The beauty of knowledge. The lover turns his attention to all kinds of knowledge, but particularly, in the end to philosophical understanding. (Although the reason for this turn isn’t stated, it is presumably because philosophical wisdom is what underpins good laws and institutions.)
6. Beauty itself–that is, the Form of the Beautiful. This is described as “an everlasting loveliness which neither comes nor goes, which neither flowers nor fades.” The Christian would call this God.
As you can see, the womanizer living at the whorehouse is further up the ladder than the beta-boy troubadour white knight.
In New Testament Greek
– Agape is love in the moral sense.
– Phileo is the fondness of a friend.
– Eros is romantic, or sexual passion, but it’s not found in the Bible.
When the Apostle writes “husbands, love [agape] your wives” modern Christians read that as “husbands romance [eros] your wives.” We have imported the chivalrous, romantic “love” of the world into our understanding of scripture. It is so subtle and pervasive that almost no one realizes what has happened. (The present host excepted!)
A detailed study of the Biblical ideal of love and friendship, contrasted with the modern ideal of chivalrous, romantic love would make a great dissertation, book, or series or articles.
A husband is instructed to agape his wife.
A wife is instructed to phileo her husband and children.
“And He has called us to love our enemies and love one another. As husbands we are called to Love our wives as Christ loved the church. Not based on anything she does or provides, but rather because God has created her in His image.”
I see this over and over from modern Christian men. The decades pass, but no budging on this one. Typically it’s presented by Christians as a rationalization for the West’s (satanic) laws and cultures of Equality. Egalite/Equality derives from pre-Enlightenment masonic philosophy, not from God or Scripture.
Woman was not created in His image. Man was created in His image, via His pneuma — spirit or holy breath.
Woman was created from the man, in the image of the man. Man is a glory to God. Woman is a glory to man.
I will unpack the relevant Bible verses if necessary. And almost every time, it’s been necessary.
OT, but related: The Marital Ratings Scale for Wives and Husband, circa 1939.
H/T Chateau Heartiste
So, 30+ silly man-made rules (traditions of men) vs …
Love is patient, love is kind. Love does not envy, is not boastful, is not conceited, does not act improperly, is not selfish, is not provoked, and does not keep a record of wrongs. Love finds no joy in unrighteousness but rejoices in the truth. It bears all things, believes all things, hopes all things, endures all things. Love never ends.
Pingback: The chivalric rules of love. | Reaction Times
Oh, here is at least three Dalrock themes in one, plus a valuable addition to the ‘Women don’t understand Cause and Effect’ library :
https://pjmedia.com/instapundit/319735/#respond
“The staid Puritan view of missionary sex only for child bearing”. @wraithburn, I think you’ve confused the Puritans with the Roman Catholics. While the Puritans are mocked for endorsing missionary position, this was actually the common RC viewpoint in the Middle Ages. I haven’t actually found any evidence of the Puritans mandating the missionary position. Do you have evidence of it?
So, it was the French. Those bastards replaced the love of God with a set of rules that are harder to keep than the Ten Commandments, plus the Levitical Laws combined. Harder, because at least those laws come with commands and consequences.
The new set relies on “the Feelz”
Just a little something I was thinking about today. No particular reason, and off topic.
https://ljubomirfarms.wordpress.com/2019/01/26/there-are-no-heroes/
Carry on.
What does that even mean?
That’s pretty much the anatomy of a divorce right there.
So, if she gets fat…
But, seriously, this list of rules is a recipe for living in a perpetual state of junior high drama. I don’t know about you all, but given the choice between reliving junior high, or two more years in Afghanistan, I’d pick Afghanistan.
fortnitefatherhood says: God has created her in His image.
LOL
Ray is right.
You went Blue Pill. When your God has a vagina there is no end of trouble.
Nowhere does God our Father say that He created women in his Image. Nowhere!
I debated this very subject with “Bnonn” Tennant beginning here:
https://bnonn.com/was-jesus-an-alpha-male-2/#comment-40393
Then Bnonn made a whole post about it where I debated him and was also helped out by Paul:
https://bnonn.com/are-women-made-in-the-image-of-god/
In the end, Bnonn, a very smart fellow, was reduced to insulting us and refusing to debate the matter further.
I still hold out hope that Bnonn’s God will lose the cunt and become fully masculine. Like the Father, the Son, and their Holy Spirit that impregnated Mary with a Y chromosome that she didn’t have.
Don’t Join Ariana Grande in blasphemously effeminizing God our Father. God says the effeminate don’t inherit the kingdom of God, He would be a hypocrite to say that if He had an effeminate side Himself.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
It’s funny, isn’t it? How we not only know but have quantified the exact source of this corruption poisoning our culture; One vapid French aristocratic Trollop and her two pet gamma-males whose livelihoods were to literally wax lyrical about their shared femdom/cuckoldry fetish for her contemptuous amusement that she then traded with her mother up in England who then crowbarred this dreck into the mythological canon of her new Anglo subjects, all happening a little less than 850 years ago.
We could wipe the history books clean of these four degenerates and their filth in a night, had we not let them and their successors imbed their fetishes so completely into our value system that the vast majority of the Wrstern World literally wouldn’t know how to begin regulating male/female sexual relationships without them.
I wonder if this is how people who find out they have inoperable brain tumors feel when the news first comes out.
@constrainedlocus,
I always considered jealousy and coveting as a Christian sin to be avoided at all costs, noted within God’s Ten Commandments.
I’ve got to split the hair for you here. From Sharkly’s on the spot dictionary:
Jealousy: is wanting back what is truly yours, or due to you.
Envy: is wanting what truly belongs to another.
Exodus 34:14 For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God:
As Drifter quoted above: “Love does not envy”.
However, to be jealous is like God. God doesn’t take kindly to cuckoldry. He’ll torment the rebellious homewrecking false teachers who knowingly enable it, and the rebellious whores who practice it. For their worm shall not die, their fire shall not be quenched, and they shall be an abhorrence to all flesh.
Gay superheros are so passe. The new Spiderman movie features trannies: https://abcnews.go.com/beta-story-container/GMA/Culture/spider-man-home-casts-trans-actors-marvel-blockbuster/story?id=60443657
Marvel has cast trans actor Zach Barack as one of Peter Parker’s buddies who travels with him to Venice on a high school field trip. …
In addition to Barack, The Advocate reports the film also cast trans actor Tyler Luke Cunningham as a featured extra.
“Spider-Man” follows popular CW show “Supergirl,” which cast 21-year-old Nicole Maines to play hero Dreamer. In the show, Dreamer is transgender, like the actress, but she doesn’t let this define her in any way, other than just always fighting for what’s right.
Ah, sure. Except that neither “she” nor the show, the network, the press, will ever let us forget that “she” is a tranny.
Maines, a transgender activist and actress, knows how special this season was for actors like Barack.
“If I had had a trans superhero, someone who looks like me wearing a cape, [while] growing up, that would have changed the game,” the actress recently told USA TODAY. “That would have been an entire new level of validation in myself to think that I can be a superhero!” …
Marvel and ABC News are both owned by parent company Disney.
Trannies are seriously dranged: https://www.dailystar.co.uk/news/latest-news/755694/transgender-axe-attack-australia-evie-amati-ben-rimmer-petition-7-eleven-tinder
Transgender axe attacker split man’s face in HALF in rampage after bad Tinder date.
CCTV reveals Evie Amati stormed the garage armed with a fire axe and took a swing at bystander Ben Rimmer.
She has been jailed for four-and-a-half years – with her lawyer blaming the sex change operation.
Her legal team claimed the operation had left her in immense pain and fuelled her desire to kill strangers.
Ben revealed his head was almost split in two by the blow which cleaved his face.
He is furious she could be out of prison in less than five years – and has urged for her sentence to be doubled.
Amati left Ben with his face held together by four titanium plates that he will have for the rest of his life.
The victim was randomly chosen. He’s suffered a horrible, life-changing crime.
[The tranny] was fuelled by drugs as she took the 2kg axe to the 7-Eleven in Enmore, Australia.
One hour earlier, she had posted on social media: “One day I am going to kill a lot of people.”
She was furious after she had a bad Tinder date with a woman in the hours previous.
Amati wrote on Facebook: “Humans are only able to destroy, to hate, so that is what I shall do.”
She added: “Most people deserve to die, I hate people.”
If you can stomach one more: https://activistmommy.com/britains-first-multi-generational-transgender-family-reveal-5-year-old-transitioning/
Britain’s First Multi-Generational Transgender Family Reveal 5-Year-Old “Transitioning”
The 5-year-old stepson of a British woman who lives as a man, with the child’s mother, is now “transitioning” to a girl, the couple has revealed.
Sorry if this is too much. It’s just making me so sick, I have to vent somewhere.
@Wraithburn
”The staid Puritan view of missionary sex only for child bearing, or the free wheeling hippy view of following your heart.”
The false dichotomy of Caligula and the frigidity advocacy of gnosticism.
@Anonymous Reader
Feminism has both evils of. “All sex is rape” and “Sexual promiscuity is empowering”
Likewise in “Conservatism”:
”Now, it should be apparent why feminists deny hypergamy, because the whole feminist edifice crumbles at acknowledgement of its existence. Once you acknowledge that a woman’s happiness is innately tied to a man who is capable of exerting socio-sexual dominance over a woman, then the whole idea of power-equality gets thrown out of the window.
On the other hand, the Social Conservative denial of hypergamy is more difficult to detect. Social Conservatives don’t deny that women want to “mate up”, but what they deny, or effectively downplay, is the sexual dimension of hypergamy: the importance of alpha. For a variety of reasons, Social Conservatives have a real problem in acknowledging female sexuality. Religious puritanism, historical paternalism and enforced female silence on the matter have engendered a conservative cultural conception of womanhood that paints a picture of the ideal woman as being relatively asexual. Sure there is much approving talk about beauty and love in the context of feminine identity, but as soon the subject of overt female sexuality becomes mentioned, the conservative approval is far more muted or outright critical.
If you look at it, pedastalisation, which is linked to the concept of romantic love, is really an expression of conservative anti-carnality. Women in mainstream conservative thought are are “above” the grubby desires of men, their purity and beauty as a sex, seems to disassociate them from any form of bodily function. It is a disconcerting thought to imagine the beautiful princess as moving her bowels or passing wind; and yet she does. Dante in his admiration of Beatrice never really raises the subject of tinea or body odour, because mention of such fleshy maladies brings Beatrice back to earth and out of the heavens. The flesh makes us real. So entrenched is the traditional conservative pedestalisation idealisation of women that that it shocks them when a woman’s “fleshiness” is made evident.
Game, which is basically and understanding of female sexual desire, is attacked by Conservatives with pretty much the same language as used by its feminist critics, seeing it as some form of manipulation. It shocks the conservative that the pretty Taylor-Swift-like girl actually has desires of sexual ravishment. Indeed when sweet Taylor gets carnally intimate with Tommy the thug, the only explanation that the conservative gives is that Taylor was manipulated into performing the depraved acts. Never does the Social Conservative acknowledge that the woman is finding the manipulation extremely pleasurable and that she is allowing herself to be manipulated. There seems to be a failure to recognise the moral agency of women when it comes to sexual matters because the ideal conservative woman is relatively asexual (except when it comes to reproduction) This, of course, plays into directly into feminist hands when they wish to avoid the moral consequences of their actions.
The hi-jacking of Christianity by its ascetic-members has tended to downplay the carnal component of male /female relationships, instead focusing on the moral virtues. Christian romantic love, as formulated by these gnostics, was all agape and no eros. Love in this context effectively become a relationship between two disembodied souls, and practically, this is manifest in how Christians give each other marital advice. Its all about care and communication, treating each other fairly and justly, but far less talk about looking sharp, keeping in shape and eliciting sexual desire in each other. In fact, a lot of the ascetic-Romantic conception of love seems to be premised on the fact that corporal reality doesn’t matter. For example, if a husband were to say that he doesn’t find his obese wife–who still loves him– attractive, opprobrium will usually be directed towards him and he would be attributed with moral fault. Apparently, according to the ascetics, love is meant to conquer all, including obesity, halitosis and flatulence.
This Social Conservative position stems from the rather too dominant ascetic’s streak in Christian tradition, which was evidenced in the love of mysticism and hatred of earthly reality. These types tend to conflate Christ’s sacrificial love with erotic love, which are two separate things. I can chose to sacrifice may life for a woman, but I can’t choose to have an erection in the presence of an unattractive woman. Sexual attraction is not a choice, it’s a physiological response, and the fact that the flesh is indifferent to moral virtue puts the ascetic types into a tizzy.
Whilst Social Conservatism and Feminism are two different ideological currents, both share the same effective conception of female nature; a nature that devoid of fleshy biological sexuality. Hypergamy strikes at the core of feminism in flatly refuting it’s gender equality and it strikes at Social Conservatism by upturning it’s conception of the feminine; a conception that is central to its understanding of sexuality. What the Social Conservatives fail to understand is that their conception of de-sexualised femininity–as if erotic didn’t matter– effectively provided and continues to provide the ideological justification which feeds feminist beast.”
https://socialpathology.blogspot.com/2011/11/feminist-in-every-social-conservative.html
@Sharkly
This proves that Jesus had Alpha qualities:
http://sociological-eye.blogspot.com/2014/04/jesus-in-interaction-micro-sociology-of.html
He acted as a King should act. Even though he wasn’t arrayed in majesty prior to his 2nd coming.
@Spike
”So, it was the French.”
The French noblemen prancing about in their high-heels and powdered wigs whilst wearing leggings in Versailles. Le Gay.
Perhaps the French Revolution was an unconscious hatred of that.
Thanks for the video thedeti.
Here’s the latest LifeWay man-up training film. Won’t ever see it.
https://www.fathomevents.com/events/kingdom-men-rising
From Tony Evans’ website:
Kingdom Men Rising is a documentary film exploring what it means to be a real man in the midst of cultural trends in which there is confusion about masculinity. The film wrestles honestly with the unique questions and circumstances men face today. Matters of addiction, sex, race and passivity are addressed from a biblical perspective. Kingdom Men Rising takes a journey that challenges men to rise above what we have become to lives of no more sitting on the sidelines, no more passivity, and no more excuses.
This film draws from the experiences of author, pastor and speaker Dr. Tony Evans to provide clarity on this topic. Through the stories of several men, the film drives us toward God’s ultimate purpose for masculinity and design for men. Featuring Grammy-award winning entertainer Kirk Franklin, Heisman trophy winner Tim Brown, former Dallas Cowboy quarterback Jon Kitna, Super Bowl winning coach Tony Dungy, NFL vice president Tory Vincent, author Priscilla Shirer, and others, Kingdom Men Rising provides an honest portrayal of today’s man that is countered by God’s original design.
Kingdom Men Rising is produced by LifeWay Films and Tony Evans Films in partnership with Lot35 Productions and Fathom Events.
@Red Pill Latecomer (and everyone else)
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/8839957/
Reminder that in 1996 a trans”woman” was cured of HIS body dysmorphia and identity disorder by being given micro-doses of Pimozide, which is an over-the-counter anti-schizo medicine.
Modern feminists (female AND male) typically twist Genesis 1:27 until it conforms with current gynarchic imperatives:
“So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.”
Well, it sez right there that the male and female, created he them, in his own image. How much clearer can it be that men and women are both in God’s holy image?!
These feminist apologists conveniently ignore the semi-colon between the first two clauses, and the last clause. The first clause asserts man (the male) was created in ‘his own image’, i.e., God’s image. The second clause is a repetition of the first clause. This is a common syntactic motif in Scripture — when the Bible wants to underscore or highlight something, often the phrase/idea is immediately repeated. This dovetails across other contexts with the preference, or requirement, of two witnesses present for certain matters.
The final clause does NOT assert that the female was created in God’s image; instead, it exists to support and re-affirm the preceding two clauses — God created humanity male AND female, meaning, SEPARATELY, into two distinct and quite different creatures, one male and one female.
The final clause is separated from the preceding two clauses by a semi-colon. A semi-colon is like an ‘alternate period’. It serves to SEPARATE what is contained in the clause from preceding information, while a comma serves to JOIN or RELATE a prior clause to a succeeding clause.
Bringing us to satan I mean santa clause, and the imaginary nonsense modern feminized ‘Christians’ use to cuck-out God and His Scripture, whilst bringing celebrity and dollahs to . . . hey looka that! themselves.
Men are filled with pride, and modern men much the more. I see that God’s Word and its faithful transmission has been labeled ‘wicked’ and ‘incompetent’. I will insist upon satisfaction of this slur at the appropriate time.
@Dalrock
Thank you for the serious amateur scholarship you’re doing with these posts. (I don’t mean ‘amateur’ as an insult. I just mean to point out that you’ve been doing yeoman’s work on a subject that professional scholars wouldn’t dare to approach in this way.) I always felt that the “Men’s Sphere” was on to something big, but it seems like you’ve finally found the toxic dump that has been polluting our stream at the headwaters.
Another good effort by Barbara Kay up in Canuckistan. Barbara has been defending the truth, and men/boys, for at least fifteen years now.
https://www.thepostmillennial.com/toxic-masculinity-in-advertising-keeping-women-scared-and-men-shamed/
@ray
Although I agree with your position, you shouldn’t stress too much the importance of a semicolon in the original text; the original Hebrew didn’t use semicolons at all, in fact it didn’t use punctuation at all. All punctuation is therefore interpretation.
I haven’t read all the comments, so maybe this has been brought up already, but it seems to me, Dalrock, that this courtly love business is related to your point about the need to build attraction before building comfort. Of course, the men in courtly love tales were all noblemen and knights, that is, high-status, physically fit men in the prime of their lives. In other words, they were exactly the sort of men who most women would naturally find attractive. Hence they could go straight to the “building comfort” stage of the relationship, by declaring their undying love to their lady and hence reassuring her that the attraction she felt towards him would not be unrequited.
Of course, the courtly love script tends to be less successful when ordinary people use it, because most of us are neither as high-status nor as physically fit as an elite medieval knight, and hence we can’t jump straight to the building comfort stage (or, rather, we can, but we’ll likely be unsuccessful).
Dalrock,
This is not the topic of this thread, but goes with your thread about the Kendrick brothers of a week ago, however, I think you might want to see it.
One of the Christian men I know posted the following article on Facebook praising “the Christian Message of Masculinity Behind the Gillette Commercial.” The takeaway I get from it is not unlike your position that in modern Christianity, the voice of God speaks to the husband through the wife’s vagina (her willingness or lack of it for sex), and now, according to this article, the Holy Spirit is speaking to us through Gillette. The article also closes with this insult to Christian men: “Why are many Christians so upset with Gillette’s commercial? I suspect that’s because many Christians have more faith in the myth of redemptive violence than they do in Christ.”
The link is here: https://www.patheos.com/blogs/teachingnonviolentatonement/2019/01/the-christian-message-of-masculinity-behind-the-gillette-commercial/?utm_source=facebook&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=FBCP-PATH&utm_content=Jan2019
@ James
I am a woman and I know that it is the spirit of SATAN that is speaking to us through the Gillette ad (or more exactly propaganda) !
How can a ” Christian” man believe such a drivel then ?
How terrible it is when a woman makes more sense than a man who claims to be “Christian”.
Confusing the feminist spirit with the Holy Spirit is very serious . How can a “Christian” man do such a thing ?
As a woman I have personally never read anything manlier than the Bible, and I know that men , husbands and fathers are under attack in our ungodly western world because they are the image and glory of God .
How come” Christian” men do not get it ??
@ info
You are right with the” French revolution” and the hatred of the ” sans culottes ” for the feminization of the French society throughout the 18th century .
The kings’s court had become the realm of women.
But this feminization ended up in blood and violence . And then we had Napoelon who legally kept women in check again to put an end to chaos .
Maybe we are going to live that again with migrants coming en masse. We have gone too far .
That’s because he’s not a Christian, he’s a phony. Talk is cheap. There have been people who have blasphemously claimed to be the Son of God but that doesn’t mean they are. Either we can listen to God’s voice or the world’s. That pussy is listening to the world. He’s one of those lukewarm idiots God warns us about. It’s just as simple as that.
Isn’t it a time for everything as it says In Ecclesiastes ? Should a young man not love as courtly and as stupidly as his age dictates ? A time for every thing seem to me a boy under 21 should love this way or he doesn’t have a heart and man over 30 that still loves this way doesn’t have a brain
@Isabelle
The King disempowered his noblemen from being warriors and empowered the bureaucrats in their place. Undermining his own power and providing powerbase to revolutionaries.
That’s because he’s not a Christian, he’s a phony.
A wise person should assume that this is true by default today for all men calling themselves Christian until they walk the talk that proves otherwise.
Got it feeriker. You’re a phony Christian, by default. Now prove otherwise.
@sharkly
“When your God has a vagina there is no end of trouble.”
I’m just going to leave this here…. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Stone
Courtly love in Little Rascals, wherein Chubsy falls to his knee to express his love for Miss Crabtree:
Courtly love really does appeal to pre-adolescent boys.
On woman being created in God’s image:
The Scriptural record indicates that God created man in his image (Genesis 1:26 & 27), and I accept that as both male and female. But if Adam alone was made in God’s image, what of Eve that was taken “from his side”? She was a part of Adam, and he himself proclaims her “bone of my bone, flesh of my flesh”, an indication of equality (Genesis 2:18-24). And they become “one flesh”, hardly a way of indicating a separation between “image him” and “non-image her”.
Also note that the whole thing started when God indicated that it was “not good for the man to be alone”. So Eve’s creation made things right, not wrong.
It only went wrong later. Not much later, either.
I think the explanation is both were created in the image of God…the glory part is different.
‘For a man ought not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man.’ 1 Cor 11:7
There’s your equal but different argument.
“When your God has a vagina there is no end of trouble.”
No when you make the genitals a god…you will have no end to trouble.
Got it feeriker. You’re a phony Christian, by default. Now prove otherwise.
Backatcha
Paul —
This is true concerning ancient Hebrew grammar. However, God has vouchsafed the Scripture down to us from many millennia past. If He can ensure that Scripture was created and copied legibly and authentically, to His satisfaction, then (aside from political interventions like the NIV) we can be confident that the pages before us are trustworthy. Though I often use three or four translations when studying the Bible, to give a ‘wide picture’.
The alternative is to break every phrase and word in Scripture down into a punctuation-free document, then work back from the Hebrew/Aramaic and the Greek.
I think you’ll agree that this is impractical if not impossible, and therefore we must work with what we have, and trust God in process. I do not think the plain and, for me, secure meaning of the Scripture should be constantly called into question to satisfy pedantry.
I am at peace before the King with the explanation I provided above, and I hope that explanation is the one accepted by others and carried forward, for the alternate, cuckled explanation is in error.
James (quoting) — “Why are many Christians so upset with Gillette’s commercial? I suspect that’s because many Christians have more faith in the myth of redemptive violence than they do in Christ.”
Preecher Adam Eriksen and his planet are about to witness a whole lotta ‘redemptive violence’ from the very Christ he pretends to know. That should be enlightening.
A ‘Keith’ takes apart Preecher Adam’s nonsense in the article’s comments. It appears that all these millennia gone, Adam is still worshipping the vag. Old habits die hard.
Isabelle — “I know that men , husbands and fathers are under attack in our ungodly western world because they are the image and glory of God.”
Right on the button there.
Squid —
The moosies indeed do worship that ‘heavenly crack’ (black meteorite) in the kaaba. Ain’t no escape from the Venusian Vag, eh?
So they got a fake prophet, a fake holy book, a fake goddess, and lotsa pederasty. Par for the Terran Course and no damn wonder the hand of every man is against Ishmael.
Because men either worship God or women.
Off Topic: Pope Francis blames everyone but himself.
https://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/world/pope-says-weary-church–wounded-by-her-own-sin—in-reference-to-abuse-11170828?fbclid=IwAR2_WauE2SFwpx6TSBYyt5tuOzSB7B-hZWjtfuIxjFcT-0MjeH_on7JYYS4
This is the same guy who promoted one of his buddies from Argentina to the Vatican even though he knew about bishop Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta’s sexual misconduct.
https://www.lifesitenews.com/blogs/breaking-pope-francis-knew-about-argentina-bishops-sexual-misconduct-prior
Pope Francis is part of the problem. He’s one of the many with authority in the Catholic Church who not only look the other way, but even promote sexually immoral (mostly sodomite) priests. And yet, he blames “a Church” who is “wounded by her own sin”. See? The Catholic Church wasn’t “wounded” by Pope Francis’ sin, or the sin of Gustavo Oscar Zanchetta, or the sin of every priest, nun, bishop, cardinal, or pope who looked the other way as sodomite priests practiced sodomy.
You gotta love the pope’s passive, effeminate avoidance of responsibility.
Last week, I saw a link in the comments here to this site: https://itsgoodtobeaman.com/
I entered my email address. This week I get an email discussing stuff that is clearly discussed on this site, but it doesn’t say who it is from. I’m not interested in anonymous exhortation. Who runs that site?
@ray God has vouchsafed the Scripture down to us from many millennia past.
Well, I wish we would have Scripture as it was originally written, but we do not have it.
We have something probably very close.
@Warthog says:
That site is from Bnonn and Pastor Foster. Both write under their own names.
https://mobile.twitter.com/bnonn?lang=en
https://mobile.twitter.com/thisisfoster?lang=en
Hmmm, Earl,
“On woman being created in God’s image:
The Scriptural record indicates that God created man in his image (Genesis 1:26 & 27), and I accept that as both male and female.”
You are making two errors here:
1. You are not gathering together and analyzing all the Biblical parts on the topic you are studying.
2. You are not considering the later illumination offered on this section by a section in the New Testament. The later revelation in the New Testament illuminates many Old Testament passages.
In this specific case, you can not correctly interpret Genesis 1:26 & 27 by only looking at Genesis 1. You have to include I Corinthians 11. I Corinthians 11 becomes a lens that we look back at Genesis 1 through.
7 A man ought not to cover his head,[b] since he is the image and glory of God; but woman is the glory of man. 8 For man did not come from woman, but woman from man; 9 neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. I Corinthians 11:7-9, NIV
Secrets which are concealed in the Old Testament are revealed in the New Testament. (rough paraphrase of a famous quote)
Bnonn makes the same two errors on his blog when he argues this critical point with Sharkly and Paul.
Bnonn makes the same two errors on his blog when he argues this critical point with Sharkly and Paul.
Thanks Bee.
I only was “illumined” by scripture, within this last year, with regard to men solely being in the image of God. I had grown up being taught stuff that is commonly taught and accepted, but contradicts the Bible. I agree that it is a critical point. In fact, I believe it is the only correct foundation off of which a correct view of the relation between men and women and God can be built.
If Both men and women are equally in the image of God, then they really are truly equal in what matters absolutely above all other features. And thus every single honor given to man is due to women just as much. And If God favors men over women when they are in fact equally similitudes of Himself, God is unreasonably or vindictively misogynistic, a real bigot, and for no good reason.
If however God made man in his image, and later made a woman not in God’s image, from the man’s flesh and rib, and gave her to the man to be his own glory and help and mate. Then so many of our Red Pill “discoveries” now have a solid basis in the inherent inequality of the current state of men and women. If men are gods, as the scripture tells us in the Old Testament(Psalm 82:6) and Jesus illumines in the New Testament(John 10:34-36), then hypergamy is not a bug, but a nice feature of all women’s familial drives. Hypergamy, which is only natural, only becomes a problem when you teach women they’re equal, and becomes a “millstone” when you teach women they’re morally superior to men. Submission is, likewise, naturally understandable towards a higher order creature, more difficult towards an equal, and a repugnant act when prescribed towards somebody morally inferior. Suddenly God’s hierarchy makes sense when you realize your place in it is set by God at you creation, and you are created for His purpose. You serve God as what you were created, there is no transitioning. Know your place, and be content with it, and strive to be great in it. Here is the story of a prominent angel who wanted to transition above his created role:
Isaiah 14:12 How art thou fallen from heaven, O Lucifer, son of the morning! how art thou cut down to the ground, which didst weaken the nations! 13 For thou hast said in thine heart, I will ascend into heaven, I will exalt my throne above the stars of God: I will sit also upon the mount of the congregation, in the sides of the north: 14 I will ascend above the heights of the clouds; I will be like the most High. 15 Yet thou shalt be brought down to hell, to the sides of the pit.
For men, claiming to be equal with women, is at least partly an abdication of your role as the image and glory of God. And of course women claiming equality are usurpers, following in the steps of Lucifer, led by false teachers. They should cover their heads and repent, as God’s word instructs them to. God’s plan is for holy unity and loving harmony throughout His stepped hierarchy.
I’d like to issue a thought challenge to all who believe the image of God is made up of both masculine and feminine.
Tell me a trait of God that is exclusively feminine?
And, since I know you’ll try to flip the question back on me, I’ll answer preemptively.
God became flesh and had a penis.(circumcised on the eighth day) How much more concrete could God’s masculinity get than that? What more could I do to convince you that Jesus is masculine? Shoot His foreskin at your head like a rubber band?
Sharkly: Tell me a trait of God that is exclusively feminine?
My Navarre Catholic study Bible interprets some verses as depicting God as motherly, in the sense of being tender and nurturing.
Sharkly says:
January 27, 2019 at 9:53 pm
Churchian “leadership” is absolutely terrified of this topic and will NEVER address it. Why not?
Because they know that if they admit to the truth as Scripture presents it and teach it from the pulpit accordingly, they will face a full-blown insurrection by today’s feminist churchian women, one that might even prompt a mass exodus from the faith and create living hell at home for churchian men – and quite likely, a mass epidemic of divorce.
There is no way churchians will risk this. These guys have no genuine faith as it is, which is why the appease feminism in the first place. To do something so provocative would be risky enough for a true believer. To imagine vagina-worshiping churchians doing such a thing simply staggers belief.
If folks think it is sacrilegious that I joke about Jesus foreskin while contending for his masculinity, imagine what is in store for those mockers who blasphemously effeminize and transgenderize our Father God, His Son, and their Holy Spirit. Don’t claim women are in God’s image to pander to them as an act of Feminist cunt worship. Perhaps some of y’all need a time machine so you can go back and explain to the Apostle that women don’t need to cover their heads, because they’re in the image of God just like a man, ‘Cuz … Muh Feminism! Would the Apostle deny God’s truth and rewrite his inspired epistle to accommodate your Feminist heresy? No, but he might cast the Feminist spirit out of you.
My Navarre Catholic study Bible interprets some verses as depicting God as motherly, in the sense of being tender and nurturing.
Ephesians 4:32 And be ye kind one to another, tenderhearted, forgiving one another, even as God for Christ’s sake hath forgiven you.
Both sexes are supposed to be tenderhearted. Tenderness is not exclusively feminine.
Ephesians 6:4 And, ye fathers, provoke not your children to wrath: but bring them up in the nurture and admonition of the Lord.
Fathers nurture their children too. I also nurture/mentor some younger men at work. Nurturing is not exclusively feminine.
Was that study Bible, for certain, trying to interject femininity into the Godhead?
If it was, it seems shameful to me, when you never see that in any of the text.
The expression, “Like a hen gathers her chicks”, is also not the same as claiming he has transitioned into a female chicken, for those who might try to bring that argument.
1 Cor. 11: 7, as mentioned above, reinforces the passage I quoted from Genesis. The second clause of 1 Cor.11:7 re-asserts that ‘a man’ is ‘the image and glory of God’, then immediately this clause is followed by the third clause, ‘BUT the woman is the glory of man’. (emphasis added)
Implied by the ‘but’ is the exclusion of the woman from sharing with God His ‘image’. Part of this ‘shared image’ concerns the existence in man and angels of masculinity as a unique quality, despite its various diffusions in other sexed animals. I agree with Sharkly’s analysis above concerning why this distinction is absolutely crucial to reform of both the current ‘church’, and the restoration of fatherhood, to greatest extent possible prior to inception of King Jeshua’s Millennium.
Further, this distinction involves recognition of created hierarchy, both on Earth and in heaven. This hierarchy exists everywhere and always, and it is extremely stable, but not beyond reform if necessary. As with satan’s coming change in status, for example.
All men exist in hierarchical relationship, one to the other. The same for all celestial beings. There is no such thing as equality, not anywhere.
This will become much clearer during Christ’s earthly Kingdom, which likewise will operate under hierarchy and established order. I’m a military person, so these things do not offend me — instead they bring comfort. But the vast majority of people in the first-world West — and most reading this page — live in opposition to God’s order. They live under the spiritual and social order of equality and egalitarianism, in which one’s word is as worthy as another’s. Expression of hierarchy and legitimate authority angers them, and triggers resentment.
Iron only sharpens iron if all entities are iron. They’re not.
The new Feminist doctrine that God is partly feminine and thus women are necessarily part of His image, is the flimsiest house of cards, and unsupported by the text. The early church fathers did not believe a woman was in the image of God, except for perhaps while she is united in one with her husband who was already in the image of God. To believe a single woman is an image of God, requires you to ignore part of the Bible, like Bee mentioned. However, married women aren’t told that they can pray with their heads uncovered like a man, so they as individuals are still not in the image of God, even if they are an image of Christ and the church as a couple.
Was that study Bible, for certain, trying to interject femininity into the Godhead?
Some of its study notes do say that God has both fatherly and motherly attributes.
Never mind Muslims, says the CBC (Canada). Incels are the real terror threat: https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/incel-threat-canadians-fifth-estate-1.4992184
Experts interviewed by The Fifth Estate have identified 120 instances of extreme violence in Canada by right-wing groups, including incels, in the past 30 years. This is compared to only seven by Islamist-inspired extremists.
Woman leaves her husband because he voted for Trump: https://www.alternet.org/2019/01/how-donald-trump-brought-about-the-end-of-my-marriage/
As I made plans to participate in my third Women’s March in January, there had been one big change in my life this time around: I was no longer living with my husband.
Last fall, after 24 years of marriage and almost two years of dealing with the aftermath of the devastating 2016 election, I decided I could not live with this person anymore. Why? Because, while the results of the election were devastating for me, they were not for my husband. He voted for Donald Trump, and he has continued to support him. So as a staunch liberal and a frequent Trump protester, I had to do something.
Over a couple of months, I began to look for a full-time job to support myself. I toured apartment complexes in our area, I ordered new furniture on my credit card, and I began the process of moving my life to a new place—without him. I moved out of our house of 20 years during the last weekend in October and into an apartment. And I have not regretted it.
Ray,
“All men exist in hierarchical relationship, one to the other. The same for all celestial beings. There is no such thing as equality, not anywhere.
This will become much clearer during Christ’s earthly Kingdom, which likewise will operate under hierarchy and established order. I’m a military person, so these things do not offend me — instead they bring comfort. ”
The centurion commended by Jesus for his great faith understood hierarchy and it’s established order because he was an officer in the Roman army. Until we accept hierarchy and God’s order we will not have great faith.
@RPL: Bet the Clinton-voter’s going to regret her decision when the menopause wears off.
@Red Pill Latecomer
One of the intriguing arguments against female suffrage is that marriages do not tend to last very long where the parties thereto have either different religious or political affiliations.
Woman leaves her husband because he voted for Trump:
Being a feminist harpy, she would reverse course quickly if she realized what a massively big favor she’s done her husband.
As others have pointed out, those who practiced chivalry were knights. They were wealthy, high status, and physically fit. Women were naturally attracted to them. As originalmrx said, they could afford to go straight to the comfort phase of a relationship. I think it also shows just how foolish and oblivious elite men can afford to be. Aimed at another man’s wife, chivalry is AMOGing.
It is the same with Pastors getting married right out of seminary, it checks a huge status checkbox that some women have. Then they go on to tell all the men they are supposed to be shepherding to “just be yourself and embrace courtly romance, its easy”.
The older pastors of today have the benefit of their wives having grown up being taught female submission & fear of God, instead of the bullshit they now teach other men’s wives, oblivious that it won’t work in many cases.
Pingback: Chivalry Game: How to negotiate desire. | Dalrock
@ info
Thank you for the information .
Heidi
@RPL: Bet the Clinton-voter’s going to regret her decision when the menopause wears off.
Possibly. More likely she’ll just rationalize her foolish decision as somehow All His Fault.
Plus he may find his life less stressful and more pleasant apart from her and have zero interest in any reconciliation.
@Anon Reader
Yet if it does break through it is devastating.
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2015/10/19/she-lost-her-best-friend/
https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2010/09/06/her-husband-was-her-best-friend/
Wait… so she’s a feminist, but she depended on a man to support her? For how long? What ever happened to “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle”?
Bee —
“The centurion commended by Jesus for his great faith understood hierarchy and it’s established order because he was an officer in the Roman army. Until we accept hierarchy and God’s order we will not have great faith.”
Yes. As long as God’s created hierarchies are ignored — or modernly, hated and rejected — there will be chaos on Earth. One cannot have authentic faith w/o recognition and acceptance of one’s betters. Because that is who we have faith IN.
You cite the ancient world as example, and in fact in OT times, hierarchy between male/female, and hierarchy within male groups, was assumed and typically embraced, as folks understood that without such order, societal structures would crumble.
This is a vast, and little understood, reality concerning the ancient world. Resentment drives modern cultures of the West — it’s a daily resentment-o-thon, and this occurs when the pride, the arrogance, of individuals rises far beyond their created station. Each man demands to be king, and worse, truly believes he should be. Each women demands to be a princess . . . she DESERVES it, she is WORTH it . . . seen any of THAT around America the past few decades?
My world is a military world of hierarchy and order, for which I am thankful. I don’t resent the authorities in heaven that are over me; I embrace the superiority of what is created superior, as this is my protection in heaven and on earth.
In this I am quite alone, seemingly. Even on this page, men scramble for authority, for traction, for page-hits and the advances of their friends. This is the modern way of being, the way of rejection of authority, and resentment of any set over, or perceived to be set over. This is an anti-christ way of existence, whether in earth or in heaven.
Indeed, the whole mess kicked-off when a very powerful and glorious angel would not suffer God’s hierarchy, and his place in it. He was/is full of resentment, thinking he’s been betrayed by God, done wrong, and etc. Then when he found out that critters God fashioned out of dirt slime were scheduled to take over the heavens, well, now here we are. War and nothing but, and it’ll stay like that until the resentment-rebellion is terminated.
@info This proves that Jesus had Alpha qualities:
Well, this proves He IS the Alpha:
Rev 22:13 “I am the Alpha”
Pingback: How to woo a peasant woman. | Dalrock
Pingback: Dissident Write II: Dissident Boogaloo – The Portly Politico
Pingback: You say Jesus, they think Lancelot. | Dalrock
Pingback: Theological Rot Produces Christian Culture that Agrees with “Courtly Love” – The Lexet Blog