If Mark Driscoll weren’t so foolish he would be wise.

This at least seems to be the consensus amongst his defenders on my last post.

While you ponder this, I’ll offer some more Mark Driscoll gold courtesy of Relevant magazine:  Mark Driscoll Says Just Grow Up (H/T Smithborough).  Fortunately for us, he has cracked the code on our epidemic of unwed motherhood.  Thanks to Mark we now know it isn’t the fault of the unwed mothers themselves, and it certainly isn’t due to feminism or our creating direct incentives for unwed motherhoodMen made them do it (emphasis mine):

The number one consumer of online pornography is 12- to 17-year-old boys. What that means is he’s home eating junk food, drinking Monster energy drinks, downloading porn, masturbating and screwing around with his friends. That really doesn’t prepare you for responsible adulthood. That’s a really sad picture, especially if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.”

What causes these young men to be unsupervised? you might ask, why unwed motherhood.  What originally caused unwed motherhood?  Divorce, which as we know from his Washington Post Op Ed piece is driven by men trading in their 40-year-old wife for two 20-year-old girlfriends, regardless of what the lying data shows:

Part of it is the unintended consequences of divorce. Forty percent of kids go to bed at night without a father. Not to be disparaging toward single moms, but if you’re a single mom and you’re working 60 hours a week, and you’ve got a boy, and he’s home all by himself with no parents and no dad, he’s just going to be hanging out with his buddies, feeding himself pizza rolls.

Phew, I was afraid he was going to disparage heroic unwed mothers.

It would be unfair of me not to mention the defense others have provided for Pastor Driscoll at this point.  Sure he is saying incredibly foolish things now, but if you look at his past writings and sermons he has said some really great stuff.  They touched on this in the interview:

Several years ago, you were regularly in the press for your controversial statements on gender roles, but now it seems like you’re steering away from those conversations. Was that intentional?

I don’t know, I’m always getting in trouble for something. I’m just really focused on, at this point, men and women. It’s really interesting because if you took all the women in my church who were sexually abused, raped, molested, assaulted in some way, I’d still have a megachurch. I’d have a couple thousand victims. So a lot of my time is spent with women who are abuse victims, it’s a huge part of what we do, and guys who are totally responsible and part of the problem. That’s where my focus has gone in part because of the demand that’s in our church and because of the people who I’m dealing with.

Forget all of that stuff he wrote and said in the past.  Now he knows that women are really just innocent victims of mean men, who are driving all of the dysfunction in our sexual marketplace.  They ask him if he regrets “any of those statements about gender roles and Jesus’ masculinity?”  Here is his reply:

Oh my gosh. I have been preaching and teaching now for 13, 14 years. In Malcolm Gladwell’s book, he says it takes 10,000 hours of something to become an expert. Preaching and teaching, I’ve gotten in about 10,000 hours. I’ve published I don’t even know how many books, blogs—it’s a crazy amount of content. If I could hit control-alt-delete and go back and do like they used to in Men in Black and just hit a button to make certain people forget certain things, that would be awesome.

My hope, my prayer, my goal is to do better, by God’s grace, to learn, to grow, to be sanctified and mature—to be less shock-jock and more Jesus-centered. I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man. But I’m hoping God gives me enough years, maybe 30, 40 more years of service, that when it’s all said and done, I will have had enough time to correct some mistakes I’ve made and learn how to more clearly articulate some things I believe. So I’m trying to learn as I go.

About these ads
This entry was posted in Church Apathy About Divorce, Foolishness, Manliness, Mark Driscoll. Bookmark the permalink.

154 Responses to If Mark Driscoll weren’t so foolish he would be wise.

  1. Dex says:

    I must have missed the part where he said being a single mom was a good choice.

  2. slwerner says:

    “That’s a really sad picture, especially if you’re a single gal hoping to get married someday. You’re like: “Seriously, that’s the candidate pool? You’ve got to be kidding me.” That’s why 41 percent of births right now are to unmarried women. A lot of women have decided: “I’m never going to find a guy who is actually dependable and responsible to have a life with. So I’ll just get a career and have a baby and just intentionally be a single mother because there are no guys worth spending life with.””

    [I responded to this same (mis)statement on the last thread, so for reasons of pure laziness, I think I'll just cut-n-paste:]

    As if woman, especially younger women (aka teen mothers) are putting anywhere near that kind of thought into their decisions to become single mothers. I’d venture that it’s far more likely that if they are thinking about the future at all, the prospect of a government check, rather than a reliable man to provide, is the driving factor behind their decisions.

    Next, in their line of reason, would likely be getting pregnant by a guy who already has resources that the government with confiscate on their behalf (err, their babies behalf).

    This supposed concern of finding the ”right guy” is probably only a consideration for those who are actually doing the very simple things necessary to NOT get pregnant sans reliable contractually-obligated male provider unit already in place.

  3. Mike C says:

    Follow the money. Driscoll isn’t foolish at all. He knows who butters his bread so his message his custom fit for what they want to hear.

  4. Pirran says:

    Damn, it’s fine to be chucked under the bus by the Reverend “Marky” Mark Mangina.

    I wonder if the phrases “Womens Megachurch” and “5 kids through college” occupy his head at the same time….

  5. Makes you wonder if the real truth is something like “I used to talk straight but then I discovered that our church finances were ailing and there would not be enough money for my new boat so I had to supplicate to the demographics that were most likely to pony up the money…. because that is more important to me than straight talk. Oh and seeing the carousel girls look up at me in awe gives me plenty of currency for the ol’ spank bank”

  6. slwerner says:

    TheSolomonPress.com – “…I had to supplicate to the demographics that were most likely to pony up the money…. because that is more important to me than straight talk”

    Sadly, this has such a ring of truth to it.

  7. Alistair. says:

    Well….I have two boys, 12 and 15 who live with their mother. The court awarded her sole custody because I left her with the home and went and lived in an apartment as, after 14 years of skreetching psychopathy I gave up.

    I could have fought her for custody, forced the sale of the home etc., but I knew she would come completely undone and not be able to be mother to my boys….

    so I see them week-ends and I spend time with them throughout the week in the evenings when they aren’t with their friends.

    The article above describes their lives with their mother to a tee. she works 60+ hours a week and goes to a her boyfriends on weekends, and never knows where her kids are or what they are doing.

    my oldest if failing grade 10 and I have told their mother he needs to be with me so that he is forced to study and have his toys taken away. She won’t even tell his teachers that I have permission to speak to them about his work or school life, as in her words,” you aren’t his legal guardian”.

    This woman has used the law to abandon her children and handcuff me. Then, when it get’s too tough….like when my youngest shot her boyfriend with a paintball gun (!) because the man physically assaulted him, she screams at me because I’m not being a good father and “see how they’ve turned out”.

    she has provided them with internet access and x-box live and so she doesn’t have to deal with them at all when she’s home, and when I suggest that she take the free access away she tells me I have no idea what it’s like dealing with two boys on her own…….

  8. Dre says:

    I would like to hear his response for the 70% single mother rate in the African Community.

  9. Dalrock says:

    @Dex

    I must have missed the part where he said being a single mom was a good choice.

    If I had said he claimed this, your statement would be a thoughtful rebuttal. What I said was:

    Thanks to Mark we now know it isn’t the fault of the unwed mothers themselves, and it certainly isn’t due to feminism or our creating direct incentives for unwed motherhood. Men made them do it (emphasis mine):

    My point is that he is excusing the unwed mothers for making choices which are incredibly harmful to their children, and instead blaming these choices on men. I provided a direct quote where he does this. Yet you rebut a claim I didn’t make, and ignore the one I actually made.

    I’ll keep asking you and others. Please respond to what I actually write. I can’t argue with the movie in your head.

  10. TB says:

    Gotta tell you, Dalrock — some of your commenters are idiots. Read what the man actually writes, people. Attacking that straw man just makes you look crazy.

    I never understood Driscoll. Are his hipsterish muscle shirts supposed to prove his authenticity or something? Why am I taking “manhood” instruction from a guy who can’t dress himself for church?

  11. Dre says:

    Where is the “like” button? I would like to show my agreement to some of these on point replies.

  12. Elspeth says:

    Wow, that was disappointing. I was more familiar with the Mark Driscoll who was more traditional and Biblical in his discussion of gender roles and marriage. I’m not familiar with this guy at all.

  13. The young men slackers of today are certainly a product of the last generation of women’s successful undermining of men. Great job, single moms. You fucked over your own children, finally. Good thing you ran off dad, huh? What’s that? He was a bad man? Good job choosing a dumbshit to father your kids. Guess what that makes you?

    In your riding the cock carousel, you have sold out your own children for it.

    We could inspire men to rise up and teach the younger men how to be manly, masculine men

    We could inspire women to rise up and teach the young women today how to be the sort of woman a man will want to keep…

    But women want the young men taught to be manginas and white knights, and men don’t have a fucking clue or enough balls to teach young men what they REALLY need to know (a.k.a. The Red Pill)

    And there’s no way that women today will teach young girls how to be Miss Suzy Homemaker, since they don’t know themselves or regard that as degrading, instead they teach girls today how to function like men, insult men, and “be true to themselves” (aka follow your gina tingles) and demand everything you possibly can.

    Kids who aren’t getting proper (read:traditional) training on how to function and succeed in a marriage structure end up going out into the world clueless, without the tools or the wisdom they need… no wonder shit breaks down for them. Nobody taught them, or they instructed them in feminist ideology that necessarily doomed them, male and female.

    “Hey son, just supplicate to her more until you meet all her needs, then maybe she’ll be nice”

    yeah, that’ll work. Good teaching there.

    and even if you convinced them to pursue honorable marriages, then they STILL have to face the devastation of divorce theft, having your children stripped from you, having your wife cheat on you and cuckold you into humiliation and impotent rage, and all the other joys of marriage 2.0.

    Fact is, girls, thrills don’t equate to happiness, and your gina tingle will betray you, and mustn’t lead you any more than a man’s erection should be his guiding force and sole purpose.

    Get a clue, or get a smackdown. Nature doesn’t give a damn about your feelings.

    And anyone who would try to sell a man on today’s American version of “marriage” is either a fool or a lying swindler. (I wonder which Mark Driscoll is?) Under no circumstances should a man be advised that marriage in this feminist culture is a good or wise plan. Ever.

    It’s the riskiest proposition I can imagine. Let’s at least call it what it is… them maybe the Driscolls of the world won’t be so mystified why men shy away, left only to generalize and insult the male gender like they were Al Bundy’s wife.

  14. slwerner says:

    TB – “Gotta tell you, Dalrock — some of your commenters are idiots.”

    TB,

    Put down that mirror, and step away slowly…

  15. TB says:

    sl – That’s it? That’s your best?
    Despite the devastating takedown, I think I can carry on.

  16. slwerner says:

    TB – “sl – That’s it? That’s your best?”

    I thought I was just playing down to your level.

    If you want something better from me (or anyone else), you’re going to need to put up something better yourself.

    How about this:

    Try selecting one of the comments you believe to have been posted by an idiot, then explain how that commenter has failed to consider the words that Mark Driscoll has published. Then, there will actually be something from you that can be meaningfully addressed.

    The vague argument that someone might have gotten something, somewhere out of context, or even that something has been misquoted (or whatever it is you’re complaining about) – and that they are therefore idiots – ends up making you look, well, you get the picture…

  17. Opus says:

    So intrigued am I (as a viewer of all American things Religious) by Mark Driscoll, that I have done some research, which I assume (maybe I am wrong) will be of interest. I do not intend to take this man at his word; I want to know what he does:

    He is 41 and married since 1995. He holds a Bachelors Degree in Speech Communication [Aural Rhetoric?] from Washington State Univ’ and a Masters in Exegetical Theology [critcal appraisal of texts - biblical]. He is a Calvinist but has a particular view of pre-destination.

    He is the founder of his Church and has written fifteen books. He debated the existence of Satan with three others including Deepak Chopra. [I am guessing he is affirmative there]. He said something about [disgraced] Pastor Ted Haggard (whom I know of from when his heavies physically assulted Arch-Heretic Richard Dawkins and his blasphemous film crew) and for which he later apologised for. Many of his parishoners are women who have been abused, raped, etc [or so they say - maybe this is the Pray part of EPL]. He thinks men should man up [otherwise the church will end up with Women Bishops].

    If he falls at some future time, he will not be the first Pastor, [Haggard; Swaggart] to have raised the bar far too high. I am thus reminded of a conversation I had with an American ex-gf which went as follows:

    Opus: Are you still a practising [insert name of Denomination]?
    GF: No
    Opus: Have you ceased believing?
    GF: No, I have a very personal relationship with God.
    Opus: Why are you no longer a church member?
    GF: My Pastor was helping this woman through Divorce…
    Opus: …and
    GF: He began helping himself to her.

    I deduced that what she really meant was that the Pastor fancied the other woman more. I too was sent into the long grass for failing to show any or sufficient interest!

  18. TB says:

    Eh, I think Dalrock has done a fine job of illustrating the straw man arguments in which these folks have been engaging. I was just complimenting him. Everyone may consider me on record agreeing with his assessment of those straw man arguments. If anyone cares (which I doubt).

    I don’t “want” anything from you. I was complimenting Dalrock. I don’t care what you think or say.

  19. TFH says:

    It is stunning how there are still people who are not ashamed to firmly believe that the well being of a woman is vastly more important than the well-being of a man, and that harming 10 men to pamper 1 woman is an acceptable model for a society to follow.

    Thank God that churches are now being infiltrated by pickup artists who treat it as a Sunday Morning Nightclub. That is that natural progression of what the church has actually become.

  20. Bob says:

    I just wish there was a way we could go about informing pastors. A couple years ago, I would not have seen anything wrong with what Driscoll wrote. Thanks to game blogs and the manosphere, I smartened up. I still think Driscoll is a good pastor, but I wish I could get a little 1 on 1 with him so I could drop the facts on him.

    If I were a pastor, I would tell men that yes, they need to find a wife, unless they are part of the extreme minority of men who are essentially asexual or as disciplined as Paul (which means they don’t even jerk it). I would give them a copy of Dalrock’s “marriage interview” article and tell them they need to find a women who fits that criteria, and that they’re best off:

    #1 – Learning game. I would literally hand my young men a copy of Bang by Roosh and tell them to read Chateau Heartiste. Mind you, I am not telling anyone to DO EVERYTHING those guys do, they just need to learn game from the experts, and the fact is they are experts. I think Mystery and all those guys suck – Roosh and Roissy are normal guys, so most guys will learn best from them.

    #2: Using the internet. Even if you get your daygame down, finding a good, Christian girl in a mall or something is next to impossible. And don’t get me started on the futility of night game. The Internet, despite its imperfections, is the best way to meet Christian girls. I would teach men online game – I think I have a very good handle on it, and give them a list of things that are red flags (she talks about how she gets bored easily, her pictures are slutty, she is 5 ft 1 but demanding all men who message her are 5 ft 10 or taller, her favorite show is Glee, she is pro-choice, her politics are “liberal,” etc).

    #3: Considering travel. Russia, Eastern Europe, and some parts of Asia are good places. Learn up on the Orthodox Church and be willing to attend one at least here and there, because many of the best girls are Orthodox. I find this true even in the U.S.

  21. Mormon Man says:

    I’d never heard of Driscoll and it made his comments seem completely different to me. Without knowing who or what he is, these articles sound like a 20-yr-old kid who’s pissed about the hot girl liking the jerks. He sounds half like he’s trying to convince himself and half like he’s trying to convince all the other men in the world. And the kid gloves he uses for women are so white and fluffy they’d make a marshmallow jealous. What a joke.

  22. slwerner says:

    TB – “I was complimenting Dalrock.”

    It was rather unclear just who you were making your remarks about.

    If I now understand you correctly, you were pointing towards those who were making the argument that Driscoll (based on some earlier works) isn’t (or wasn’t) a female-pedestaling, male-shaming water-boy the gynocentrists?

    If so, I had completely misunderstood who it was you were calling idiots. My apologies if I have misunderstood you in that regard.

    Still, I don’t think it’s necessary to call them idiots. They may be misguided (I certainly think so), but they do present a somewhat cogent argument for their views. I would suggest it would be better to thoughtfully and respectfully take apart their arguments with Driscoll’s own (recent) words.

    I believe that the seeming disconnect regarding what sort of “leader” Driscoll is was most succinctly addressed by Elspeth
    (January 17, 2012 at 12:32 pm)

    ”Wow, that was disappointing. I was more familiar with the Mark Driscoll who was more traditional and Biblical in his discussion of gender roles and marriage. I’m not familiar with this guy at all.”

    Driscoll seems to have had some change of heart along the way.

    My own initial thought was along the lines of: with success comes the tendency to try to rest on ones laurels, and laziness results. Driscoll’s change might have been simply his laziness in now preferring to go after the low-hanging fruit of woman’s “victimization complexes”.

    But, then, Solomon suggested a financial motivation; which, in light of his prior politically incorrect attitudes, coupled with the knowledge that woman (in one way or another) control a sizable majority of giving to Christian churches, might seem to make even more sense.

  23. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    I don’t understand the current Evangelical obsession with burly men. When I left evangelicalism 6 years ago, there was a groundswell of man-love just getting under way that was strangely homoerotic – men grabbing each other, crying on each others’ shoulders, hugging each other, etc. all coupled with a sports-idolatry, Bush/military-idolatry or he-man wilderness posing that left me cold. I’m a city boy, not particularly burly, a progressive Republican, and I don’t really have a team.

    I wouldn’t last three weeks in Driscoll’s church. He’s a macho ape whose pulpit antics put me to mind of an alpha mandrill baboon displaying his crimson genital sack. I could just imagine the men in his church, all ‘How ’bout them Mariners/Seahawks/Sonics?’ one minute and boo-hoo-hooing about the father-shaped hole in their lives the next.

    No thanks. Being a man is more nuanced than that.

  24. I just wish there was a way we could go about informing pastors.

    I’ve actually made the attempt once. It wasn’t pretty. Mainstream churchianity was assimilated by feminization long ago, to the point that today’s ‘pastors’ are the product of exactly the feminism they’d publicly disdain. Few men are so hopelessly dependent, and plugged in to the feminine Matrix than evangelical men.

  25. deti says:

    @ TFH:

    “Thank God that churches are now being infiltrated by pickup artists who treat it as a Sunday Morning Nightclub. That is that natural progression of what the church has actually become.”

    This is a hobby horse of mine of late. I’ve been noticing that churches in the midwest where I live are full
    of “reformed sluts” and “born again virgins”. That is, these worn out carousel riders and down on their luck carousel watchers believe they are “reformed” and “born again” merely because they attend a church. Your typical churchly “reformed slut” has a partner count in the double digits, is approaching The Wall at Mach 2, and might have at least one divorce under her belt. If she’s a never-married, she’s at church to snag a provider and Make A Baby (not necessarily in that order). If she’s a divorcee with a child(ren), she’s looking for a beta provider/sugar daddy. Hey she wants “to do it God’s way” this time because she is sure that “God has a plan for” her life and “God has prepared a man” just for her. She knows this because “God laid it on [her] heart” The pastor knows this as well because he “has such an anointing on him.”

  26. LD says:

    5 kids? wtf? Another go forth and multiply retard.

  27. CL says:

    This “pastor” sounds rather juvenile in his speech. Mike C nailed it with “follow the money”. Driscoll states unequivocally that he could have a mega-church full of “[female] victims [of male degeneracy]“, which most of us here probably realise is code for “women with rationalisation hamsters on steroids” that Driscoll and his ilk feed lavishly, gaining monetary rewards and a good ego-stroking in the process.

  28. Christian forgiveness is concept taylor made to excuse female hypergamy.

  29. Feminism, overt 3rd wave feminism, is antithetical to what we think most conservative, traditional religious women would embrace. In fact, if you asked a random 100 women from any evangelical franchise religion if they’d describe themselves as “feminists” you’d get a resounding chorus of “no” to “hell no!”

    Feminism, as a label, has the stink of a liberalism that they’ve been taught to construe as appalling and against their ‘moral code’. The term, in this expression, is equatable with pro-abortion, anti-christian, loose, loose morals, etc. etc. However, ask any of them whether they believe in any aspect of feminism that socially benefits the feminine imperative, “equal work for equal pay” ethic, or whether they ought to be discounted from making political decisions (voting or running for office) by virtue of them being women, etc. and you’ll see how non-feminist they really are. Tell them traditional doctrine forbids them from ministry, give them guidelines for modesty, ridicule effeminate church-men, and you’ll see how ingrained feminist thought really is.

    Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism – they’re not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of “feminist” by virtue of their religion.

  30. Tom says:

    “5 kids? wtf? Another go forth and multiply retard.”

    That’s not that unusual for families in the flyover states. A bit on the high end, but still within the tall part of the bell curve.

  31. Elspeth says:

    “5 kids? wtf? Another go forth and multiply retard.”

    We have 5 kids, too. It’s actually not that uncommon among the devout.

    Whether or not my husband and I in particular are retards depends on what blogs you read, LOL.

  32. Here’s an assignment for you. Go to your church (or your family’s church if you don’t go regular) and take mental notes of all the women you see there. Be real particular as far as appearances go and any conversations you can eavesdrop in on, paying particular attention to statements about personal lives or issues that may relate to their opinions of dating or marriage. You will begin to see consistent patterns present themselves. A lot of Christian women follow very predictable schemas. Most will be overweight, most will shun direct discussions about sex, most will expect to be married (often early in life), most will complain about there being a lack of ‘marriageable’ men with sufficient dedication to women as it should be their duty to do so.

    Those not overweight will tend to be wallflowers (or self-perceived wallflowers) or ‘recovering sluts’ in church for the first time in a while wanting to make a fresh start. One unifying understanding that virtually all of them will have will be a belief in a ONE (ONEitis) predestined husband ordained for them and will respond to the soul-mate mythology accordingly. This is also a manifestation of the ‘entitlement’ dynamic which is rife in almost every religious group, not just Christianity.

  33. ybm says:

    “Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism – they’re not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of “feminist” by virtue of their religion.”

    Dalrock has discussed this at length in earlier posts.

  34. I’m not (yet) a Bible-believing Christian, but have been attending Mars Hill for about three years now.

    After sleeping on this for just one night, I simply can’t believe that Mark’s motivation is to kiss women’s asses and stuff the coffers with shekels and the chairs with “bait” for the young men there (bait I’ve sniffed more than once myself). I just can’t believe that about him, or about Mars Hill in general. Either that is Just Not Happening, or Mars Hill is a criminal mastermind mafia that puts the Federal Reserve to shame.

    What I DO believe is that Mark perfectly fits the “clueless alpha” white knight category that Roissy wrote about last year (but is no longer online). I mean look, he had a pretty blonde teenage Pastor’s daughter THROWING herself at him before they were married and before he was even a Christian, walk-of-shaming home to pray for his conversion. It takes quite the sexy alpha asshole to make that happen, and that sexy alpha asshole was him.

    Mark sticks closer to the Bible than anyone I’ve ever seen met or heard, but there are some things that he has NEVER admitted in public, because frankly he’s still clueless. For example:
    o Women must be held accountable for the men they choose.
    o Women must be held accountable for electing single motherhood.
    o His wife-to-be Grace would never have given him the time of day if he were a Nice Guy.

    Beating the patriarchal man-up drum, harder and harder, would be the perfect medicine for his congregation EXCEPT for the fact that the socio-sexual situation between men and women today is ALSO the result of women’s choices. (Or maybe he’s finally tasted Red Pill and will spring it on us during the current Real Marriage series that we’re doing.)

    When the Bible was written, the man-up drum was right on the money. Women could be categorized as “minors”, like children, because they lacked the legal and technological ABILITY to get away with the kind of irresponsibility that they get away with now. They’d end up prostitutes, starving, chastised, whipped by their fathers, or a combination of all four. Therefore, the responsibility for the state of families and society really WAS all down to the men, period. (And ultimately still IS, since we’re the ones paying the bills and wielding the capability for violence around here.)

    But now, Mark is trying-trying-TRYING to pretend that the game hasn’t changed. ‘That women don’t have the powers of the Four Sirens of the Sexual Apocalypse (http://goo.gl/L1anL), and are therefore still helpless and immune to accountability. But if we DO confess those powers exist, then the music stops and they just don’t look like victims anymore.

    But in spite of all this, whatever temporary insanity Western civilization puts itself through in the late-20th and early-21′s centuries, Jesus either lived or he didn’t, and he conquered death or he didn’t. If anyone is willing to let THIS little kerfuffle settle THOSE questions, then he’s missed the Main Event entirely.

  35. Mark says:

    You know, it’s not even funny, but if Mark Driscoll’s wife suddenly needed to go find herself and used the legal system to ruin him financially and unfairly isolate him from his five children I would almost guarantee he would be singing a different tune.

  36. Brian says:

    “I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man.”

    I just hit 40, and I feel like my life is just starting as a result of a lot of the things I’ve learned from Roissy, Rolo, and Roosh. My grade school teachers were right; you really do need to invest time in the 3 R’s.

  37. Brian says:

    “Most will be overweight, most will shun direct discussions about sex, most will expect to be married (often early in life), most will complain about there being a lack of ‘marriageable’ men with sufficient dedication to women as it should be their duty to do so. ”

    That’s two of my last three churches right there. The skinny ones are either 18-22 and already have a guy clinging on, or they’re divorced mothers. The unmarried ones are all overweight, lamenting that “God won’t provide me with a husband”. What’s especially sad is the sheer number of single men there that are so beta that I’m pretty sure they’re gay, and would eagerly be the bitch in any relationship (straight or gay) that they could get into.

  38. deti says:

    Rollo:

    Nailed it.

    Unmarried women at most churches each fall into one of the following categories:

    1. “Reformed slut”/”born again virgin”.
    2. Unattractive divorcees.
    3. Attractive divorcees.
    4. Ultrahypergamous never marrieds with a firm belief that “God has prepared a husband just for me” who meets every single one of her 463 bullet points. But surprisingly, every man she meets everywhere falls short.

    Married women at most churches each fall into the following categories:

    1. Overweight, unattractive “church ladies”.
    2. Attention whoring MILFs.
    3. Gossiping busybodies.
    4. The smallest category: devout women.

  39. I got hated on at my church for being a “womanizer” and a “bullshit artist”, both labels gracefully bestowed upon me by the pastor himself. Then he kicked me out of the church band, where I played bass.

    In the end, it was because I don’t fall in line with emotional shaming tactics anymore, and won’t play ball and be a giant wussbag and do what I’m told. I refused to marry the church girl I was dating. Top notch girl, too. Oh well. I miss playing bass, anyway.

  40. CL says:

    “Womanizer” is a really funny term. The implication of it is that the “womanizer is “creating women”. I’ll leave that to the imaginations of the readers here while I simply chuckle to myself.

  41. turning rookies into vets… haha

  42. Jennifer says:

    Were you in fact a player, Solomon?

    Craig, men contribute to society as well, and those who sleep with sluts made their own choices.
    Of course Rollo, all the fault is that of women, let’s just stroll through the church to point fingers and snicker at the uglies we see, and screw the assholes who enjoy mucking up the place, they’re just trying to avoid being cheated by women and turned into pussies after all.

    Dalrock, after reading his words of rape victims, I’m getting the impression he’s becoming more mild and focusing on men’s sins more than women’s, even more strongly than before. Terri, he’s still the same person, only moving from one ledge to another.

    But, I did read his article fully, Dalrock, and you’re totally correct that he erred in painting men as the sole problem-causers. After the raging macho stuff in his younger years, it makes sense for him to go into more mild tones now, especially after seeing hurt women (rape victims are not hamsters on stereoids). But the pendulum is a dangerous thing and knocks down someone on whichever side it swings too strongly to. He’s always been something of an extremist, so this discouraging tendency isn’t too surprising.

    Then again, maybe this isn’t surprising; maybe it’s not a drastic turn. Because in every house where the patriarchal Mosaic laws-type logic resides, the men do regard women as children, even claiming men are responsible for sins their wives commit, and one guy claimed women were victims of the feminism that men created to get the workload off their backs. Very harmful thinking to men, and VERY insulting of women. So nobody, no one, wins or benefits.

    Still hoping for better, Mark.

  43. Damn, this is so demoralizing. There truly seems to be no refuge to get away from the destruction. The Church is commanded to be seperated from the world, to be set apart. For years now I’ve tried to find a congregation that didn’t look just like society in church clothes. I’ve been tempted to label them apostate but have kept trying to give them the benefit of the doubt.

    I’ll ask this as a Christian directed at other Christians: so what do ya’ll do? Do you still attend in angry silence? Do you try to find a small group of men of like mind? Do you overlook the failings of leadership or do you confront it and get ostracized? Do you forgo the fellowship? Do you just go it alone. In a world that hates Christ and his followers, I believe we gain strength and support thru fellowship with other believers. So once again this is directed at the Christians present: how do you have this fellowship in the world of churchianity?

    Also, as a Christian who has swollowed the red pill, how do you GYOW without becoming calloused and cynical. Recognizing the reality of the way things are doesn’t necessarily give you options, it only reduces the obviously wrong ones. It’s like the analogy about hitting a target. ‘There are a thousand ways to miss a target but only one way to hit it.’ The MRM seems to be only about avoiding the misses, it doesn’t coach the hits. Don’t get me wrong, the MRM is great. It has brought a focus to concepts and ideas that had bothering me for a long time. It was heartening to finally find out I wasn’t the only one who thought this way. Dalrock’s site in particular has been helpful as I have no desire to game hollow conquest as a means of self-aggrandisement like so many other sites support. But now what?

    I’ve come to the conclusion that perpetual singleness is the most likely outcome for me. This is not a decision that I make apathetically. But now on top of this is the difficulty in finding constructive Christian fellowship. Talk about insult on top of injury. It fills me with anger and hatred. Not exactly Christian attitudes.

  44. Joshua says:

    And Jennifer’s hamster strikes again. Dont touch the wheel its hot.

  45. Jennifer says:

    Mortar, I admire your willingness to avoid an empty life of conquest.

    The truth is, it can be very hard. I’ve struggled between beliefs either too liberal and feminized, or too narrow and macho; then there are dozens of other issues we disagree with. The best thing is to have a family and older people you trust, skilled teachers, to be with people who are open and earnest about following God. He asks us to test everything against Scripture, and be wary of false teachers. I thought differing Christians were a trial for me, until I saw the numerous blogs avdising others on how to have sex and use women or hurt men to keep them from doing the same to you. That’s another thing: avoid toxic places, especially online.

  46. Jennifer says:

    How Joshua sweetie, by agreeing with Dalrock and offering a theory for his words?

  47. “I’m turning 40 this fall, so I can’t get away with, “Oh, he’s young.” I’ve got five kids, I’m not young anymore, I’m a tired old man.”

    Exactly the mindset I’d expect from an optionless chump.

    Driscoll fits the pattern of men who deal with the regret that comes from having married too early and discovering Game too late. I mean this in an illustrative sense; obviously Mark is firmly plugged into the Matrix, but it’s a very common theme of the manosphere for newly Game-aware men to “wish they knew then what they know now.” I constantly get comments on my blog about how 40+ year old men wish they’d known about Game in their youth and if they had it all to do over what glorious changes they’d make in their lives.

    Driscoll’s dealing with the regret of his life that could’ve been. In all of his writing it’s painfully obvious he still clings to an adolescent social skill set with regards to intergender relations. Like most evangelicals eager to get past the obstacle of marriage in order to have “ordained” sex, his social maturation and gender precepts became retarded early in his adulthood. This is precisely why his wife’s teenage ‘infidelity’ and dalliances have such significance to him (to the point he still has anxiety dreams about it at 41). He has no mature, adult frame of socio-sexual reference with which to communicate on equal terms with the men and women (who have far more dating maturation experience than himself) he feels he should be qualified to counsel.

  48. Joe Blow says:

    Hah. The reason there’s an out-of-wedlock birthrate problem is really simple. It’s what’s in the air lately.

    Women’s ankles. They’re the ones who control who gets laid. It’s as simple as that.

    Since we’ve got a culture war going in which the main article of faith is that women have absolute control over their bodies, you’d think the feminits would be a little more willing to acknowledge that women have control of who/what gets stuck in ‘em. That’s the whole point of the slutwalks, right? But now we’re supposed to pivot 180 and believe women can’t control themselves sexually and all these pregnancies are due to the Bad ol’ Men? This reminds me of the meanest things people used to say about black men during the Jim Crow era, and more quietly whispered by racists ever since. It’s a bit surprising to hear the argument of uncontrollable sexual incontinence rolled out to theoretically *benefit* a class of people rather than to denigrate them. Seems to me this is more insulting than helpful to the women…

    The idea of uncontrollable sexual incontinence is also mutually exclusive with the notion that poor l’il ol’ women just can’t control with whom they sleep and pregnancy is all the man’s fault. You can argue that it’s the man’s fault, or that women have control of their bodies, but you can’t have it both ways.

  49. slwerner says:

    Jennifer – “especially after seeing hurt women (rape victims are not hamsters on stereoids)”

    Driscoll’s statement – “It’s really interesting because if you took all the women in my church who were sexually abused, raped, molested, assaulted in some way, I’d still have a megachurch. I’d have a couple thousand victims. So a lot of my time is spent with women who are abuse victims, it’s a huge part of what we do, and guys who are totally responsible and part of the problem. That’s where my focus has gone in part because of the demand that’s in our church and because of the people who I’m dealing with.”

    Jennifer,

    I’m fairly certain that Driscoll is simply engaging in over-the-top hyperbole in his claims that so many of his congregants are (female) victims of (male-perpetrated sexual) abuse.

    Such a high percentage of people who were such victims is highly unlikely, period, even before considering the demographic realities that sexual assault victims are disproportionately of working-class and lower social-economic strata, while mega-churches tend to be compromised largely of middle to upper-middle income people.

    Also, given that so few true victims are willing to disclose that information – even to pastors – it is improbable that he even has anyway of knowing if what he claims is even close to being accurate.

    I suppose you could make the assertion that women who are not actual victims still tend to feel victimized by accounts of the victimization of other women (much more so than do men, in the reverse).

    But, it’s also very likely that he doesn’t care how many actual victims may be in his church, it’s just a convenient (and, largely unassailable) excuse for choosing to play into the demands of the demographic most likely to give him the most money.

  50. JHJ says:

    MMMike: christianity is dead. If you want faith these days, look to islam. It has it’s own set of problems, but selling out wholesale to the social ills du jour is certainly not among those. They have a gloriously realistic view of the female sex, too.

  51. Jennifer says:

    Slwerner, I agree that the idea of truly hurt women being eager to confide to their macho pastor is unlikely. I won’t see him as one just spewing for money; I still think it’s related to his general ideas of the sexes. I can still see some of the more severe men doing this: “You see, this is what HAPPENS when men fail to act as priest-daddies to their adult partners and daughters and baby-sit them every minute, it just gets out of control..”

  52. Jennifer says:

    Sure they do, JHJ, very realistic.

  53. Retrenched says:

    Well, what can you say? Misandry sells. No one ever went broke by blaming men for the consequences of women’s poor life choices. See also: Oprah, Dr. Phil. et al.

  54. Jennifer says:

    Anyway Dalrock, I’m glad I stopped by for this follow-up article; Driscoll needs praying for and I may discuss this with a few of his more loyal fans. See you around.

  55. Pingback: Pastor Mark Driscoll is a fraud « Patriactionary

  56. Rmaxd says:

    Give em hell Jennifer … throw in an extra smite from me … lol

  57. @Jennifer- I was a bass player.

    I do regard women as children, largely, because they act like they are 4 years old so much. Also with me in authority, its a real similar structure, except I am tougher on them. I am not responsible for their “sins”, but I am responsible for their discipline. They want it. They know they need it.

    @MortarManMike- I deal with it by just letting them be. I’d love to go on a crusade and bring the matrix crashing down, but I would only be ostracized and unsuccessful. You can, however, keep your eyes out for guys like me, and if you make friends, see if you can introduce the Red Pill to those who might be receptive, or already are.

    As for your reduced options, and the cynicism, that’s a tough problem. I have solved it in my own life by becoming a Dominant, including strong BDSM themes, and Dominance/submission. If you learn how to operate this way, and establish structure and protocol and authority, some of the disqualified women might hold more promise, or at least be more tolerable for a while. Just as a spolied rotten little girl brat will love her Daddy all the more if he disciplines her, so will these.

    Essentially, you have to train these undisciplined women. If you are careful and excellent, you can find great success. Don’t begrudge the poor souls who have bought into the lies. They really don’t know, and many of them mean well. You can’t save everyone, or reach everyone, but you can certainly make sure how things work at YOUR house, and make sure women know you run your house with authority. Wield it well, my friend, and watch your options blossom.

  58. Mark says:

    @ MortarManMike

    I find smaller churches better than larger ones. People are more involved and less able to hide who they really are. Also, I find that it’s best to attend church with the idea of giving and serving somehow, because if you help, you’ll get something back.

  59. Svar says:

    “After the raging macho stuff in his younger years, it makes sense for him to go into more mild tones now, especially after seeing hurt women (rape victims are not hamsters on stereoids). But the pendulum is a dangerous thing and knocks down someone on whichever side it swings too strongly to. He’s always been something of an extremist, so this discouraging tendency isn’t too surprising.”

    What are you referring to when you say “raging macho stuff”?(coz in all honesty, this guy comes of as a typical spineless and sackless Evangelical) How has he been an extremist? By promoting traditional gender roles and believing that men and women are different?

  60. gdgm+ says:

    Dalrock,
    Thanks for these 2 posts on Driscoll, whom I was unfamiliar with. When I commented on his “Why Men Need Marriage” in a past thread of yours, I was STUNNED by his tone, which some of your commenters have indirectly addressed, but I’m still having trouble understanding:

    How can a pastor *possibly* _lead_ young men that he has such undisguised contempt and disdain for? And why would any man want to “follow” Driscoll in return?

    One can understand why men are abandoning or avoiding churches under such conditions; as the old saying goes, “With friends like these, who needs enemies?”

    gdgm+

  61. LD says:

    Just something Rollo mentioned earlier when listing the correlations feminism defies itself by (not that its proponents are given to self-analysis), one of the things that instantly tipped me off to the madness (of crowds of women) back in oh 1988 or so when (female) teachers would introduce it as a topic for class discussion, is the whole ‘pro-choice’ abortion issue.

    To me it’s just like wow wtf? Lady Macbeth syndrome to the absolute max…women generally having been too cowardly/fixated on peer perception to let loose the inner killer/psychopath/beast of ‘man’ so they turn inwards (as women do) and found the only group more vulnerable and operating from a place of weakness and vulnerability (than women like to portray about themselves)- the unborn! Now women get society to white knight their own murder-lust…it becomes fashionable to endorse self-genocide as a a form of sophisticated women-loving liberalism.

    Women are ‘voiceless’ and ‘oppressed’ but by fuck can babies (life is life, whatever about the genesis of consciousness) be even more (conveniently) victimised, by those most keenly connected to them. Much safer than trying to destroy a man, 0r manipulate a child, or backstab a frenemy… no biteback lol

    Slightly off topic, but Rollo mentioned it, and it’s something I feel strongly about.

  62. jbamai says:

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/01/17/if-mark-driscoll-werent-so-foolish-he-would-be-wise/#comment-28380

    @Dre

    We went through this already with President Obama who was then candidate Obama

    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/16/us/politics/15cnd-obama.html

    “Too many fathers are M.I.A, too many fathers are AWOL, missing from too many lives and too many homes,” Mr. Obama said, to a chorus of approving murmurs from the audience. “They have abandoned their responsibilities, acting like boys instead of men. And the foundations of our families are weaker because of it.”

    What makes you think Driscoll would say anything different?

  63. @ JHJ
    Not an option man. I have nothing good to say about Islam so I will refrain from saying anything.

    @ Jennifer
    I agree about testing everything against scripture. That is one thing that is so frustrating. It’s not that the churches I’ve tried are teaching anything non-scriptural, it’s that they cherry pick the feel good passages. (And only the feel good passages for women at that!) Don’t remember the last time a heard a message about gossiping, dressing modestly, or being a good steward that was directed toward the womenfolk. Yes, lecture the men about the dangers of lust – and then say nothing to the young girls that dress like they’re on a slut walk.

    @ Mark
    I agree. I have been trying to find a small church. I learned the lesson of the mega churches years ago. My first official stalker was a girl from a mega church singles ministry. That sure was an eye opener. A regular Peyton’s Place it was. Smaller congregations are the way too go. It seems that in order for a church to hit mega church status it has to make too many concessions. It’s all about entertaining the masses and filling the plate. This comes to mind – “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it.”

    The downside to the smaller congregations is that they seem so old. Just my observation of course. It’s hard to be a vigorous church when it’s full of retirees and their grand kids. Plus I’ve found them to be just as feminized. Remember, that generation of oldies is the same generation that allowed this feminism mess to take root in the first place.

    We are warned many times to avoid idols. Marriage can definitely be an idol. Better to be single and devoted to Christ then to spend all your time hand-wringing and placing blame because men won’t marry. So many churches just seemed to get wrapped up in the worldly matters (and marriage is just one example.)

    @ Solomon
    Yes, I’m letting them be. I don’t feel particularly led to start a crusade, I’m coming to peace with the reality on the ground concerning women. Gaming women to maintain constant dominance may gain companionship but I don’t see it providing a true marriage bond.

    My earlier post was not necessarily about a lack of marriageable women. It was more about finding a place. Pastors and churches like the one’s we’re discussing seem downright hostile to men. It seems this whole evilness has not only denied me a place in a LOVING marriage, but it also damages my ability to have true fellowship with other believers.

    Thanks for your replies all. I’m not looking for an emotional tampon or a pity party. I’m just trying to gauge how other Christians maintain fellowship after the red pill.

  64. Bob says:

    @MortarManMike – I feel ya man. I have had the same problem. I can’t say I sit in angry silence because most of the time the pastor is preaching on something neutral, and I remind myself I am there because Christ commands fellowship, and I’m there for Him. I listen to the sermon, take communion, sing my songs, and go home. The men there can only be described as omegas, and there aren’t too many women my age, let alone single ones. I tried real hard to get involved in the church so I could meet a Christian girl, but the pastor didn’t have anything for me. All I know is I am looking forward to going active duty and living on an Army base. The Army seems to have a lot of cool Christian guys and there are a lot of options for fellowship on base. At one point I thought about rebecoming a Catholic, but the theology was too unacceptable, and Massachusetts Catholics are mostly fakes like Ted Kennedy was. When it comes down to it, sites like this (even though it’s not religious) are one of the few refuges for Christian men.

    You do NOT have to resign yourself to perpetual singleness though! Honestly, I have met some good Christian girls online, and I met a lot of Eastern Orthodox girls when I interned with the UN, mostly from Georgia (the nation), who are awesome. It’s gonna take some work, but you’ll find a cool wife if you look in the right spots. Just don’t think churches are the key, especially if you’re in your 20′s like me. If worst comes to worst, I am taking a 3.5 week vacation to Georgia or Estonia, or seeing what the girls I met from Eastern Europe are up to these days. Gotta roll with the punches.

  65. jack says:

    Mark Driscoll, you are a sackless, worthless excuse for a man.

    Know what? MEN ARE THE PROBLEM – MEN LIKE DRISCOLL.

    I’d rather see this simpering pussy tarred and feathered than a thousand radfems.

    At least they have the excuse of being irrational females.

    What we need is a movement to ridicule and socially ostracize white knights.

  66. ray says:

    mike — I’ve come to the conclusion that perpetual singleness is the most likely outcome for me. This is not a decision that I make apathetically.

    jesus was single, he’s not too shabby as a model. . . of course, he failed to Man Up

    :O)

    But now on top of this is the difficulty in finding constructive Christian fellowship.

    well you’re here, how difficult was it?

    where did you expect to find actual Christians? in a building?

    is that what the bible says, go get a building, then youll have a church? my bible says the temple isn’t material and that we commune with the lord in the air and so are together forever

  67. Mark says:

    @ MortarManMike

    New churches are good, too. Small places that have just started out and everyone is on fire and keen to do something.

    You’re right that finding a wife can be consuming, like an idolatry thing. It can be hard to determine where the line is between being proactive and being over-focused. And too much self-analysis is draining. My best advice is to do the Christian things that make you the happiest. If you love fellowshipping, fellowship; if witnessing is your preference, focus on it; if you want to learn, now’s the time. Be busy in your life without needing women and women will notice. And don’t think that you will miss opportunities, because you won’t miss the important one.

  68. Dalrock, agree 100% with your criticisms of Driscoll. Driscoll is rewriting history. I went through the big changes in the 1980s and 90s. There was once a culture (here in Australia) in which young men would have a few years of the single life whilst at uni but would then get their degree, get a job and get married. That way of life was destroyed not by the fecklessness of men but by the decision of so many women, influenced by feminists, to extend the single life phase till some time in their 30s. Men had to adapt to the choices women were making. First, many women went “ladette” which hardly inspired men to see them as possible wives. Second, many women were selecting for anything but family qualities in men. Third, women didn’t need men as husbandly providers, which made the commitment to the boring office job so much more difficult. It was entirely predictable, even in the early 90s, that men would end up the way they’ve ended up. They were effectively placed on hold by women who assumed that men would just jump back into action whenever women so determined it should happen.

    Driscoll should be warning younger women not to make the same mistakes. He should be advising them to develop qualities that will attract strong commitments from men; to select men for qualities that will make them good husbands and fathers rather than good one night stands; and to be ready to commit in a timely manner whilst they can still offer youthful beauty and fertility to their husbands.

  69. stonelifter says:

    “ I’ll ask this as a Christian directed at other Christians: so what do ya’ll do? ”

    The Bible tells us not forgo the fellowship of believers. I stopped going to church. The pastors dog men out for being a man and make excuses for women.

    But here’s the thing, I’ve found all types of Godly men to kill time with since I left the church. My power-lifting buddies, my strongman buddies, the guy I fish with, the guys I shoot with, and a surprisingly large number of men I work with.

    Basically I found out you don’t need the church for fellowship

    Ps, I’ve seen way to much of islam here in the West, Iraq, Afghanistan, africa and other places in Asia to have any positive thoughts about islam/ moslems.

  70. Rollo says:

    “”Women, particularly religious women, will embrace traditional morality insofar as it benefits their female primacy. I hate to shatter the illusion that makes guys think traditional, religious women are immune to the influence of feminism – they’re not. If anything they more actively exploit the aspects of feminism that serve them while deftly avoiding the label of “feminist” by virtue of their religion.””
    ————–
    So correct. Feminism found its very best home in the church where it is afforded natural cover. Churchy white knights are far more deeply entrenched than secular white knights.

  71. “””Driscoll states unequivocally that he could have a mega-church full of “[female] victims [of male degeneracy]“”””

    ——————–

    Really?

    One of many things middle age has afforded me post red pill is to look upon the anecdotes of my life cumulatively. One is that if I take the number of women I have known and known of who were sexually abused in childhood, and divide by the total women, its like 80%, maybe more. Im sorry, I simply do not believe that. Claiming childhood sexual abuse is de rigueur these days it seems. Childhood sexual abuse also seems handy to use as cover for sexual refusal, it evokes a never question and never seek healing, just let it run its course, response. Very handy indeed for hypergamy and serial monogamy.

    Add plain old “abuse” and hell, it reminds me of what the Polish tell me when im there on business j, they jokingly say 110% of Polish are Catholics, well, 110% of women have been abused. Abuse in every and all forms is like a competition between women, and the church is there like YMCA youth sports officials, “everybody gets a trophy for participation, we are not going to keep score, you are ALL winners YEAH!!!!” hence Driscolls idiotic comments about the number of done wrong women.

    Very sadly these women are exploiting shamelessly the real numbers who can claim with integrity that they were abused, in childhood or as adults.

  72. Johnycomelately says:

    Brilliant Dalrock! I can’t think of the superlatives to do your work justice.

    Roissy may be Peter but Dalrock certainly is the Paul of the manosphere. Normally retorts like these would drag out ‘defenders of the faith’ from under their rocks en mass but they are conspicuously absent because the rationale is beyond reproach.

    It may have taken three hundred years since the enlightenment but liberalism has finally hit the wall. Isn’t it deliciously ironic that while every institution and convention on the entire planet has triumphantly and euphorically removed the shackles of conformity, the last institution (men) is so roundly condemned. for seeking the very same thing.

    Could it just be that everyone has come to the realization that it has been the grease monkeys in the boiler room that have kept the ship chugging along after all? Reminds me of a Simpson’s quote, ” welcome to the Do What You Feel festival.”

  73. Actually I see a dozen defenders or more posting in the thread, and Dalrock rebutting them with challenge to site specifics narrowing it as he did to the article.

    Also, one can easily defend the faith and rebuke the Driscolls and frankly the majority of the pastors in the US, especially the larger churches.

    Someone said something about small churches. They are also problematic. But, if a small church took the correct approach and actually held women to account, ultimately it would grow organically because of MEN, as it should be. Church growth and the “hand of God” on them have been confused with what is in reality sales are up of the -personal Jesus figurines”

  74. Rmaxd says:

    “Sure they do, JHJ, very realistic.”

    Yea right, ask a Muslim to explain the short comings of their pure, virginal Muslim women, & get ready for a jihad on your ass …

    They might be realistic on paper, in practise anything but realistic …

  75. Opus says:

    One thing, at least, Dalrock and Pastor Driscoll, are in agreement on, I think: that Divorce and Singledom are a bad thing; they merely differ as to where the blame should be placed. Although most women would perhaps be with the Pastor as to where the blame lies, I do not think they would however agree with the stated premise. Women (as Dalrock reminds us frequently) is enormously popular with women, as is their freedom (or human right) to remain single to forty.

    A woman such as Eric referred to (on the previous thread) who is single and forty has yet ‘to find the right man’, but a man who is single and forty (and obviously is a virgin and living in his mother’s basement) either can’t (a loser) or won’t (a cad)’man-up’.

    I am going to suggest that much past early twenties, it becomes increasingly difficult for a man and woman to bond, and to do so they need some financial or other incentive or pressure or the need for a ‘Green Card’ to do so. I am with Doctor Johnson who in reply to Boswell was of the opinion not that there is a ‘One’ out there, but a ‘Many’, and that Marriage should best be left to the dictate of the Lord Chancellor and without reference to the wishes of either party – which is more or less what the Indians do. They seem to do pretty well. Why can’t we?

  76. Rmaxd says:

    @Opus
    “which is more or less what the Indians do. They seem to do pretty well. Why can’t we?”

    Yep, arranged marriages are far superior to riding the carousel for 20 years, & then screwing over a desperate sex hungry beta …

  77. PT Barnum says:

    When the Bible was written, the man-up drum was right on the money. Women could be categorized as “minors”, like children, because they lacked the legal and technological ABILITY to get away with the kind of irresponsibility that they get away with now.

    From the time of Augustus:

    *The marriage of men to underage girls, for the purpose of avoiding taxes against unmarried men (caelebs) or the legal disabilities that went with being unmarried, were regulated (Cassius Dio 54. 17.7). A minimum age of ten years was fixed; marriage had to take place within two years of the betrothal; twelve was designated as the official age of female puberty.
    *Unmarried men (caelibes) are forbidden to receive inheritances and legacies. This disability begins for men at twenty-five years of age, and for women at twenty years of age. It ends for men at sixty years of age, and for women at fifty.

  78. PT Barnum says:

    Dalrock, agree 100% with your criticisms of Driscoll. Driscoll is rewriting history. I went through the big changes in the 1980s and 90s. There was once a culture (here in Australia) in which young men would have a few years of the single life whilst at uni but would then get their degree, get a job and get married. That way of life was destroyed not by the fecklessness of men but by the decision of so many women, influenced by feminists, to extend the single life phase till some time in their 30s.

    Technically, it was because the Hierarchy Screamers…. like the ones in this thread.. strawbosses for the wealthy, had so devastated their finances that it was very hard for them to even have the money to get married. Remember, skip, you are referring to college graduates, and they are in the top percentages of people.

    But you can blame women if you really, really want to.

  79. Johnycomelately says:

    Isn’t it interesting that the likes of Driscoll never ask the question of why? They circumnavigate the cause and immediately head for the effect without ever asking why? The word ‘incentive’ doesn’t exist in their lexicon but they sure as heck like throwing about duty, right, morals, responsibility, maturity, manhood, childishness, selfishness and shame.

    Then when shaming doesn’t work they make appeals to authority and partake in mental gymnastics to contort scripture so brazenly that it would make the wiliest Rabbi or Gnostic blush.

    The horse has bolted and found that life outside the fence ain’t too bad, its going to take an awful lot of sugar to get him back, cussing and foot stomping certainly isn’t going to do it.

  80. @MortarManMike…. actually, you’ll find that when a woman wants nothing more in her life but to set herself at your feet and serve you, its incredibly endearing, and just as sex can induce pair-bonding, intense sex induces intense pair-bonding… if you master this dynamic, you can attain an intimacy you never thought possible.

    email me directly if you’d like to discuss it more. You’ll find it coincides with scripture flawlessly.

  81. Athor Pel says:

    “Jennifer says: January 17, 2012 at 4:14 pm
    … in every house where the patriarchal Mosaic laws-type logic resides, the men do regard women as children, even claiming men are responsible for sins their wives commit, and one guy claimed women were victims of the feminism that men created to get the workload off their backs. Very harmful thinking to men, and VERY insulting of women. So nobody, no one, wins or benefits.

    As far as how they make decisions most women are like children, no ifs ands or buts. God designed things so that women should always have a man in authority in their lives. When they don’t have a man women tend to make very poor life decisions. They tend to make poor long term decisions.

    Men are not responsible for the sins of their wives in the way you are thinking of it, as in personally responsible as if he committed them. But men are responsible for acting as a covering for their families, acting as an intercessor, asking the Lord for forgiveness of the sins committed by their families. Job prayed daily for his children seeking forgiveness from the Lord in case they sinned without repentance. This does not relieve the rest of the family from repentance and seeking forgiveness themselves, they should still do those things, but is an act of love on the part of the father. It gives them more time in which to seek forgiveness.

    Women are victims of feminism. Feminism made the hook-up culture possible. It made an obvious sinful behavior (extra marital sex) a badge of honor for women and it excused men’s post-coital responsibilities. For the dishonorable men seeking to use women for no-strings sex it’s a goldmine. Like I said, women are victims of feminism but so are honorable men. The men willing to play by the old rules get shafted.

    The workload of men you mention exists because God created things that way.

    Just because something makes you feel insulted does not make it untrue.

    If you want to see the scriptures I’m referring to I would be more than glad to compile a list.

  82. Paul says:

    Short version: You’re not a real man unless you’re married.

    I wonder if Pastor Driscoll would declare that the Apostle Paul was not a “real man” because he was not married.

  83. krakonos says:

    @Rmaxd
    @Opus
    “which is more or less what the Indians do. They seem to do pretty well. Why can’t we?”

    Yep, arranged marriages are far superior to riding the carousel for 20 years, & then screwing over a desperate sex hungry beta …

    How is it better for women? In arranged marriage system women have to marry this beta men or even less.

  84. ybm says:

    Who cares if its better for women? Its better for the functioning of society. You’ll find a lot of things that are “detrimental” to the poor dears are what allowed a civilization to emerge from caves and straw huts.

  85. Here is the fundamental problem about American churches: they are Protestant, and Protestant Christianity is heretical. The surprise is not that the Protestant churches have become feminist covens but that they held out as long as they did. This is truly a testimony to the good that used to subside in them.

    After years in the Episcopal church and watching it devolve into a club for women and their homosexual friends, I converted to Orthodox Christianity. Like St. Paul, the scales fell away. The Church is an organic entity, the very Bride of Christ. Worship is the foretaste of Heaven. Eucharist is the communion, with all good Orthodox, in the very Body and Blood of Jesus Christ. We ask the Saints to pray for us, like we do all good friends and family. We prostrate, which will be good practice for the Judgment and the Second Coming.

    Our priest may be a crusty old SOB. Our synods may have their share of conniving, greedy bastards but it doesn’t matter. The Church has Her Tradition and the very gates of Hell will not prevail against Her. Women are kept away from the pulpit and the altar and in the pews, where they belong.

  86. Dalrock says:

    @Opus

    One thing, at least, Dalrock and Pastor Driscoll, are in agreement on, I think: that Divorce and Singledom are a bad thing; they merely differ as to where the blame should be placed.

    Our disagreement is far larger than this. I don’t see Singledom as inherently bad. I am pro marriage, but not in the “eat what we serve you” sense that Driscoll and many others are. I’ve covered this in a previous post.

    Divorce is on a very different plane. If you make a promise, you have an obligation to keep it. There are of course some specific scenarios where divorce is justified due to gross violation of the marriage vows, but the trend in both secular and Christian culture is to expand these to the point of absurdity.

  87. Dalrock says:

    Rollo

    That video sadly sums the message up perfectly. If you find a girl who is down for sex on the first date, marry her!

  88. asinusspinasmasticans says:

    My wife hates hates hates the Orthodox Church; refuses to set foot in it. She says there are too many unrepentant sinners there.

    I keep telling her that the number and quality of the sinners there is the main reason I love the place. Like Jesus, I kinda prefer sinners. I’m sure He found them easier to put with. As for being unrepentant, well, let’s just say I’m unrepentant of 90% of my sins as well.

    “For all our sins and transgressions, committed in knowledge or in ignorance, have mercy on us and forgive us, for you are a good God who loves mankind.”

  89. Mark says:

    I think the main problem with churches is that so many unsaved people have been able to come to church and remain unsaved, without being told to repent, and even able to acquire positions of leadership. Cowardly preachers have avoided talking about tough topics to not drive off their congregations. And now the church is essentially run, by default acquiescence, by people who are not Christian and don’t even have Christian values. They come to church to feel good, as though they were going to see a family movie, and anything that disrupts their Disney-church fantasy receives their wrath. The hottest topic for a pastor friend of mine to preach on is salvation. The last time he preached on the need for people to have the power of God in their lives, people left the church. He even received anonymous letters with death threats towards his wife and kids. His solution is to regularly have other pastors come in and scare the crap out of the congregation from the pulpit. That way they would hear, but not go after him.

  90. Mark says:

    My pastor friend also told me that it’s now considered that if people tithe that they have some kind of legal investment in the church and the upkeep of the pastor. I can’t remember how he worded it or the exact details. But apparently, it’s virtually illegal to kick someone who tithes out of a church now, even if they’re a serial adulterer using the church to pick people up. They are entitled to legal representation and can sue the pastor for everything he has.

  91. deti says:

    Mark:

    Re your 11:22 am post: I have been in churches which gave tithers certain privileges which nontithers did not have, wuch as the ability to review the church’s books, and membership on boards.

    But I have never heard of tithing entitling the tither to a legal ownership interest in a church or its real or personal property. And I’ve never heard of tithing entitling one legally to church membership. I am sure that laws vary widely from state to state, but I don’t think a state or Congress can regulate a church like this. The first principle would violate the First Amendment “establishment of religion” clause because it would allow a government to tell a church what “tithing” is and then dictate the legal effect of tithing. The second principle, it seems to me, would violate the First Amendment free exercise clause and the “peaceable assembly” clause because it would tell churches who they must accept as members and who qualifies as members. A church has an absolute right to decide, free from government interference, who can be members.

  92. Twenty says:

    @Rollo

    Damn, Beta-boy’s got some tight Purity Bear game. Great takeaway. Think he might have been over-gaming, though, as she was definitely DTF.

    Seriously: Attraction + “principles” = wet. “You’re worth waiting for” isn’t the right frame, though: “I’ll not allow your womanly wiles to stain my honor” is more the vibe you want.

  93. What’s hilarious is that Christian culture actually believes that it’s the female who’s tempting the male to ‘behave himself’. Priceless.

  94. Mark says:

    @ deti

    There are a couple of things that I should probably clarify. Firstly, I don’t live in the U.S. Our laws may differ. Secondly, although I trust my friend to be honest, and I’m almost 100% sure that what I posted is the gist of what he told me, it’s definitely possible that I have a detail mixed up somewhere. I’m certainly not a legal expert in any way.

  95. The manosphere still has work to do.

  96. Joshua says:

    Come on solomon that kid is stoned.

  97. Eric says:

    Dalrock;

    Observe how these mangina/socon ministers always conveniently overlook a statistic you’ve alluded to frequently: that 38% of Christian marriages end in divorce. The number of men who remain trapped in a marriage to a spouse who hates them is a number we can only surmise.

    The fact is that, whatever anyone things of Christianity, it can’t be denied that women educated under their system are philosophically the most prone to monogamy and the least inclined to divorce. Yet, a 62% ‘success’ rate (if that) is the best that American women—under the most favorable of conditions—can achieve!

    If dolts like Driscoll really wanted men to ‘man up’ and ‘do the right thing’, he’d encourage his followers to get as far away from American women as possible. That’s the manly thing to do— face reality and look for an alternative solution.

    As I’ve mentioned before, socially speaking, the American male is living in a state of famine. There’s no more purpose in preaching to men about their husbandly duties than there is in preaching to starving Somalis about the benefits of a balanced diet. The available materials on which to build a traditional family simply don’t exist for the majority of American men (unless they have the means to look outside of America for them).

  98. caballarius1 says:

    Women’s Lib, including woman’s suffrage, originated out of the female hijacked Second Great Awakening, a long-running religious revival in the Northeast. Other women-led projects spawned by this movement were prohibition and the American version of abolition. “Free Love” was also part of the plan, but that was premature due to the lack good birth control. The Oneida Community, itself a product of SGA, was able to keep free love going in the form of plural marriage until about 1880. After the fallout from this feminizing revival settled, male church attendance had dropped to about 2/5 and has never recovered. More later.

    –Caballarius

  99. Anonymous Reader says:

    caballarius1, women’s lib, including women’s suffrage, including free love, was first put into effect in the Soviet Union immediately after the Bolshevik coup d’etat and civil war. Feminism is a form of Marxism. All the various little cults had no effect upon the larger culture, but the Russian Communists instituted it over 1/6th of the land surface of the planet.

    Today, feminism can be found in the People’s Republic of China and Japan as well as the Anglosphere and Europe. Catholic Spain, Catholic Italy, Orthodox Greece are all states where feminism is well entrenched. It is pointless to attempt to lay the blame for feminism upon any one particular branch or sect or denomination of Christianity, or Judaism for that matter.

  100. Rmaxd says:

    Caballarius has a point … a large portion of feminist political state power, originated from the SGA, especially around the 1800′s

    The failed Free Love movement of the 1800′s, leads right back to them … they also originated the Hippy movement, the same players went onto join forces with the marxists & lenninists …

    Communism is essentially a result of the Sun Cult, predating the Romans, they eventually took over the Roman Christian Church, & eventually the Catholic church we know today

    Hence the massive Sun murials & symbology in churches today, Jesus is in fact originally named as the god of the sun, not the son of the god

    It is this same Sun Cult, the people from the Caucus mountains, who created communism, Islam, Catholicism & Christianity, theyre artificial forms of spirituality, which is why they’re so spiritually behind sects like the Tibetan monks, or the Indian yogi’s

    Modernism is the new cult now … the new religion of the times, a new stage in aristotles cave …

    Christianity is essentially about subjugation, condemnation, & conformity… no REAL form of spirituality ever calls their spirituality master or lord, or refers to themselves as servants of a lord, or even worse sheep … lol

    Religion has always been a form of sharing knowledge, it is the language of our ancestors, a technology handed down to us through the ages …

    We cannot pray to a god, we can only understand it …

  101. samsonsjawbone says:

    That video sadly sums the message up perfectly. If you find a girl who is down for sex on the first date, marry her!

    That is not the video’s message.

  102. ybm says:

    @caballarius1
    “More later.”

    I am going to hold you to this. This has been an idea in its infancy for me but if you have the info please make us aware of it. A fellow poster named imnobody and I were discussing this earlier in the week. Where we met our impasse was connecting the awakening with the specific female superiority/sinful male dynamic that is so prevalent in Protestant and Evangelical churches. Specifically, we were trying to find the cultural writings that lead to the Christian Women’s Temperance Movement.

  103. Suz says:

    “We cannot pray to a god, we can only understand it …”
    You just had to say that right at my bedtime, didn’t you! ;)
    We can understand our purpose in having a god, but if we believe in a truly divine god we cannot understand him/her/it. The failure of religion is that it insists it understands a god.

  104. That is not the video’s message.

    That’s not the video’s intended message. But it IS the message the video promotes.

  105. Quite right, Anti-Gnostic. I would say the same, only from the perspective of a Traditional Catholic. Women belong in the pews.

  106. Rmaxd says:

    @Suz

    lol, I meant the only way to know spirituality, is to understand it … which is why Christianity was originally about science combined with spirituality, ie the monks

    When science catches up with religion …

    Religion is essentially an advanced form of technology, it is our true heritage, it is a technology which will take form in years to come

    Spirituality will be a desktop in every home, we will learn to compute humanity instead of mere numbers, & our imagination will allow us to see ourselves as we really are

    Our thoughts are not mere words, they are our true form, a thought is a glimpse, an idea of our true form, they are silhouettes of the soul

    An idea, is the total summation of our soul, made corporeal, an idea is an infinite possibility

    It’s only when we realise the impossibility of a persons self, our ability to comprehend the impossible, proves we have a soul …

    Praying is a panacea, for the real thing

  107. Anon Reader,

    Although I agree that the Soviet Union attempted a radical implementation of feminism, first-wave feminism predates 1917. In the US, for instance, a Quaker woman, Sarah Grimke, was writing feminist tracts in the late 1830s (she thought the male/female distinction was merely part of the animal nature of humankind and should be made not to matter). Feminism had well and truly taken off by the 1850s in both the US and the UK. In fact, there were anti-feminist writers by the 1850s. Eliza Linton, for instance, criticised the lesbian feminist Lady Monson in the 1850s as “an uncompromising man-hater”. In the 1860s Linton addressed feminists as “”you of the emancipated who imitate while you profess to hate”.

  108. Suz says:

    Very well said, Rmaxd

  109. Joe Blow says:

    Wimmins Bill of Rights, as supported by feminists and clueless “traditionalists”.
    1) I have absolute sovereignty over my body, and this includes anything in it, including kids, and also husbands/boyfriends/secret millionaire carpenter hookups who don’t spend 2 to 9 months in it that children do.
    2) You are not entitled to hold me responsible for my body. I only slept around because men made me. It’s not my fault I’m 43 and can’t have kids. Where are all the good men? Men suck.
    3) I am not a victim. If I go out in a thong and pasties, you have no right to rape me, or even look at me longingly you pathetic horndog.
    4) I have the right to much stronger laws protecting me in marriage and divorce, and preventing me from assault or sexual come-ons that I do not want to hear. It is shameful the way men victimize us women, and frankly the only way to stop it is to make the consequences of abuse and runaway men so drastic as to deter the practice.
    5) I should be allowed to get divorced much more easily, and if I want to break up with a man for no apparent reason, or just sleep around, I have the right not to be judged by you. See Rule 1.
    6) I have the right to demand total commitment from any man who dates me, even if it’s internet chat and we just talk about getting together for a drink, I should be the only one in his life. .
    7) I have the right to party hearty, and you have no right to try to tie me down. Wooooo!
    8) I have the right to vote, and to vote for politicians who promise to take care of me, to feed any children I may choose to have, to provide lifetime health care if I decide to use drugs or sleep around and get aids, to ensure I have a decent standard of living.
    9) I have the right to expect support from men in my life, who are obligated to work as hard as necessary to provide me with a nice, and steadily improving quality of life. The silly idea that big government or assymetry in relationship duties tends to turn men into unmotivated slackers with no incentive to improve, is irrelevant to the enforcement of my rights and it’s probably wrong. Free dinners from men, getting doors opened by those sexist pigs, and affirmative action at work haven’t destroyed me…
    10) Forget all that other shit. I just saw an Alpha I’m going to go after that big studmuffin. I’ll get back to you on the rest of the rights later.
    [later]
    11) Men suck. Where have all the good men gone. I have graduate degrees. I’m successful. Why am I not married / why is my ex husband such a jerk? I have the right not to have to put up with this shit…

  110. Anonymous Reader says:

    Mark Richardson, I did not dispute that there were feminists in the 19th century. I was pointing out that claiming this branch or that branch of Christianity is to blame for feminism does not hold up under scrutiny, given the fact that the first major manifestation of societal feminism was in an atheist, Marxist society. You failed to address the fact that feminism is wide spread in both China and Japan, neither of which had anything to do with any branch of Christianity, although there are Christians in both countries.

    It is pointless to claim that this or that or the other part of the Christian religion is to blame for a philosophy that is a branch of Marxism. It is like claiming that Communism is just another form of Christianity, because some Christian groups in the last 2,000 years have been run on communal property lines. There have been communalist societies, and writers, for thousands of years. But that does not make them Communists. There have been women writers contributing their feminine ideas of how to run society for at least hundreds of years, but that does not change the Marxist mode feminism has operated under for well over 100 years. The entire “men as oppressors, women as oppressed” dogma is clearly derivative of Marx’s workers/capitalists dichotmy.

    One more time: pointing fingers at this or that or the other branch of Christianity as the “source” of feminism is counter-factual and actually a waste of time. It’s on a par with claiming feminism as a “Jewish conspiracy” in terms of usefulness or accuracy.

  111. Joe Blow says:

    My point being it’s hard for a man looking at the cultural wreckage from privileging women over men at all turns, not to swing from life in a feminist utopia straight back into misogyny.

  112. Anonymous Reader says:

    Joe Blow, you forgot one

    12: God has an awesome plan for my life and a totally awesome man ready to drop into my life from the sky when I’m ready.

  113. Brendan says:

    As I’ve mentioned before, socially speaking, the American male is living in a state of famine. There’s no more purpose in preaching to men about their husbandly duties than there is in preaching to starving Somalis about the benefits of a balanced diet. The available materials on which to build a traditional family simply don’t exist for the majority of American men (unless they have the means to look outside of America for them).

    Well, the trouble is that guys like Driscoll will never agree to that, due to his own circumstances. He met his (fairly hot) wife when both were very young (he obviously had no issues there) and before they were Christian. His relationship with her had twists and turns (which he describes in his book), but turned out much better than average. And so his view is going to be “you can do it, too”.

    The main problem with men like Driscoll (as is the case with many of the more “powerful/influential” WKs) is that their own personal experiences lead them to their views in these areas, and those personal experiences are not similar to those of most men. It’s an apex fallacy problem, but this in time coming from the men at the apex — which is very much the group of men who ushered in feminism. Now Driscoll would say (and many would say about him) that he is no feminist, because he is a complementarian and not an egalitarian. But the stones are beginning to be removed from that particular dam, really. This article in the WaPo is indicative of a shift in his thinking, I think, when it comes to male/female issues. His recent, very controversial, book on marriage (and especially sex in marriage) is hardly traditional and can be easily viewed as being heavily influenced by the sexual revolution culture we live in (which is itself a product of feminism), endorsing as moral such things as wife-on-husband penetrative sodomy in marriages.

    Driscoll, for what it’s worth, is taking a new turn in his approach. That could be cynical/opportunistic, or it could be that he has just changed his views to some degree, or that his views are in the process of changing. But the attitude expressed in that WaPo piece was pretty much lock. stock and barrel “ManUp 2.0″, which is, in effect, the face of “educated feminist women living in the real world” today. it’s quite possible that dealing with a steady stream of these people in Seattle for decades has now finally gotten inside of him and made him move toward their perspective more than he did when he was younger.

  114. ybm says:

    @Brenden
    “Well, the trouble is that guys like Driscoll will never agree to that, due to his own circumstances. He met his (fairly hot) wife when both were very young (he obviously had no issues there) and before they were Christian. His relationship with her had twists and turns (which he describes in his book), but turned out much better than average. And so his view is going to be “you can do it, too”. ”

    And hilariously, even he found out that this woman was sleeping around during the summer to the point where he admitted that if he had known he never would have married her.

    AMOG? More like beta chump in alpha clothing. Used and mamipulated into marriage by a liar, Esther would be proud. Maybe he should start a game blog too!

  115. caballarius1 says:

    @YMB said:
    “Where we met our impasse was connecting the awakening with the specific female superiority/sinful male dynamic that is so prevalent in Protestant and Evangelical churches. Specifically, we were trying to find the cultural writings that lead to the Christian Women’s Temperance Movement.”

    Francis Willard of the Woman’s Christian Temperance Union. This manifestation was certainly an outgrowth of the SGA. The then new idea that men should also adhere to the rules of female chastity was first highly promoted by the WCTU and Willard, though the idea had been kicking around the northeastern Protestant “clergy” since at least the 1840′s. They taught that getting men to quit drinking and having sex would raise man up to woman’s morally superior position. This is the primary reason the WCTU expanded their mission into white slavery, earnings equality, suffrage, etc.

  116. ybm says:

    “When woman is recognized as a human being as distinct as man, with equal rights, privleges and an equal claim to develop her own nature…she will either accept man’s standard of morality, of she will induce him to accept her own…The acceptance of the male standard would be a degradation unspeakable.”

    There it is, plain as day.

  117. Athor Pel says:

    “Suz says:
    January 18, 2012 at 8:43 pm

    We can understand our purpose in having a god, but if we believe in a truly divine god we cannot understand him/her/it. The failure of religion is that it insists it understands a god.

    To expand on what you are saying.

    The Bible never says that we can understand God. It admonishes disciples to seek His will. It does not promise full understanding.

    We are point blank told we are unable to understand God or His purposes. We are told that He loves us and that we should trust Him because we will be better off if we do so.

    That’s not to say we shouldn’t seek to discover His purposes but that in this life we aren’t going to get full understanding because His ways are not our ways.
    __________________________

    Rmaxd,
    You need to read your Bible. You’re misrepresenting what it says to a great degree.

  118. caballarius1 says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    “I was pointing out that claiming this branch or that branch of Christianity is to blame for feminism does not hold up under scrutiny, given the fact that the first major manifestation of societal feminism was in an atheist, Marxist society.”

    The problem for this idea is that in 1920 the Bolsheviks hadn’t even had a chance to start up their “atheist, Marxist society,” since they had yet to win the Civil War against the Whites. The USA, on the other hand, by 1920 had coast to coast woman suffrage, the Volstead Act, the Mann Act, almost all states had raised the age of consent from 10 to 16 (taking traditional youthful marriage at age 13-14 off the table), a national Income Tax, a national Estate Tax, and many other destructive, socialist Woman Approved policies. Even the so-called “Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag” was an attempt to circumvent the Oath to the Constitution; a constitution that was anathema to the pledge’s author, Francis Bellamy, Northern Baptist minister and Christian Socialist.

  119. caballarius1 says:

    @ymb says:
    “When woman is recognized as a human being as distinct as man, with equal rights, privleges and an equal claim to develop her own nature…she will either accept man’s standard of morality, of she will induce him to accept her own…The acceptance of the male standard would be a degradation unspeakable.”

    That has truly worked out well, don’t you think?

  120. LD says:

    Meh. Women didn’t become more rational to bridge the gap to men/society/real fucking life. Their involvement in society brings everything down to a sub-animal level. Unless you manage them every hour of the day, women will default to *pre-concious reptile* mode: hissing,spitting,huddling to heat sources, and eggs, eggs, eggs.

  121. K_C says:

    “I was pointing out that claiming this branch or that branch of Christianity is to blame for feminism does not hold up under scrutiny, given the fact that the first major manifestation of societal feminism was in an atheist, Marxist society.”

    Yes, to address this along with callabarius1, I suggest reading Mencius Moldbug as he has volumes of information relating to this. Basically, it boils down to Socialism and Communism with Socialism coming out of Calvinism/Protestantism while Communism grew out of Judaism. Take the theism out of both Calvinism and Judaism and see what you get; it will look stunningly like Socialism/Secular Progressivism and Communism respectively. This is neither the place nor do I have time to get into all details so please do go seek him out.

    The reason there’s feminism in Japan is because of the US export of Socialism/Progressivism after WWII and China’s feminism is because of Communism ala the Soviet Union.

    K_C

  122. Suz says:

    “Athor Pel: The Bible never says that we can understand God. It admonishes disciples to seek His will. It does not promise full understanding.”

    You’re right. The Bible is very clear about the limits of our knowledge. It’s the church, organized religion as a power structure, that claims to know all about God – His will, who He hates, who He loves, how to earn His love, how to earn His condemnation, how to win His forgiveness…

    Religion is a barrier between man and God. I’ve never known anybody who became closer to God through religion, but I’ve known many who became closer to God in spite of religion. It’s a useful social institution, but it is “of man,” not “of God.”

  123. Rmaxd says:

    @Athor

    What are you referring to?

    I thought I made it clear, Christianity along with islam & catholicism is a form of artificial spirituality & inferior to real spirituality as practised by tibetan monks & ancient yogis in india …
    For example tibetan monks’ve been practising trance states, heightened states of conciousness hundreds of years, before they were discovered by the hermetic orders in Europe

    Christianity is essentially conditioning to grovel before superiority & authority,

    You can quote all the bible verses you want, but it doesnt change the fact, you call your god, lord & master, & refer to yourselves as servants of a lord, & sheep …

  124. Athor Pel says:

    “Rmaxd says:
    January 19, 2012 at 3:36 pm

    @Athor

    What are you referring to?

    I thought I made it clear, Christianity along with islam & catholicism is a form of artificial spirituality & inferior to real spirituality as practised by tibetan monks & ancient yogis in india …
    For example tibetan monks’ve been practising trance states, heightened states of conciousness hundreds of years, before they were discovered by the hermetic orders in Europe”

    If you yourself practice those same trance states, altered consciousness, then you are playing with fire. If you have a spirit guide he is not your friend.

    I’m going to pray for you.

  125. Rmaxd says:

    @Athor Pel

    lol spirit guide … do you even know what a basic trance state is?

    Ok Extremely Off topic …

    I’m not into demonology, im talking about true spirituality, true spirituality is knowing how the mind & body functions to achieve spirituality …

    Lemme explain something, spirituality is all about experiencing senses we dont know we have, We have whats known as extra-sensory biology, we use it to detect gravity,we use it to detect the electric & gravimetric fields around us

    Our hearts & organs emit gravimetric fields, & emit electrical synapses, in order to create a sense of perception of the world around us

    We use this perception to create a neurological network, a circuitry, which allows us to experience the world around us

    Because of the large amounts of data involved, our brains create a trance state, to allow us to experience the data, as thoughts or emotions

    The tibetans & yogi’s deliberately create trance states, instead of waiting for the brain to create them, to experience the large amounts of data generated by a persons neurology directly

    In order to be spiritual, you have to know how to create a trance state, to tap into the data generated by your body of the experience of the world around you

    Which is why you have prayer & communion, they’re trance states, theyre simply heightened sensory states

    When you pray, Your simply using your senses at extreme states

    You cannot achieve spirituality, without trance states, it is impossible, which is why Christianity, has prayer & communion & worship, they’re simply meditative states & altered states of conciousness

    There is no magical voodoo about spirituality, as I mentioned before it is simply a technology, spirituality is a learnable experience

    Why do you think we have a god, a god is an analogy of how our mind experiences the world through prayer & communion

  126. Suz says:

    Athor, is your god as small as your Bible?

  127. caballarius1 says:

    Rmaxd says:
    “Christianity is essentially conditioning to grovel before superiority & authority,
    You can quote all the bible verses you want, but it doesnt change the fact, you call your god, lord & master, & refer to yourselves as servants of a lord, & sheep …”

    The philosophical term for your position is “bullshit.” I don’t see the Tibetans or the Chinese exactly blazing new trails in personal liberty or civil society.

  128. Rmaxd says:

    @Cab

    That’s because i’m not talking about personal liberty, or civil society, we’re talking about spirituality here …

    Why does christianity have such a large bias towards calling their god, lord & master, & servants of a lord & sheep?

    Why isnt there an emphasis on calling him a bringer of knowledge, or revelation, or enlightenment

    Why is there such a large emphasis on Sin & condemnation, as opposed to enlightenment & self knowledge?

    Why is your god referred to as a lord & master, when he has no need to be a lord & a master … ?

  129. Rmaxd says:

    How can christianity in its current state, be suggested as true spirituality?

    Anyway, back on topic …

    What’s with Mark Driscolls emphasis on 12-17 yr olds, masturbating & drinking … is he trying to say girls are stuck in some sort of 1800 medieval time warp … lol

  130. caballarius1 says:

    Rmaxd says:
    “What’s with Mark Driscolls emphasis on 12-17 yr olds, masturbating & drinking … is he trying to say girls are stuck in some sort of 1800 medieval time warp … lol”

    Until the last couple of hundred years, most boys and girls in that age range were already married or soon to be. This was the practice in ancient Israel and ancient Rome. It is in line with scripture and human biology to marry and start reproducing at 13-15.

    Thanks to the women’s movement which emerged from the SGA, marriage at those ages is now illegal. Of course, nobody in any corner of Christianity advocates a return to the marriage practices of the Bible; that would require a huge rollback in women’s lib to pre-1850 levels. Dollars to doughnuts, Mark Driscoll doesn’t have a clue what the marriage practices even were in biblical times.

  131. Rmaxd says:

    Just as a final word on the Christian thing, I mentioned Monks & Indian Yogi’s specifically, as they have no interest in society, it’s precisely because of christianity’s participation in society, which makes it so unsuitable for attaining true spirituality

    True spirituality has no need for society, or culture …

    @Caballarius

    Fascinating stuff caballarius, why did the SGA want to ban 13-15 yr olds from marrying & reproducing ?

    From what I understand, the SGA was a group of aristocratic funded intellectuals & philosophers

  132. Joe Blow says:

    @Anon 9:55:

    12: God has an awesome plan for my life and a totally awesome man ready to drop into my life from the sky when I’m ready.

    Nice. I’d forgotten about that. The Neo Christian model of dating based on romantic predestinationism posits that God is the Commander, XVIII Celestial Airborne Corps, poised to drop his awesome Paratroopers of Love into our lives on 3 hours notice… Our God truly is an awesome god. He wears jumpboots, not like that sniveling leg Shiva…

    Calvin (the theologist/philosopher, not the amazing cartoon character/philosopher) sucks. The Catholic, non-predestinarian notion of marriage and mating, which holds each person responsible for their own actions, makes a little more sense and promises a little less dating futility. Radical predestinationism is one of the reasons that so much of Muslim culture is bassackwards. Why take responsibility for your government / community / self, if anything you do is futile and your fate is totally at God’s whim anyhow? Radical predestinationism lite is one of the reasons Calvinism is so susceptible to mockery and localized takeovers by nuts. If you really believe God is controlling everything, then you have no reason to be responsible for your choices, to work hard, or to do the things necessary to get and keep a mate, whether that involves being a good parent, cleaning house (or being the breadwinner), or things as simple as being civil and keeping fit. Here, have another donut.

  133. Athor Pel says:

    “Rmaxd says:
    January 19, 2012 at 10:11 pm

    Just as a final word on the Christian thing, I mentioned Monks & Indian Yogi’s specifically, as they have no interest in society, it’s precisely because of christianity’s participation in society, which makes it so unsuitable for attaining true spirituality

    True spirituality has no need for society, or culture …”

    No use for society? Really….hmmmmm. How is that working out for you? You completely self-supporting? Does your body get its nutrients from the sun and the air?

    I hope you realize what you’re advocating, it’s the total abandonment and eventual destruction of any level of civilization and therefore the death of billions of men, women and children, including yourself. It makes you look like an idiot.

  134. ybm says:

    @Athor Pel

    Could you outline the process of how exactly spirituality would cause the death of billions? I mean, athiesm I am absolutely on your side with, and even secular humanism is borderline since it almost seems perfect for a slow creep toward Darwinism. But I don’t see the connection between spirituality and “the total abandonment and eventual destruction of any level of civilization.”

  135. caballarius1 says:

    @ Rmaxd says:
    “True spirituality has no need for society, or culture …”

    That’s called too heavenly minded to be of any earthly good. A balance must be struck.

    “Fascinating stuff caballarius, why did the SGA want to ban 13-15 yr olds from marrying & reproducing ?
    From what I understand, the SGA was a group of aristocratic funded intellectuals & philosophers”

    @ Rmaxd says:
    SGA = Second Great Awakening. It was a long running religious revival in the northeastern quadrant of the USA and is the origin of American do-gooderism (we know what’s best for you), women’s liberation, socialistic utopianism, prohibitionism and many other social ills which continue to plague the USA. You may be thinking of the Transcendalists, a group of intellectuals in the same time and place, whose views of spirituality were more in line with your own, as they were into eastern religions.

    The women’s libbers of the time wanted to raise the legal age of consent from age 10-12, as it was in the early 1800′s, up to 18. This was so women would be more likely to receive at least some advance education before marriage and kids (in those days many people started college level at ages 14-16) or, ideally, completely decide to forgo marriage.

  136. Athor Pel says:

    “ybm says:
    January 20, 2012 at 10:47 am

    @Athor Pel

    Could you outline the process of how exactly spirituality would cause the death of billions? I mean, athiesm I am absolutely on your side with, and even secular humanism is borderline since it almost seems perfect for a slow creep toward Darwinism. But I don’t see the connection between spirituality and “the total abandonment and eventual destruction of any level of civilization.”

    You seem to assuming a meaning for spirituality outside of Rmaxd’s words. I am only dealing with his words. Anything else is outside of my analysis.

    And just to make it perfectly plain where I am coming from;

    Rmaxd is advocating a spiritual practice that in his own words, “has no need for society, or culture…”. If I assume that having no need for society or culture means a complete withdrawal from it then that means you can’t interact with other people for social purposes or even practical purposes. That means no organized agriculture, no industrial activity, no market activity. If enough people follow said practice then civilization stops functioning. Everybody that follows said spiritual practice starves in short order.

    Even if we assume indifference rather than active avoidance in regards to wider civilized society you end up with the same outcome if enough people follow said spiritual practice. Everybody that follows said spiritual practice becomes a parasite in order to survive because they aren’t working. If enough people follow said practice then we have societal collapse again.

    Get it now?

    Funny thing, the US recently has for the first time more people receiving government checks than not and the number is rising. Which is a similar situation described above, an untenable situation in the long term.

  137. Rmaxd says:

    @Cab
    “ideally, completely decide to forgo marriage.”

    Hmm why did they want to forgo marriage?

    In the 1800′s there wasnt any welfare, or any real industrialisation to support womens inability to work …

    @Athor Pel

    All societies & knowledge & science come from the rejection of society & culture

    Why do you think alot of our greatest advances in the middle ages came from monks in solitude

    Todays scientists simply continue that tradition, locked away in their labs for days on end lol

    Solitude is one of the greatest traits of man, its a mans lack of need for a social network, which allows him to create the sciences, arts etc.

    Erm, also spirituality is about putting humanity & self education first, over hierarchy & structuralism

    Science & technology, is nothing but meditation & the introspective of the need for an external reality

    It is only through thought, & the emphasis of the internal reality of the mind, ie intellect, can we maintain the external reality

    The external reality is simply a rationalisation of our internal mind, we maintain our bodies, through trance states, & altered states

    Only 20% of our world is made up of molecules, the rest is made up of pure energy

    The chair you’re sitting on is only made up of only 20% of matter, the rest of the chair simply does not exist …

    Without thought, there is no way to perceive reality, or maintain it

    Spiritualism is simply all about how accurately you perceive reality

    Society & culture, simply put the emphasis on the externalisation of reality

    Instead of the emphasis of maintaning yourself through thought & idea’s

    We keep our hearts beating by hypnotic somnambulisance, & unaware of the constant function of our bodily functions, through learned hypnosis & hallucination

    A thought is simply you hallucinating words & idea’s

    Without the emphasis on a persons internal needs, there is no real society, which is what we’re witnessing today, obviously …

    Our society & science was born from a rejection of current society & culture

    The norm is always replaced by the spiritual & idea’s from internalising our reality, its our natural state

    How successfully we turn away from society, determines the radicalism & success of our idea’s & spirituality

    Rejecting the mainstream & cultural trends is a key component to spiritualism, you cant maintain a sense of self & integrity if you give yourself over to a mainstream culture or society

  138. Suz says:

    Rmaxd, I’m copying that and squirreling it away for future reference. “Well said,” would be a sad little understatement. Thanks.

  139. Rmaxd says:

    Thnx Suz,

    I’m a great believer in know everything, believe nothing

    Christianity is interesting, its emphasis on morality is great, but very few ever really value it

    They basically replace biblical morality, for social morality, ie the concept of sin, is now whatever is politically correct, or serial promiscuity worse then sleeping around, or calling their god, a master & lord ie. worshipping superiority & authority

    It’s the culture of christianity people like Athor pel, worship

    The false religions the bible warns about, arent the cults & sects, as those are easily identified

    What it really warns about is the REAL false religion, which is the culture of christianity, the culture of christianity is the real false religion

    Instead of following the culture & traditions of christianity, these people simply follow & worship the culture of christianity, they pay lip service to christianity by falsely calling their god lord & master, while following the culture of christianity

    This is why christians call their god, lord & master, theyre simply following the hierarchy & structure, the culture of christianity exists in

    Modern day christians are simply mouthing artificial corporate slogans as a religion, they’re simply worshipping slogans & catch phrases theyve seen on television & mass media, & creating a religion out of it, through political correctness

    Christians basically worship the master & slave as a religion

    Basically because the master & slave is the culture of christianity & not the real religion

    The culture of christianity & the modern day church is paganism, it is the real false religion as mentioned in the bible

    Hence this article

  140. caballarius1 says:

    @Rmaxd says:
    @Cab
    “’ideally, completely decide to forgo marriage.’
    Hmm why did they want to forgo marriage?”

    Self-actualization, expressed 125 years later as “a woman needs a man like a fish needs a bicycle.”

    @Rmaxd says:
    “In the 1800′s there wasnt any welfare, or any real industrialisation to support womens inability to work …”

    That statement assumes logic and we’re talking about women; they rarely mix. Plus, the early northeastern feminists were usually married to reasonably well off men and typically came from families wealthy enough to send a daughter to college, which back then was a very big indulgence. These women were laying the groundwork for the future, which is our present.

  141. Rmaxd says:

    @Cab

    So essentially radical feminists, i’m assuming the catholic & nunneries they went to study in, played a large part, as nunneries were rife with feminism & progressive promiscuity

    A couple of question’s, how did they dismantle 12 year olds from marriage?

    & what happened to the SGA, after abolition was repealed …

  142. Anonymous Reader says:

    caballarius1, picking 1920 as a date is cherry picking your data. By 1921 the Russian civil war was over, by 1923 women in the Soviet Union had the right to abortion, could divorce their husbands for any or no reason, could work for their own money and keep it separate, generally got custody of children after divorce, and so forth. So by 1925, the USSR had instituted into society a whole list of social changes that the US didn’t get around to until 50 years later.

    You might consider reading the late 19th century Anglo feminists with both Darwinism and Marxism in mind. Because all those upper class women had very likely read bits of Darwin and Marx, and if you pay attention you can see the effects. Certainly all the 1960′s feminist writings are steeped in the Marxist oppressor / oppressed mindset. In order to roll back feminism, it is necessary to expose the false premises – those premises include the notion that men and women are exactly the same except for plumbing, and therefore that any numerical imbalance in any area of life is due to prejudice, not reason. This is a Rousseau-Marx point of view, that genetics mean nothing and environment is all. It is the foundation stone of Affirmative Action and “equal” opportunity for women (Title IX’s systematic destruction of men’s sports is based on this). I don’t see where obsessing over the minute details of which church denomination did what 200 or more years ago contributes anything to demolishing the feminist machine that is eating beta men – and therefore civilization – day after day.

    So what’s your point?

  143. caballarius1 says:

    @Rmaxd says:
    “So essentially radical feminists, i’m assuming the catholic & nunneries they went to study in, played a large part, as nunneries were rife with feminism & progressive promiscuity”

    Catholics? None of these women were Catholic. The USA had almost zero Catholics until the Irish started showing up in huge numbers in the 1840′s. Americans in those days didn’t even consider Catholics to even be Christians.

    @Rmaxd says:
    “A couple of question’s, how did they dismantle 12 year olds from marriage?”

    The WCTU and its allies mounted campaigns in the states to raise the legal age of consent to 18.

    @Rmaxd says:
    “& what happened to the SGA, after abolition was repealed …”

    I’m guessing you mean the WCTU? It’s still around, I think.

  144. caballarius1 says:

    @Anonymous Reader says:
    “I don’t see where obsessing over the minute details of which church denomination did what 200 or more years ago contributes anything to demolishing the feminist machine that is eating beta men – and therefore civilization – day after day.”

    Nobody’s obsessing over it, it’s just the backstory.

    “So what’s your point?”

    The women’s lib movement started with the Second Great Awakening, when there was a lot of free-wheeling, new (at that time) styles of worship and new denominations coming out of the scene. Incidentally, a number of communistic Christian utopian groups also emerged from the SGA. Bottom Line: Driscoll is just another in a long line of male enablers in the American church.

  145. Pingback: How should Christian men respond to slutty women? Marry them! | Dalrock

  146. Pingback: Feminism, Conservatism, and Radical Traditionalism « MANSIZEDTARGET.COM

  147. Andrew says:

    Feminism in all its guises was an early to mid 19th Century invention of Lesbian/Bisexual practicing witches/occultist Marxists who used frequently violence and terrorism and blackmail to spread their agenda – In fact the first public speech/document promoting feminism was done through automatic writing dictated word for word by demon spirits
    :
    http://hypatiamaze.org/halloween/hal_page2.html
    http://hypatiamaze.org/halloween/hallow.html

    and

    http://theantifeminist.com/a-very-brief-history-of-feminism/

    and

    http://www.despatch.cth.com.au/Despatch/vol73_fiorenza.html

    Oh, and that other feminist issue is pretty much a problem with all the World’s religions:

    http://www.internationalorder.org/scandal_response.html

    and

    http://www.psychohistory.com/htm/06a1_incest.html

    Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.
    Romans 7:12 Wherefore the law is holy, and the commandment holy, and just, and good.

  148. Rmaxd says:

    @Andrew

    Nice angle Andrew, John Dee was supposed to have invented the first tv, to originally contact the other side …

    Everything has some sort occultic or nefarious history if you look hard enough

    I dont think they had marxist witches in the 12th century though … lol

  149. Pingback: Women are innately good. | Dalrock

  150. Pingback: Texas U.S. Senate candidate is proud to have been raised by one of Stanton’s heroes! | Dalrock

  151. Pingback: Wanna Have Christian Sex Without Marriage? | The Karamazov Idea

  152. Jb says:

    I know I’m a bit late to the conversation, but I’m an evangelical pastor, and father of five, and The Rational Male by Rollo Tomassi saved my marriage, and is covertly impacting the men in the church I lead.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s