A very old pattern.

Commenter Moses asks:

I want to know “What is behind this?” What forces are shaping a world where women are absolved of all agency in attracting a “man” yet feel entitled to the very best of masculinity? Why do so many pastors preach self-serving “Only real man in the room” and belittle men? Who benefits? Who makes money off it? Power?

The forces may be unconscious and spread across millions, but they are there sure as the sea is not above the clouds.

I’ve touched on this in previous posts, but this is worth restating.  What we are seeing is the same pattern as the fall in Genesis. We are replaying the same temptations and sins that Adam and Eve fell to. The Serpent knew the way to tempt Eve was to make her feel like God was holding out on her, that she was getting less than she deserved. Adam knew following Eve was a sin, but chose sin over challenging his wife. It was more important to make Eve happy than to follow God.

Belittling men feels good*, and is easy. Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard. Absent concerted effort not to fall into this rut, we will slide into it.  We will do what feels good and is easy over what feels terrible and is hard. It really is that simple. See Pastor Doug Wilson’s recent post related to this (HT Hmm), as well as this and this.

*It feels like courage because you are calling out your own kind, a sort of vicarious self criticism. Yet at the same time it is really a way to elevate yourself above other men, as the only real man in the room. It is cowardice and arrogance that feels like courage and humility. And again it is easy. The men you are belittling will generally go along, because it makes Eve happy.

This entry was posted in Armchair Husbands, Attacking headship, Disrespecting Respectability, Miserliness, Pastor Doug Wilson, Rebellion, The only real man in the room, Turning a blind eye, Wife worship. Bookmark the permalink.

116 Responses to A very old pattern.

  1. Casey says:

    What do you do with a problem like Eve?

  2. Casey says:

    It not only feels terrible………but as Dalrock has mentioned previously, it’s now part of our culture (and laws).

  3. Pingback: A very old pattern. | @the_arv

  4. Oscar says:

    “See Pastor Doug Wilson’s recent post related to this (HT Hmm)”

    The comments are predictably depressing.

  5. Feminist Hater says:

    Adam should have ignored her and asked God for a new helpmate. Sent Eve to go eat with the wolves. As is right and proper.

  6. FNG says:

    This…in a nutshell. One audience responds to/with feelz (with resulting hysteria) and the other with rational thought.

    Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian). Thanks

  7. Gunner Q says:

    Feminist Hater @ 10:52 am:
    “Adam should have ignored her and asked God for a new helpmate. Sent Eve to go eat with the wolves. As is right and proper.”

    God obviously didn’t design Eve to make Adam happy. He designed her so her behavior toward Adam would help Adam realize how he behaved towards God. That’s the downside of Imago Dei.

    Nothing torpedoes my self-esteem like wondering if God looks at me the way I look at the tranny trash waddling around the supermarket. I ain’t going down like that. Thanks, Barbie, you kept me on the straight and narrow by demonstrating where the path of curvy and wide leads.

    Now give me my rib back.

  8. Gunner Q says:

    FNG @ 11:10 am:
    “Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian).”

    Samson and Delilah is a perfect case study.

  9. Frank K says:

    “Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian).”

    It should be so completely obvious that deconstruction shouldn’t even be needed. Then again, few pastors will dare to condemn riding the carousel or having children out of wedlock and to add insult to injury they try to pawn these broken women off as “wife material” to beta schlub parishioners. As I said in other thread here: young virgin females in church pews are almost non existent, and I’ll bet more than a few have double digit notch counts. I imagine it won’t be long until pastors tell their young betas that a high notch count is actually a plus, as they won’t have to “teach her” to be a skilled lover. In fact, the “ladies” will most likely be able to instruct their nerdy, beta virgin husbands on how it’s done. They’ll just have to remember to shout hubby’s name and not Chad’s (oopsie!) during their climaxes.

  10. Anon says:

    Remember that the scarcer reproductive resource will always be seen as more valuable. There were valid biological reasons for this for the first 99% of human existence, and the human brain is hardwired for this. That is why both men and women see female well-being as vastly more important than male well-being.

    However, this is now obsolete because a) women no longer use most of their reproductive capacity, so being ‘scarcer’ means a lot less than before, and b) women produce zero technology (and indeed obstruct men from producing it), which is why women are far less in tune with a high-tech future.

  11. Deaths_Writer says:

    Sadly I believe some are worried about being politically correct and feelings more then focusing on God.

  12. Splashman says:

    @FNG, I think “The Bible” would fulfill your description.

    Okay, I’m being a bit snarky, but serious as well. When one considers the whole of scripture (as opposed to cherry-picking a verse out of context), nothing of the central message of femininity is supported. To argue this successfully with a feminist (male or female), you yourself must be familiar with the whole of scripture.

    One obvious example: Marriage was instituted as a scale-model of a human’s relationship to Christ. This assertion is supported throughout scripture, from the very beginning (Eve as helper), all the way through the NT (we are bride, Christ is bridegroom, etc.) What that means is, in a marriage relationship, the wife should relate to her husband as each of us relates to Christ. Does that sort of relationship allow for the wife to defy her husband? Treat him as a child? Demand (or even ask) him to do his “fair share”? Presume to be his conscience? Consider herself to be an equal partner in the relationship? Divorce him?

    To all men: Do NOT accept spiritual teaching from anyone who would argue this basic understanding. If you can’t find a church whose leadership demonstrates they believe it, then don’t go to church.

  13. Shaka Zulu says:

    “It was more important to make Eve happy than to follow God.”
    This was definitely one of Adam’s motives in going along with his wife’s plan, but I suspect there was another – the fear of being destroyed by the Serpent had he objected. He stood no chance, had he resisted the temptation, against such a high-ranking angel of immense power and wickedness. These two motives are at work even in the present scenario; we desire to please Eve, as Dalrock points out, but we also fear destruction by the Manginas and White Knights who wield power over us.

  14. “Belittling men feels good*, and is easy. Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard.”

    I could be wrong, but perhaps on some level the human male subconscious understands that criticizing or “calling out” a woman on her attitude or ingratitude is much like criticizing a young child – just far less productive in terms of positive outcome for him, as the vast majority of women today (whether married or single) seem to have been informed that they are immune to male criticism of any kind. This is the kind of position and assertion one would expect from an entitled, upper-echelon, self-declared protected class citizen.

    Generally men (both young and adult) seem to already operate as if the following lines of code have been somehow deleted from their standard cognitive and decision-making processes:

    1. Women are adults,
    AND
    2. Adults are not children,
    AND
    3. Adults must accept responsibility, constructive criticism, take corrective action.

    Some men never lose this code, and respond accordingly.
    Others figure out too late that the code is missing, and must try their best to counter with coping mechanisms of compliance because “If mama ain’t happy, then ain’t nobody happy!”. Right?

    So it’s really no surprise, for example, that two of the most common and pervasive behavioral problems within marriage today seem to be:

    1. husbands waiting and expecting voluntary, verbal apologies from their wives (for wife’s negative behaviors, disrespectful treatment etc.).

    AND

    2. wives employing the silent treatment to retaliate, punish and control their husbands (for the husband’s errors, lack of wholesale compliance)

    Christian pastors would have all of the husbands sitting in the church pews understanding these common wifely behaviors to be not only acceptable, but endorsed or sanctioned by God Himself. Wake up. These are messages God is sending to you, man!

    Well, this is the wrong instruction.
    And yet understandably Christian women have absolutely no reason or incentive to believe that Christian men will in any way resist these teachings.

    For if the pastor says that God is on her side, then just who in the hell do you think you are to position yourself to sin against her?

  15. Anon says:

    I could be wrong, but perhaps on some level the human male subconscious understands that criticizing or “calling out” a woman on her attitude or ingratitude is much like criticizing a young child

    It is also the innate FI of men. Defaulting into this is not just cowardice, but is evidence of inability for a person’s brain to evolve past prehistoric times.

    Think about several movies :

    ‘In the Heat of the Night’, the leader of the loser-gang took only 1 second to shoot his best friend on the fact that the friend had sex with his sister. No accountability on the sister at all.
    ‘Scarface’, Tony shot his best friend Manolo after barely taking two seconds to think about it, just because Manolo had sex with his sister. Of course, they had gotten married without his knowledge, but Tony could not wait a few seconds for that to be communicated to him.

    There are countless examples. But this is considered normal behavior – the woman has no agency, and a man can kill his best friend after just one second to think about it, for ‘defiling’ the man’s sister…

  16. feeriker says:

    “Sadly I believe most are worried about being politically correct and feelings more then focusing on God.”

    FIFY.

    So it’s really no surprise, for example, that two of the most common and pervasive behavioral problems within marriage today seem to be:

    1. husbands waiting and expecting voluntary, verbal apologies from their wives (for wife’s negative behaviors, disrespectful treatment etc.).

    I sincerely hope that this is not the case. Even in my deepest deep-sea blue pill days, I NEVER expected, even in my most delusional and naive state, that my wife (or any other woman) would EVER apologize for or take responsibility for mistakes/wrongdoing. I would have sooner have believed that I’d see an alligator do back flips on its own.

  17. OK. Some blasphemy coming out here, so you’ve been warned. I apologize if it offends.

    I find it increasingly hard to believe that God didn’t know nor anticipate what was going to happen with Eve, the knowledge and the forbidden fruit in the Garden of Eden.

    Come on man.
    God knew all along that Eve was trouble. Serious trouble.
    God would have also known that Adam was a complete dumb ass, but an ass nevertheless. A genuine, convenient beast of burden to be more precise. The one that would, as punishment, have to do most of the toiling of the earth, while Eve would supposedly forever suffer excruciating pain of child birth.
    Seems even God couldn’t deliver on that punishment of Eve forever. Those men toiled and toiled so damn much….all the way to invent caudal epidural anesthesia for Eve’s ungrateful, entitled female descendants.

    Once again “if momma ain’t happy, ain’t nobody happy!”
    You almost have to keep that one on a laminated index card in your wallet and try not to be amazed how many times it comes as a useful explanation for why matters are so FUBAR in modern times.

    The fact that God knew all this, approved it and then set it in motion as part of his ordained plan, well, that’s pretty shitty. If that’s His way of showing love to MANkind, and men in general, then one might call in to legitimate question whether this is a deity worth worshiping at all.
    A four year old can figure out from this that God pretty much hates men.

  18. feeriker says:

    For if the pastor says that God is on her side, then just who in the hell do you think you are to position yourself to sin against her?

    I’ve said this before, but I think that it bears repeating: a significant number of pastors, if not a majority of them, live with wives who are every bit as contentious and rebellious as, if not more so than, the wives of their male congregants. indeed, Mrs. Pastor is probably MORE LIKELY to be rebellious and domineering, as she feels that she derives a certain amount of vicarious power from her husband’s position. In many cases she might even believe that she is HIS EQUAL IN THE PULPIT (this has become a very disturbing trend in many evangelical churches over the last decade).

    Ergo, Mrs. Pastor is every bit as likely to “go nuclear” on her husband (i.e., exercise the Threat Point) –up to and including the “D word”– as is any other wife in his congregation. This is why he viscerally and instinctively defers to the FI and attempts to lead the men of his congregation to adopt an instinctual and reflexive defense against Threat Point. It is a remarkable demonstration of both lack of faith in the power of God to guide a marriage AND lack of spine/frame on the pastor’s part. Until the weak link at the top is strengthened, however, there is very little hope of anything changing in the middle or at the bottom.

  19. Pingback: A very old pattern. | Reaction Times

  20. TLM says:

    …Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard……

    I’m not sure how one can say this with a straight face when women, including those in the church community, propelled the literary phenomenon of Fifty Shades Of Gray to mainstream acceptance. A novel that’s main subject matter is bondage/S&M. Any excuse a man may have held onto to in his heart about taking women serious regarding any matter, went right out the window when FSOG skyrocketed to fame on the buying power of the daughters of Eve.

  21. Splashman says:

    @constrainedlocus,

    2 possibilities:

    1. Your take on God’s actions is correct, and thus God indeed hates men, and thus God is not good, and thus God is not God (and the Bible is myth), and thus life truly is pointless, and thus you are wise in worshipping man instead of God.

    2. Your take on God’s actions is flawed.

  22. @Splashman
    Or maybe:

    3.) My take is correct, God is still God, God dislikes or at best is indifferent to men,the historical accounts of Genesis are flawed, the Bible is not a complete loss but merely a poor/unreliable record of actual historical events, and so even assertions and deductions like mine above stem from ignorance or one giant misunderstanding of events that has been translated from Aramaic to Hebrew, Greek, German and finally English for everyone to get wrong.

    Sure. Why not? I’d like to believe that God is a fair arbiter, but the sequence of events in Genesis sort of screw that idea up.

    I suppose when my time comes I’ll ask him just what the eff He was thinking right before I enter the elevator, presumably to have the buttons pushed for me. Destination: Underground Parking Garage” a.k.a. lake of fire.

  23. Splashman says:

    @feeriker, my experience confirms your assertion. I would add that it is worse than you imply, because the nuclear option is a much bigger threat to a pastor than to a non-pastor. (“Divorced” on a pastor’s resume seriously limits opportunities.) Thus the shrewd and informed pastor’s wife has leverage of Doomsday Machine proportions.

  24. Anonymous Reader says:

    “Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian).”

    As a man who has debated feminists both on line and in real life for a number of years, I have come to the following conclusion: feminists are emotion driven. That goes for male feminists as well as female. They did not reason themselves into that ideology, they cannot be reasoned out of it. Reason means logic, not “That seems fair!” playground talk.

    I have been present for arguments based on the Bible. You might be surprised how far feminists can twist and bend words, such as Ephesians 5, 22 – 25. It’s common to see that quote rewritten into “mutual submission”, even though that’s not what it says. So arguing feminists out of feminism with the Bible will bog down into ever more creative interpretation of language. More fun if some aging White Knight comes galloping up to help M’Lady with his own split-the-difference bogusness.

    Emotion is the language they speak. Plan accordingly.

  25. RedPillPaul says:

    @Shaka Zulu

    This was definitely one of Adam’s motives in going along with his wife’s plan, but I suspect there was another – the fear of being destroyed by the Serpent had he objected. He stood no chance, had he resisted the temptation, against such a high-ranking angel of immense power and wickedness.

    I wouldnt lean that way. I think the primary motive for Adam to sin was that he loved woman more that God rather than fear of the serpent.

    If we are to believe scripture (and I do) all the animals were brought before Adam and he named them all. This would include Leviathan, whom God describes in Job as the fiercest animal he created.

    I am saying stuff that is not specifically in the Bible and I can see how you would characterize the serpent as fearful being and attribute it to, let say, lucifer in serpent for, but Man was specifically given dominion of earth and lost that when he fell. I dont think Fear of a fearful being was the primary motivation for Adam (who is more fearful than God himself, and Adam saw him face to face and walked with him in the garden) than fear of loss of his woman.

    I would say that when Man and woman was in a state of perfection, they were clothed with light, because they are an image of God, and God is clothed in light. I can see how fallen man could not stand a chance, but perfect man and being motivated by fear to sin? More like fear of loss of his woman.

  26. Lost Patrol says:

    Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard.
    We will do what feels good and is easy over what feels terrible and is hard.
    It really is that simple.

    It IS that simple, so all the minister has to do is NOT call out women for anything. Problem solved. No heat, no steam. Yet we have seen many times, it does not stop there. It never stops there. It is inadequate to merely ignore women’s failings, nor is it sufficient to also admonish men in front of them; for these two alone will not be enough to keep them happy. And we have this —

    It was more important to make Eve happy than to follow God.

    This doesn’t seem to have changed lately, making Eve happy over following God, so now it really ISN’T that simple anymore. Now the minister has to find ways to EXALT his women followers, and this is a kind of open ended problem set, because how much is enough?

    “Everything is very simple in war, but the simplest thing is difficult.” – Carl von Clausewitz

  27. RedPillPaul says:

    @constrainedlocus
    I think you should consider the womans curse. A lot of the english translations of Genesis 3:16 just states that child bearing will be painful. Not a big fan of KJV but its states that he will increase her sorrow and conception. in sorrow dost thou bear children.

    I always wondered if womans curse was JUST pain in child bearing. Always wondered if God also made woman generally miserable as part of her curse, hence men are happier than woman, easier to be content as a man than as a woman.

    Man, being the head, is punished double, his own punishment, and the punishment of having to deal with a woman always full of pain and sorrow (miserable) that is not related to the heavy pain the process and moment of popping out a child.

    Just some food for though.

  28. Splashman says:

    @RPP,

    I agree with your take (Adam didn’t fear the serpent), as scripture supports it. There’s a reason the serpent (“more crafty/more subtle/more skilled in deceit than any creature of the field”) didn’t go after Adam directly. He could have done so at any time, before or after Eve was created. Because he didn’t, it stands to reason that he had identified Adam’s weaknesses, and decided that direct action against him would have been fruitless. Thus he waited. When Eve was created, he identified her weaknesses (emotion-driven, desire for equality with God) and exploited them with false promises, knowing that once Eve sinned, Adam’s weaknesses (lonely/need for woman, desire for independence from God) would doom him as well.

  29. Gunner Q says:

    constrainedlocus @ 2:59 pm:
    “OK. Some blasphemy coming out here, so you’ve been warned. I apologize if it offends.”

    No apology needed. I’ve been there for a long time myself. Of course God orchestrated the Fall. My favorite evidence is how the immediate consequence of sin was… understanding the consequences of sin. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? Adam & Eve disobeyed while blind to the results. They obviously didn’t plan to be naked. Tell me that wasn’t a setup.

    But there was no other way. Free will demands not only the ability to disobey God but also spiritual blindness. The moral choices must appear more gray than picking between “God’s Friend Forever” and “Eternal Hell”; otherwise, it’s a nonchoice Which is why God made humanity so gullible and virtue so hard.

    The Fall was elegantly done. It left humanity condemned to one master, the Rebel, and needing salvation from another master, the Heir. Humans were designed for worship, we can’t create an alternative reality like some spiritual Switzerland, so free will takes the form of choosing loyalties. Just as with women. Will it be the sexy Alpha stud who breaks all the rules and gets away with it? Or do we stay loyal to a very Beta, very distant deity who doesn’t have much to offer beyond “trust me”?

    Like women, humanity must choose carefully because a Wall is coming, beyond which is either a happy retirement as Heaven’s Yiayias or the Son of God asking “Whose b*tch is this? I don’t want you anymore.” And there was much weeping & gnashing of teeth.

    It was cruel of God to condemn us to sin, but at least He also gave us a way out. The devil didn’t rate mercy.

    I can expound further is anybody cares. It gets metaphysical from here.

    “…the fear of being destroyed by the Serpent had he objected.”

    I can’t see a guy who literally played with God, having no awareness of evil or hardship, being afraid of anything.

  30. Splashman says:

    Just remembered an interesting take on Genesis 3 (the fall) — don’t remember from who. The gist of it was that Adam & Eve weren’t tempted by the tree because it would give them knowledge of good and evil (many believe Adam & Eve didn’t know what evil was before they ate). The fact that they could choose to obey or disobey God’s command (“don’t eat the fruit”) means they already had that knowledge. Instead, what they desired was the ability to determine for themselves what was good and what was evil — a power God reserved for himself. So, the crafty serpent tempted Eve with an emotional appeal to her desire for equality with God (“…you will be like God”), knowing that Adam’s loneliness and desire for independence from God would lead him to stick with Eve.

  31. Splashman says:

    Dalrock: “Belittling men feels good, and is easy. Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard.”

    You explained why belittling men feels good, and I agree. Might be worth similarly explaining why calling out women feels terrible.

    My take: Good men enjoy challenges, and gain status among good men by achieving the difficult. Good men instinctively recoil from picking on the weak (where’s the challenge?), and lose status among good men when they do. Women are weaker than men, both physically and mentally. Thus good men instinctively avoid picking on them, either mentally or physically.

    Of course, wise men realize that pointing out a woman’s faults (thus affording them the possibility of repentence) is not “picking on them” — it’s doing them a huge favor. And to avoid calling them out is in fact an act of selfishness (my temporal comfort is more important than your eternal soul). But our culture has, as in so many other ways, flipped this truth upside down, so that men are condemned for even attempting this difficult yet loving task. In this, as Dalrock has pointed out so many times, the “church” is actually worse than the culture at large.

  32. Major Styles says:

    “Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard.”

    I’ve embraced this habit…and women love me for it.

  33. RICanuck says:

    @Constrainedlocus @2:59 PM

    Sometimes it can be very difficult to accept the burdens (crosses) God allows us to carry.

    In terms of blasphemy, I think I’ve been in a worse place than you have been. My wife and I got involved with the Legionaries of Christ and Regnum Christi. They seemed devout and orthodox Catholics, but there was something creepy. The referred to the founder, Fr. Maciel as ‘Nuestro Padre”. Fr. Maciel has since been exposed as a very evil and manipulative priest. Blue pill me went along with it.

    To get into the heart of the matter, Regnum Christi exposed my very devout wife to teachings similar to Ron Conte’s, who was linked by Dalrock in a previous post. For a time I was actually convinced that all husbands went to Hell. If you look at your wife and get aroused, that’s adultery. If you want to achieve a one flesh unity with your wife, it has to be done in the dark, without looking or touching each others bodies, otherwise, it’s adultery. If you look at porn or another woman, it’s adultery. Even adultery is adultery. Divorce is a mortal sin, so you can’t escape from marriage. I tried to be philosophical, and accept God is just, and therefore, that is just the way it is, that being a Christian husband is a mortal sin worthy of Hellfire for eternity.

    But no one can be that philosophical forever. There came a time, that whenever the priest said the Consecration at Mass, I would feel a deep visceral hatred for Jesus. That feeling went away when I refused to say the evening Rosary with my wife. I knew then that I was experiencing a demonic attack.

    Constrainedlocus, your speculations are the result of a of a logical progression of your experiences and your reading of scripture. I ask that you be aware that you are encountering the subtle whisperings of demons. If you are Protestant, I recommend memorizing Ephesian 6:10-18. If Catholic I recommend memorizing the Memorare. Either way, you will always have an available prayer to remember that as a Christian you are under attack.

  34. DeNihilist says:

    Dalrock – ” It was more important to make Eve happy than to follow God.”

    That is why, whenever some moob, or broad use the ole – “a happy wife is a happy life” BS, I tell em, “actually no, a happy husband, makes a happy life for his wife”

    Most of these pinochio’s don’t get it.

  35. mmaier2112 says:

    “Belittling men feels good*, and is easy. Calling out women feels terrible, and is hard.”

    I don’t buy it. Calling out women for their selfish, solipsistic idiocy is easy. I truly find joy in it. The “hard” part is making the women realize the evil in what they do and it is probably nearly all the time a complete waste of time.

  36. Appreciate the comments and explanations above.
    Been struggling with my own Christian religious faith for over a decade now, though I grew up with Protestant (Lutheran) values and dogma. Right now it doesn’t feel like it’s getting any stronger.
    That spirituality comes and goes, much like a once familiar friend who unfortunately only seems to offer ominous warnings for the future.

    Feeling like I need another visit to it, since reality is my own earthly parents are not long for this world, and the fear of losing experience of their lives wells up and becomes more real.
    I haven’t been to church in months, and there’s very little to suggest to me that doing so would refill my tank.

    My increased red pill awareness over the last two to three years has excavated a deep, fresh well of anger in me. And so blogs like this one and others help me to see how I’m not alone.

    It is one thing to feel distant and separated with that spiritual Father that you learned about and feared as a young child. But it is something else entirely to discover that everything you were ever taught about women, romantic love, female nature, masculinity and long-term romantic sexual relationships was a bald faced lie from your own religious parents, grandparents, uncles, aunts, and mentors (coaches, teachers, etc.). Not easy to shake this stupid anger phase. Lifting weight has helped.

    I do think that these constant waves of examples of gynocentric attitudes in common western culture, the media, in schools, in corporations, and especially within the modern Christian church, are all very good things for men. Somehow running that painful gauntlet makes us better. It’s encouraging for me that more dudes see it for what it is, understand it and then make appropriate moves on their own to cope and maybe overcome it. I am impressed that some of you maintain strong religious faith in light of what is happening in the church and within their own relationships and marriages. It is a test.

    I’m angling for the same.
    Sometimes I think to myself maybe God would understand my feelings of anger, and chasm-like doubts, and just agree to walk shoulder to shoulder with me a little bit more through all this crap regardless.

  37. feeriker says:

    The “hard” part is making the women realize the evil in what they do and it is probably nearly all the time a complete waste of time.

    In ages past it didn’t matter whether or not they recognized the evil in what they did. When they did something evil, reckless, stupid, destructive, or anti-social, the societal, religious, and legal mechanisms in place would punish them for it, often severely. It is only in this day and age, when all such mechanisms of restraint and correction have been removed, when society has convinced itself that women can be treated as rational adults despite millennia of evidence that proves this assertion false, that the need has arisen to attempt to “reason” women out of their evil behavior. We can see how well that has succeeded. Truly a moron’s errand.

  38. Moses says:

    Thanks Dalrock.

  39. Dale says:

    @Gunner Q
    >the tranny trash waddling around the supermarket

    I have been using the term Kanadka as short-hand for the masculine and/or fat women I routinely see. But unless a person speaks Russian, my term would not be understood. Yours is more accessible for the masses 🙂
    Plus, the alliteration is catchy 🙂

    @constrainedlocus
    Gunner Q beat me to it, so I’ll just add that I also think free will is the reason. I think God desires us to choose to be with and loyal to him, not merely be with him due to lack of other options.
    See 2 Peter 3:9:
    The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.

    If we cannot choose to rebel, then we cannot choose to be loyal to God. And a being who is immortal, with unlimited time on his hands, with an ability to rebel — perhaps the rebellion was bound to happen eventually. Although, as others have pointed out, men can be content better than women, so maybe Adam could have stayed content with God. And God himself indicated Adam had a need for a helper and companionship (Gen 2:18), so it is not surprising the serpent attacked Adam through her.

    I also used to have the attitude that God loves us, as a whole, very much; enough to die for us — read John 3:14-18. But that he loved each of us individually, not very much. This was my explanation for the suffering I saw.
    But, the passage from 2 Peter 3:9 above shows my prior attitude to be wrong.
    Also, counting only the instances of which I am aware, I know of a dozen or more instances where God intervened directly in my life. God does love me, and takes action to help and protect me.
    For example, every minute that I am protected from direct, emotional attack by demons is a minute for which to be very grateful. I do not thank God enough for that. Thank you!
    God DOES love me. Regardless of whether I deserve it. I understand that you may not perceive or admit God’s love for you; I have been there. But our perceptions do not define reality. God loves you brother.

  40. Laikastes says:

    @constrainedlocus
    I am writing to add my encouragement for you to continue to be strong and seek your own answers. Although I enjoy reading Dalrock, I am not a Christian. I was once a very strong and devout Christian, and even obtained a seminary degree, and worked in churches for a few years. I also went through some struggles and hard times (in my case, a terrible marriage and bitter divorce, and cancer), and as much as I wanted to in the beginning, I was not able to keep my Christian faith.

    Anyway, I do not want to make this comment about myself. I just want to encourage you to seek the answers you are looking for, and to get to the point where you are content with whatever conclusions you come to. If that is a renewed sense of faith in Christianity and God, then that’s great! If not, that is OK too. But first you have to completely work through the anger of being lied to by both secular society and the church community in regard to the blue pill. You can come out on the other side of the journey and still find life worthwhile and enjoyable.

  41. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    I saw a SyFy Channel monster movie last night, Mammoth (2006). There’s a tender father/daughter moment in which the father tells his teenage daughter how proud he is of her. How proud her late mother would have been.

    Why is dad so proud of his teary-eyed daughter? What qualities does he praise her for? That she’s so tough.

    His teenage daughter was so tough and bad-ass when they were fighting the giant, killer mammoth in a previous scene. She also beat the crap out of a much bigger guy earlier in the film, which you can see shortly after the 1:10 mark in this trailer:

    The tough, teenage daughter was played by Summer Glau, who went on to play the good “killer cyborg” in the Terminator TV series.

  42. Red Pill Latecomer says:

    Oh yeah, there’s also a tough female “man in black” who tracks UFOs and helps fight the mammoth. Her male partner is killed by the mammoth, but the female survives and helps capture the mammoth.

  43. Q says:

    I think this may again be the wrong thread…but I thought I would express a recent experience. I had massage not to long ago, like my third or fourth. It was a young girl that just graduated from massage school, what ever that is. Anyway she said I have bumps all over my back, I thought, well crap I’m sick, not that I worry about that. I came home and told my wife and told her about my bump episode. She said I can relate, I was like what? She said you have muscles everywhere, you can’t rub your back without feeling bumps, she said she’s young and doesn’t know, for you it’rs normal.

    I knew that yet was surprised, who was this girl practicing on.

  44. BillyS says:

    Jesus was slain before the foundation of the world, so God clearly knew what would happen and had already planned for it. We are told almost nothing about Adam’s motivation, so it is dangerous to make up a doctrine based on guesses there.

    Eve was very much a part of Adam, and it is likely that played a strong role. Some conversation from her is implied since God charged him with listening to the voice of his wife, not just taking the fruit from her. I wish we had more details, but very little is there, so I am cautious about pulling things out that may not really have been there.

  45. Ron says:

    What we are seeing is the same pattern as the fall in Genesis. We are replaying the same temptations and sins that Adam and Eve fell to.

    Something else that is very important to note, this happened in paradise, whne God “rested” from creation. Of course God is completely here an dalways involved in us, but He conducts Himself without being overt and in our faces, like a parent who could step in, but holds back so His kid cna learn from making a mistake.

    We are near the end of a high resource glut which began roughly a hundred years ago. In a harsh environment, we’d never think like this. Only in paradise/high resource is any of this possible.

    Soon we will be in the stage where we realize we are naked, and God “comes calling” ie, makes us aware of His constant presence. At that point He will ask the question He always asks at this point “Where are you? Did you do what I expressly told you not to do?” (איכה). If we “answer” the way the first man did “its all YOUR fault God, this bitch you gave me tempted me waaaaaah”, then God will go down the line until He gets to the serpent who is genuinely culpable. The end result is that we will all suffer, and on top of that we will lose a good servant (the “serpent” who we failed to rule)

    If however, pur generation can act with a level head and say “God, we seriously fucked up. We men did exactly what you told us not to. Its not the woman, it wasnt the serpent. They are who they are, bless ’em. We were in charge and blew it. We took the easy route, we went along with a really bad idea. Please forgive us. Please help us men retake control”. Then we might be able to do something no other generation has managed.

  46. Ron says:

    @contrainedlocus

    You are making the exact same mistake as Adam. God wants you to rule, but every true leader MUST be tested. Because it is only through thr test that you can choose to become great. Think of all the great men in history, the good ones I mean. These men alwyas had to deal with tremendous opposition and hatred. It is precisely by standing up against that opposition that you clarify who you really are. The snkae cannot do that, the woman cannot do that. Onky the Man can do that.

    If yoir father seats you on a wild powerful horse, you must learn how to ride that sucker or you will be thrown. Does it mean yoir father hates you by giving you that horse? To the contrary, it means He knows you can master it.

    We are going through Hell. The manginas, the white jnights, the genuine serpents, and of course, our beloved wonderful precious angelic princess sisters, who we are slightly tempted to strangle, bless them, are making our lives a living Hell. Our job is twofold

    1. Turn directly to God in cinstant, no holds barred prayer. Hold back absolutely nothing. Talk to Him like you woild to your best friend. Sometimes I wear headphones and pretend Im talking to a good friend, no one can tell the difference, and the “conversations” are actualky intense. There are lots of tricks like this

    2. Stand up and fight. That means do whatever you can to save your life and the life of the man who genuinely standing by you.

  47. Ron says:

    @contrainedlocus

    By the wya, dont think I have it easy. I have my own tests in life, and a lot of time I want nothing more than to scream at God and blame Him for hating me for putting me through this horror, or run in the other direction. But that is the test. If it was easy, it wouldnt be a test.

  48. Roger says:

    I completely agree with the ideas Dalrock has put forth here: it really is easier to call attention to men’s faults and deficiencies than to women’s. And then there’s the accompanying phenomenon of guys wanting to play alpha, and acting as if they’re the only real men in the room. We’ve all been annoyed by them plenty of times.
    It occurs to me, though, that as baleful as this tendency is, allow me to play the devil’s advocate here and suggest that it might have a positive role in some cases. What I’m getting at is that men have always been hard on each other (think drill sergeant, think foreman at a construction site, or a thousand other examples). Sometimes this is a function of maintaining higher standards, or having higher expectations. We see less of this in groups of women, where members have much more license to complain, or to wrap themselves in victimhood, or to make excuses.

  49. Roger says:

    My computer froze before I could complete my comment, so I’ll try a different browser.

    What I wanted to add is that even I find in my own teaching I tend to be harder on my male students than on my female ones. If women in my classes aren’t performing up to my ability, I will certainly tell them so, but with less passion than when I make the same case to underperforming male students. When I see men in my classes who have ability but are not putting forth effort, something in me wants to shake them and say, “Hey, they’re walking all over us, and you’re just going to let them?” I really want the men in my classes to succeed, and I confess that I push them a bit more. Of course, I’m pleased if the women do well too, but it seems different somehow.

  50. FNG says:

    To above comments: Thank you.

    Once again, not to derail the thread, but I’m married to a woman who is a professing Christian but may be Churchian to a large extent. She also self-identifies as a Feminist (did I mention she’s a lawyer…I know, I know!). I am only recently red pill aware and have been blue pill to the core for 50 years. I’m immersing myself in this blog as well as Rollo and Vox and working hard to change. But the FI is strong in my wife and I want to lead/drag her to the truth. Thanks in advance!

  51. Novaseeker says:

    FNG —

    Welcome.

    How long have you been married to this woman (i.e, how established is the pattern)? How feminist is she?

  52. Chris says:

    “Not easy to shake this stupid anger phase. Lifting weight has helped.”

    It’s helped me too. As Ephesians 4:26 says, righteous indignation isn’t always an oxymoron, but the sooner you hand it over to God so that He can mold it into something greater, the better. He can do it; I speak from experience.

  53. Paniym says:

    Isn’t the issue that Pastors can belittle, beat down and humiliate men with no consequence while at the same time puffing themselves up. Yet if the ever even briefly mention any responsibility of women towards husbands to put out (or be nice or be loving or be kind ) there would be hell to pay. Men will always take it. They (like I did for 35 years) will always introspect to see if what the pastor is preaching might in some twisted way be true.

  54. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @Dalrock:

    I would like to hear your thoughts and that of the readers here, on the idea that Eve was beguiled into commtting some sort of sexual immorality with Satan; Satan being the “Tree of knowledge of good and Evil”? Then of course, does this mean that Eve’s giving the fruit to Adam, implied some sexual liaison between the three of them. It seems plausible to me given the use of the word beguiled in those passages and their sudden awareness of their “nakedness”. Why would they immediately go cover themselves when they heard the Lord’s voice? If I am correct about this original sin, then it would explain alot about the sexual dynamics we see today, even amongst the so called church body. Women are in my observation, generally the weaker willed form, which includes sexual temptation.

  55. BillyS says:

    FNG,

    Keep in mind that a woman can oppose much of the modern feminist movement, but still have a lot of ingrained feminist ideas. My soon to be ex-wife had that problem. She didn’t like feminists much and opposed some things, but was happy to take those that benefited her.

    Samuel,

    That is not in the text in the slightest. The serpent was not the tree.

    The problem was the rebellion, not the specific fruit. Having a threesome would not “open your eyes to good and evil” in any way that is at all logical.

  56. Gunner Q says:

    constrainedlocus @ January 10, 2017 at 8:10 pm:
    “My increased red pill awareness over the last two to three years has excavated a deep, fresh well of anger in me. And so blogs like this one and others help me to see how I’m not alone.”

    Not at all alone. Just last week, I watched the cucks in my highly technical industry sell out to a pack of college girls majoring in Environmental Activism, fast-tracking them for management when they eventually graduate in 2, 4 or 500 years, while able-bodied and -minded young men willing to start work tomorrow waste away unemployed. I tried to wake them up and they got whiplash doing double takes at the guy who Doesn’t Get It. They are mortgaging my future, my fellow man’s future and shipwrecking themselves in their so-virtuous blindness. Oh yeah, we know anger.

    “It is one thing to feel distant and separated … something else entirely to discover that everything you were ever taught about women, romantic love, female nature, masculinity and long-term romantic sexual relationships was a bald faced lie…”

    It’s acceptable to be angry at God for putting us though this life while simultaneously being grateful to Christ for both salvation and enduring a life along with us. There’s been a time or two I’ve had to resort to that kind of split thinking, to manage my own frustrations.

  57. Mister says:

    “I’ve touched on this in previous posts, but this is worth restating. What we are seeing is the same pattern as the fall in Genesis. We are replaying the same temptations and sins that Adam and Eve fell to. The Serpent knew the way to tempt Eve was to make her feel like God was holding out on her, that she was getting less than she deserved. Adam knew following Eve was a sin, but chose sin over challenging his wife. It was more important to make Eve happy than to follow God.”

    Keep repeating that. “People need reminders more often than they need instruction.”

  58. Dalrock says:

    @FNG

    Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian). Thanks

    …I’m married to a woman who is a professing Christian but may be Churchian to a large extent. She also self-identifies as a Feminist (did I mention she’s a lawyer…I know, I know!). I am only recently red pill aware and have been blue pill to the core for 50 years. I’m immersing myself in this blog as well as Rollo and Vox and working hard to change. But the FI is strong in my wife and I want to lead/drag her to the truth. Thanks in advance!

    My first objective would be to stop doing the worst “blue pill” things you now see that you were doing, with the immediate goal of improving the dynamic of your relationship. You don’t describe her as having contempt for you, so that is a very good sign. I wouldn’t make any drastic changes, just start acting more like her rock, with an emphasis on making it fun.

    As for your specific question (how to convince your wife that feminism/Christian feminism is folly), my advice would be to not try to debate her into it. Change your own frame, and if she sees you as her leader, it will happen in ways that will almost certainly surprise you. Know the truth of the Bible, and live it out in your marriage, and be ready to answer questions she brings to you, but I wouldn’t try to lecture or argue her there. This is true even though she is a lawyer.

    I would also look for opportunities to point out painful dynamics in other couples to her when you think she is open to the insight (especially after you have improved your own dynamic). If you are at a social event with a couple where the wife is a grating, ball busting feminist, and/or the husband is a sickeningly fawning beta, note it in a playful way (in private). Also, don’t be surprised if after your dynamic changes from her perspective it has always been this new way. No need to argue with success and convince her that in the past you were the fawning beta and/or she was the ball buster. If she notices the change, great. But if she thinks this is how it has always been, no need to dig it up unless you have a specific reason to do so.

  59. da gbfm zlozozlzlzlzolzoozozo says:

    Anon writes, “Anon says:
    January 10, 2017 at 12:36 pm
    Remember that the scarcer reproductive resource will always be seen as more valuable. There were valid biological reasons for this for the first 99% of human existence, and the human brain is hardwired for this. That is why both men and women see female well-being as vastly more important than male well-being.”

    Thus when women hit menopause, and fall to 0 reproductive value, should they not be sent to the front lines of all wars?

    lzozlzozoz?

  60. kalonauta says:

    Dear Dalrock
    Thank you for your wonderful blog.
    I am a new reader from Italy and I am reading as many past posts as i can, and I find them interesting.

    As a sign of gratefulness, here is a link to a wonderful italian tale
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belfagor_arcidiavolo (by Niccolo Macchiavelli, the author of “Il Principe”)

    [D: Thank you. Welcome.]

    I am sure you can make good use of it (perhaps you already know it).

  61. Lost Patrol says:

    @constrainedlocus

    It seemed to me that I was the only one. Though I was a model of blue pill immersion, I knew damn good and well that something was wrong about men and women. I could get that it was all crooked and twisted, but couldn’t nail down the underlying issues. When I would mention these notions to other men they fell on deaf ears. For me it was a relief to discover that in fact many other men understood the problem, had been thinking about it and exchanging ideas for years, and put it all out there as a public service (thanks again Dalrock and all commenters).

    Now why did you and I and others here find these truths whilst other men continue to labor in darkness? Given that for me, the upshot of it all has been to strengthen my faith rather than diminish it; I’m saying Grace of God. The anger and disillusionment, et al that comes along with it is burning off impurities to refine the metal. It’s a painful trip in the old “the truth hurts” model, and you have to dig deep; but men can dig deep. I don’t think you can shock and anger God with honest questions from the heart, the men here aren’t shocked or angered by honest questions of faith; and they are only men.

    I haven’t been to church in months, and there’s very little to suggest to me that doing so would refill my tank.

    Probably won’t. You have to show up there with your tank already mostly full. It’s a place to affirm your faith maybe, along with other believers; but the situation at hand is between you and your Creator. We all have those decisions to make. The good news is that He says you will seek Him and find Him if you search for Him with all your heart.

    My increased red pill awareness over the last two to three years has excavated a deep, fresh well of anger in me. And so blogs like this one and others help me to see how I’m not alone.

    Check. Fairly common from what I’ve seen. Anger phase possibly the most difficult to get past.

    Not easy to shake this stupid anger phase. Lifting weight has helped.

    Check. We’re starting to look a lot alike. My personal favorite that I know has worked well for others in this stage is: Heavy Bag! If it’s new, get someone that knows to show you how to prep your fists and wrists (you can hurt yourself if you just start swinging at it), and let that relief valve do its work. Bonus – builds anaerobic stamina and punching power.

    Somehow running that painful gauntlet makes us better.

    See, this is one of the things that makes men and women so different. You identify a challenge and a test and rise to it. A man, aware of his faults, yet striving for advancement.

    I’m angling for the same.

    Yeah, that comes through. “Don’t give up the ship” as some Navy guy said.

  62. Anonymous Reader says:

    da gbfm
    Thus when women hit menopause, and fall to 0 reproductive value, should they not be sent to the front lines of all wars?

    Why do you hate the men on the front lines so much?

  63. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @BillyS:

    Then what is the “tree” and “fruit”? Please don’t tell me it was an apple. Why were they ashamed of their nakedness all of a sudden?

  64. Damn Crackers says:

    Remember, many of the Gnostic movements venerated the serpent in the Garden of Eden and accused the creator God of being the devil.

  65. feeriker says:

    @FNG

    Once again, not to derail the thread, but I’m married to a woman who is a professing Christian but may be Churchian to a large extent.

    Welcome to the club; that describes nearly ALL “Christian” women in the Western World today.

    She also self-identifies as a Feminist (did I mention she’s a lawyer…I know, I know!).

    Dude, PLEASE tell us that you’re a lawyer too …

  66. Dalrock says:

    @GunnerQ

    constrainedlocus @ 2:59 pm:
    “OK. Some blasphemy coming out here, so you’ve been warned. I apologize if it offends.”

    No apology needed. I’ve been there for a long time myself. Of course God orchestrated the Fall. My favorite evidence is how the immediate consequence of sin was… understanding the consequences of sin. Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil, right? Adam & Eve disobeyed while blind to the results. They obviously didn’t plan to be naked. Tell me that wasn’t a setup.

    It was cruel of God to condemn us to sin, but at least He also gave us a way out. The devil didn’t rate mercy.

    Whose standards would you use to judge God? Does the clay argue with the pot maker? I don’t have to understand it to know that it is righteous, because it was God’s plan and He is the source, the definer of righteousness. It makes as much sense to criticize God regarding Genesis as it does to criticize Him for how He created the universe. What’s up with gravity? And why make snow white instead of red?

  67. Feminist Hater says:

    Then what is the “tree” and “fruit”? Please don’t tell me it was an apple. Why were they ashamed of their nakedness all of a sudden?

    A tree is a tree and a fruit is a fruit. Why would the Bible talk of a serpent and a tree if they were one and the same? No way out of that one, they are completely separate things, cannot in anyway at all, ever, be confused as being the same thing. I don’t even know how you could start off with …”I would like to hear your thoughts and that of the readers here, on the idea that Eve was beguiled into commtting some sort of sexual immorality with Satan; Satan being the “Tree of knowledge of good and Evil”? Then of course, does this mean that Eve’s giving the fruit to Adam, implied some sexual liaison between the three of them.”

    WTF, are you smoking crack?!

    Satan is a fallen angel, he is not a tree. He didn’t say to Eve that she should eat of him but of the fruit. Your attempts at setting up some sort of sicko sex freak is preposterous.

    I think you’re just here to stir up shit. Stop.

  68. BillyS says:

    May have to sell my house in the settlement. Please pray for me.

  69. Boxer says:

    May have to sell my house in the settlement. Please pray for me.

    You’re stronger than you think, my man. Don’t lose hope.

  70. Gunner Q says:

    Dalrock @ 2:28 pm:
    “Whose standards would you use to judge God?”

    Human standards, of course. I am a human. God is not and is therefore free to be inhuman… but if God was human then He would deserve a thousand hangings for abandoning the children of California to the perverted freaks of Sacramento. For abandoning the Western Church to false teachers and predatory shepherds. I worship God because He is the true and living God, not because I approve of His decisions. It would, in fact, be inhuman of me to do so.

    But Christ, He’s the man. He’s the gold standard, the human standard par excellence. He suffered as I do and worse besides. I can follow his steps and example much more easily and effectively than a far-off deity who had to spend centuries building an entire nation just to start explaining Himself. When I grow up, I want to be like Christ who rescued me. Not like Almighty God who demanded a river of bloody sacrifices to drown out the stench of us.

    God the Father is a space alien. I cannot relate to Him. Christ the Son is Emmanuel, God With Us. I CAN relate to Him. And Christ’s own words, “nobody comes to the Father except through me”. So I am content to be entirely devoted to Christ while being frequently upset with all the evil and suffering God refuses to banish.

  71. Matamoros says:

    What do you do with a problem like Eve?

    Gen. 3:15 ESV – “Your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.”

    You must rule over her, dominate the marriage and not allow her to usurp power and control from you. If you don’t know how, learn Game.

  72. Lost Patrol says:

    May have to sell my house in the settlement. Please pray for me.

    You’re stronger than you think, my man. Don’t lose hope.

    I agree BillyS. What you’ve shared on this blog indicates your real “house” is built on rock. Is it possible you’ll be better off leaving that perishable house behind, given all it has come to signify? I don’t really know what all is involved or at stake in your case, but if a fresh start is being forced upon you, maybe that’s not all bad.

  73. Anonymous Reader says:

    BillyS
    May have to sell my house in the settlement. Please pray for me.

    It is just a thing. You are not your house. The house was just a place.

  74. Frank K says:

    “It is just a thing. You are not your house. The house was just a place.”

    True, but it still hurts to lose half your assets to a woman who decided to abandon you without cause (unless we consider being unhaaapppy as a legitimate cause)

  75. BillyS says:

    Just venting a bit. Mediation is dragging out since she is so mad that I wasn’t a pot of money to raid.

  76. RichardP says:

    For Constrainedlocus (and maybe BillyS also?):

    Q1: Why do we believe that there are benefits to be had from disobeying God?
    A1: Because we are a fallen people.

    Q2: When did the fall happen?
    A2: When Adam and Eve bit into the fruit God had said to not eat.

    Q3: When did Adam and Eve decide that there are benefits to be had from disobeying God? After they bit into the forbidden fruit? Or before they bit into the forbidden fruit?

    It is obvious that Adam and Eve were created with both the desire and the ability to satisfy self rather than God. That state caused them to eat the forbidden fruit. Eating the forbidden fruit did not cause that state.
    ————-

    God stated that he (God) alone was not enough for Adam when he said that Adam was alone / lonely (and that it was not good for him to be that way). And then he created for Adam a proper and fitting (God’s words) help who would force Adam to choose between her and God. If we take God’s statement that it was not good for Adam to be alone and that he (God) was not the cure for Adam’s aloneness at face value, then we must conclude that Adam chose correctly. Adam chose as God intended him to choose.

    The Bible says that God created the plan of salvation before he created the earth. He knew what was going to happen. He could have created something different. He didn’t. Things have worked out exactly the way he created them to. We don’t get to label any of it “good” or “bad”. Because, for either of those designations to be true, they can only be true when measured against some standard. And we do not know, cannnot know, in the same way that God knows, what his standards are for labeling something either good or bad. We must let out minds rest on the knowledge that God can do anything he wants to, and so things have worked out exactly as he created them to.

    Consider your desire to spend eternity in heaven: do you desire that because you fear the alternative, or because you like who God is and what he represents? Seems that God set up a situation where he would end up with people who were there only because they wanted to be there.

    We have to assume that something has changed or will change and that God alone will be enough for us in heaven. Because, by his own admission, he alone was not enough for Adam. And so he created a help for Adam who would force Adam to choose between her and God. The real lesson they never taught in Sunday School is that we are supposed to choose her. God has already anticipated that choice by creating the plan of salvation for us before he even created the world. What good would that plan be if we chose him over Eve?

  77. Dave says:

    @ Gunner:

    So I am content to be entirely devoted to Christ while being frequently upset with all the evil and suffering God refuses to banish.

    An interesting assertion. While I don’t claim to have al the answers, I think I can make a contribution.
    First, you won’t be the first to question God’s apparent injustice in the way He runs the world. David was thoroughly frustrated too, when he saw what was happening in his day.

    Psalm 73:

    11 And they say, How doth God know? and is there knowledge in the most High?
    12 Behold, these are the ungodly, who prosper in the world; they increase in riches.
    13 Verily I have cleansed my heart in vain, and washed my hands in innocency.
    14 For all the day long have I been plagued, and chastened every morning.
    15 If I say, I will speak thus; behold, I should offend against the generation of thy children.
    16 When I thought to know this, it was too painful for me

    Briefly, this is what I understood about it all:
    1. God is NOT running the world at this time; humans are, according to this passage:

    The heaven, even the heavens, are the LORD’S: but the earth hath he given to the children of men. Psalm 115:16

    That said, it is not legal for God to intervene in man’s affairs uninvited—same way your landlord cannot enter into your apartment uninvited, though he owns the house. Of course, in emergencies, God can do anything, just your landlord can enter your apartment when he thinks something is wrong (e.g. a fire).
    This is the basis of prayers: we invite God into our affairs when we pray, and that gives God the right to intervene in our affairs on earth.
    Moreover, God is far more interested in getting the sinner saved, so He is more inclined to give them more and more chances, so that they can repent. As a matter of fact, this period is sometimes referred to as the coming in of the Gentiles (into the faith, see Romans 11:25).

    2. The current period of man’s stewardship of the earth will culminate in the coming of the antichrist, which in turn will be terminated by the coming of Christ.

    3. Although the earth was given to man, man sold out to the devil in the fall. Therefore, in practical terms, the devil is running the show on earth at this time. Christ called the devil the god of this world. God did not make him a god; man did.

    We know that we are children of God, and that the whole world is under the control of the evil one. 1 John 5:19

    Until Christ establishes His eternal Kingdom, God is not responsible for the things going on in the world. He ha as much freedom to act as man allows him to.
    So the next time you feel frustrated about world events, remember that man is actually THE ONLY ONE who can change things at this time, unless the word is at a brink of irreversible disaster, or God’s predetermined program dictates He acts. Ordinarily, God is limited by what man allows Him to do on earth.

    Charles Capps explained this much better in his book

  78. Dale says:

    @Ron
    >We were in charge and blew it. We took the easy route, we went along with a really bad idea.

    To what “we” are you referring? I do not advocate for women. I do not encourage feminists. I refuse to marry a woman who is unworthy.
    In my experience, it is primarily women who refuse to allow a healthy marriage or nation, not men.

    >our beloved wonderful precious angelic princess sisters

    As a work of God they are wonderful and valuable, being made in the image of God. But most women choose to be far from wonderful or angelic. Many do have princess entitlement issues however, so I’ll grant you that one.
    Do you have daughters or something?

  79. King Alfred says:

    @FNG: “Slightly OT: Is there a single resource (preferably Scripture-heavy) that completely deconstructs the idea that one can be a Feminist (2.0 on) and a good Christian (vice Churchian).”

    I would highly recommend reading the book Contra Feminism by Joseph Keysor. Other than Dalrock’s blog and the old Biblical Manhood blog, It is probably the best Christian resource I have found on the topic.

  80. infowarrior1 says:

    @Gunner Q
    ”So I am content to be entirely devoted to Christ while being frequently upset with all the evil and suffering God refuses to banish.”

    The reason Christ did what he did is because his Father sent him to accomplish the task of redemption of a people for his own pleasure. Christ died for us because it is his Father’s will.

    All this suffering and evil God allows for reasons we do not comprehend other than his longsuffering so that people may be saved. But we must take comfort in the fact that it will all come to an end and Justice will be done.

    Satan is still the prince of this world so in the meantime we are behind enemy lines and so all the evil associated with this fallen world impacts us all. We in the meantime help Christ prepare the way for his return,

  81. BillyS says:

    I made it through with an outcome I can live with. Just need to get it all legal now.

  82. RichardP says:

    In rereading my comment above, I see I need to be more specific about my final sentence. If Adam had chosen God over Eve, there would be no children (Adam with God in the garden; Eve banished from garden). If no children, then no Mary, who gave birth to Christ, the final sacrifice. Without Christ, and his death as the final sacrifice, Eve would have died in her sin – with no hope of redemption. That is not the outcome that God had crafted before he created the earth. The plan of salvation, the hope of the resurrection, works only if Adam chooses Eve.

  83. Original Laura says:

    @BillyS — I hope the rest of the process goes smoothly for you. It will be such a huge relief for you when all the paperwork is finished.

  84. Ron says:

    @Dale

    To what “we” are you referring?

    Was referring to all Men as a whole.

    our beloved wonderful precious angelic princess sisters

    Sarcasm.

  85. Ron says:

    @da gbfm

    Thus when women hit menopause, and fall to 0 reproductive value, should they not be sent to the front lines of all wars?

    No. Simply stop forcibly transferring to them resources from men who actually work. ie, stop taxing honest men to pay for dishonest women’s bad life decisions, and they will serve as an object lesson to the younger women on what not to do in life.

  86. BillyS says:

    It will Laura, especially now that we have reached this point.

    Just need to get it on the right legal forms, signed and then blessed by a judge. This is a significant hurdle for me.

  87. Stroller says:

    Western Europe for much of the middle ages, for most people, was in a subsistence economy where both men and women had to sublimate almost all forms of desire, obviously among those being sexual expectation, and ally with one another to make the best go of male and female virtues and powers. So – monogamy, and the stocks, and banishment, and hangings, and monastaries, went a long way.
    South eastern Europe had all of those, a large standing army and navy, Persians, Bulgars and Arabs, and a widespread practice of eunuchry.
    Outcome : less eligible men.

    That goes a long way to put into plain why it worked then and isn’t working now. Who knows the answer but from a conservative standpoint where conservative is concerned with culture, heritage, tradition and most of all the necessity of community to provide for all of those things and stable families that make life worth living – you know the best I can figure out is we seem to need a lot more monasteries. Reinvent them, add some variety, make them acceptable to Protestant sensibilities, heck even to atheist sensibilities, but bottom line: to get back to anything anyone here recognizes as remotely normal: you’re gonna need to drive the number of eligible men way, way, way, … way, way, way, … down.
    Then you might see some respect. Shoot some dollars at a monastery men – they are doing you a solid.

  88. feeriker says:

    To what “we” are you referring? I do not advocate for women. I do not encourage feminists.

    Understood, and I hate collectivist assumptions as much as the next guy. However, the fact is that it was men –not women– in positions of power who, on behalf of all men under their authority (most of whom surely objected to the PTB’s decision) decided to enable women’s rebellion and release the forces that are destroying civilization.

    I know I’m almost certainly wrong to think so, but I cannot shake the feeling that our forebears were less than courageous in or less than dedicated to fighting what they knew to be the opening –or was it destruction?– of Pandora’s box.

  89. Feminist Hater says:

    In rereading my comment above, I see I need to be more specific about my final sentence. If Adam had chosen God over Eve, there would be no children (Adam with God in the garden; Eve banished from garden). If no children, then no Mary, who gave birth to Christ, the final sacrifice. Without Christ, and his death as the final sacrifice, Eve would have died in her sin – with no hope of redemption. That is not the outcome that God had crafted before he created the earth. The plan of salvation, the hope of the resurrection, works only if Adam chooses Eve.

    You assume that God would not have made Adam another helper… that is one huge assumption. That was the tipping point. Adam could have chosen to banish Eve and live in Eden with God for eternity, thus any children he might have had with a new helper, would have never been fallen like us. No sin.

    Eve perishes. Is that your issue?

  90. Feminist Hater says:

    We have to assume that something has changed or will change and that God alone will be enough for us in heaven. Because, by his own admission, he alone was not enough for Adam. And so he created a help for Adam who would force Adam to choose between her and God. The real lesson they never taught in Sunday School is that we are supposed to choose her. God has already anticipated that choice by creating the plan of salvation for us before he even created the world. What good would that plan be if we chose him over Eve?

    Eve was a test for Adam. Simply as that. God gave Adam a helper to see how Adam would handle it. Would he stick to the straight and narrow or choose the helper over God. I don’t think we are to choose her above God. God punished Adam for that directly. A rather unfitting punishment if that is what we are meant to do, don’t you think?

  91. Dave says:

    If Adam had chosen God over Eve, there would be no children (Adam with God in the garden; Eve banished from garden).

    Are you suggesting that God who made Eve for Adam could not replace her?
    I don’t think so. He would probably have created another Eve for him, and life would have been back to normal. The original Eve would have perished in her sin, and that would actually have been a good thing, because only one soul would have been lost, not the billions of people who will never experience eternal life.

  92. Opus says:

    “O fair foundation laid whereon to build
    Their ruin! Hence I will excite their minds
    With more desire to know, and to reject
    Envious commands, invented with design
    To keep them low whom knowledge might exalt
    Equal with Gods; aspiring to be such,
    They taste and die: what likelier can ensue?
    But first with narrow search I must walk round
    This garden, and no corner leave unspied
    A chance but chance may lead where I may meet
    Some wandering spirit of Heaven, by fountain side,
    Or in thick shade retired, from him to draw
    What further would be learnt. Live while ye may,
    Yet happy pair; enjoy, till I return,
    Short pleasures, for long woes are to succeed”

    Paradise Lost; Book 4 lines 521- 535

  93. Ron says:

    @FeministHater

    You assume that God would not have made Adam another helper… that is one huge assumption

    Or rather, that Eve wouldn’t have been immensely attracted to her husband dismissing her. Women love a man who can walk away.

  94. PokeSalad says:

    Adam could have saved it all with Dread Game.

  95. Gunner Q says:

    infowarrior1 @ January 11, 2017 at 7:05 pm:
    “Satan is still the prince of this world so in the meantime we are behind enemy lines and so all the evil associated with this fallen world impacts us all. We in the meantime help Christ prepare the way for his return.”

    Better to say, we hold out for Christ’s return. Revelation is clear enough that the Church’s ultimate accomplishments will not amount to more than survival.

    Which is why I said what I did, to help others survive. Lots of guys are angry at God these days for all kinds of good reasons, and the way to encourage them isn’t by saying their anger is inappropriate or life will be better after they’re dead. Certainly not by telling them God is unable to help. You encourage them by sharing scar stories, by talking of your own time in the same trenches. That’s brotherhood. That’s exactly how I can relate to Christ more easily than the Old Testament’s stack of Do’s and Don’ts. That’s exactly why Pastor PhD is a useless sack of ship… but I digress.

    For the record, I’m not angry at God like I used to be. He’s actually put me in one of the last good spots in California with work that’s a true pleasure. I’m happy to be where I am but by the Lord, getting here was Hell on Earth. All of God’s favorites reach that sentiment.

    The idea that God cannot intervene because the devil is in charge is a common but serious heresy. Yes, the devil generally runs the show. No, the devil cannot blow his own nose unless God holds the tissue. You must understand, God tolerates the devil only because the devil can do things God can’t, like lie to & tempt us. That tests humanity in ways God wants, without God being responsible for the lies & temptations… but it does not mean God’s hands are tied, that He’s unable to protect us and only human effort can save His plans & people from ruin.

    The early chapters of Job are a rare insight into the business dealings between God & Satan. It’s obvious the Murderer has all the freedom of a gang boss in a prison yard.

  96. BillyS says:

    That is a heresy itself. The devil is called “The Prince of the Power of the Air.” That indicates much more than having each action under tight scrutiny.

    God is of course the ultimate authority, but He has chosen a way to work that messes with our human reasoning. Get over it. I can’t master it all with my brain, but that is fortunately not required.

    ====

    Adam was much more connected to Eve than many of you realize. She was not just one of many fish, she was literally taken from him to be his perfect match. The Fall did not negate that match.

    It is quite possible that God would have worked with Adam for some resolution if only Eve had sinned, but that didn’t happen so we have no need to waste any time speculating on that. Eve was just as important to God, even after her sin, as Adam was.

    The only speculation I would put forth is the principle under the law that a woman was freed from an obligation if it was overruled by her father or husband. (I need to research the details here.)

    We do need to keep in mind that God loved all mankind, including Eve (women) and the context then was different than the context now.

  97. Johann Bachmeer says:

    @Dave

    To say that God does not intervene in human affairs is quite false as proven in the Old and New Testaments, to hold up 2 primary examples, Paul (the Apostle) and Nebuchadnezzar II.

    Nebuchadnezzar II, one of the greatest Kings of Babylon during the time of Daniel who if according to your premise would have been unaffected by the prophecy determined for him yet it came to pass iresspective of all his supposed “free will” and attempts to the disannul it.

    “Dan 4:17 This matter is by the decree of the watchers, and the demand by the word of the holy ones: to the intent that the living may know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will, and setteth up over it the basest of men.” The first time it is proclaimed.

    “Dan 4:24 This is the interpretation, O king, and this is the decree of the most High, which is come upon my lord the king:
    Dan 4:25 That they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field, and they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and they shall wet thee with the dew of heaven, and seven times shall pass over thee, till thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” The second proclaimation and twice called a decree, and that to God (who is the most High).

    “Dan 4:30 The king spake, and said, Is not this great Babylon, that I have built for the house of the kingdom by the might of my power, and for the honour of my majesty?
    Dan 4:31 While the word was in the king’s mouth, there fell a voice from heaven, saying, O king Nebuchadnezzar, to thee it is spoken; The kingdom is departed from thee.
    Dan 4:32 And they shall drive thee from men, and thy dwelling shall be with the beasts of the field: they shall make thee to eat grass as oxen, and seven times shall pass over thee, until thou know that the most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever he will.” The third proclamation and thrice restating that God rules the earth.

    And here is what the great King Nebuchadnezzar II said after God reduced him to a beast, humiliated him in front of his entire nation and made him live like such a creature for 7 years:
    “Dan 4:34 And at the end of the days I Nebuchadnezzar lifted up mine eyes unto heaven, and mine understanding returned unto me, and I blessed the most High, and I praised and honoured him that liveth for ever, whose dominion is an everlasting dominion, and his kingdom is from generation to generation:
    Dan 4:35 And all the inhabitants of the earth are reputed as nothing: and he doeth according to his will in the army of heaven, and among the inhabitants of the earth: and none can stay his hand, or say unto him, What doest thou?”

    That last part is refferenced 7 other times but most prominent “Ecc 8:4 Where the word of a king is, there is power: and who may say unto him, What doest thou?, Job 9:12 Behold, he taketh away, who can hinder him? who will say unto him, What doest thou?”
    To cross reference Ecc 8:4 here is your King: Dan 4:37 Now I Nebuchadnezzar praise and extol and honour the King of heaven, all whose works are truth, and his ways judgment: and those that walk in pride he is able to abase.

    Course we cannot get any plainer then the prayer of Hannah:
    “1Sa 2:6 The LORD killeth, and maketh alive: he bringeth down to the grave, and bringeth up.
    1Sa 2:7 The LORD maketh poor, and maketh rich: he bringeth low, and lifteth up.
    1Sa 2:8 He raiseth up the poor out of the dust, and lifteth up the beggar from the dunghill, to set them among princes, and to make them inherit the throne of glory: for the pillars of the earth are the LORD’S, and he hath set the world upon them.
    1Sa 2:9 He will keep the feet of his saints, and the wicked shall be silent in darkness; for by strength shall no man prevail.”

    What God has purposed no man can resist or stop, never heard of a grasshopper stopping absolute omnipotence or a fish jump out of its fishbowl and kill its owner. Balaam and Isaiah said it best:

    Balaam: “Num 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?”

    Isaiah: “Isa 14:24 The LORD of hosts hath sworn, saying, Surely as I have thought, so shall it come to pass; and as I have purposed, so shall it stand:
    Isa 14:25 That I will break the Assyrian in my land, and upon my mountains tread him under foot: then shall his yoke depart from off them, and his burden depart from off their shoulders.
    Isa 14:26 This is the purpose that is purposed upon the whole earth: and this is the hand that is stretched out upon all the nations.
    Isa 14:27 For the LORD of hosts hath purposed, and who shall disannul it? and his hand is stretched out, and who shall turn it back?”

    God has said therefore he will do, he has spoken therefore he shall make it good be it in the heavens above or the earth below none will stay his hand, his work is evidenced daily:

    • 131.4 million births per year
    • 55.3 million people die each year (The Lord killeth)
    • 360,000 births per day (and maketh alive)
    • 151,600 people die each day (the Lord killeth)
    • 15,000 births each hour (and maketh alive)
    • 6,316 people die each hour (The Lord killeth)
    • 250 births each minute (and maketh alive)
    • 105 people die each minute (the Lord killeth)
    • Four births each second of every day (and maketh alive)
    Sources: Population Reference Bureau & The World Factbook (Central Intelligence Agency)

    As for Paul the Apostle the Lord said of him “Act 9:15 But the Lord said unto him, Go thy way: for he is a chosen vessel unto me, to bear my name before the Gentiles, and kings, and the children of Israel:
    Act 9:16 For I will shew him how great things he must suffer for my name’s sake.”

    God chose him and he could no more escape it than Jonah who with all his hubris thought he could run from God (for he willed not to go to Ninevah yet he ended up at Ninevah regardless).

    God knows what he will do and what he will not do, and the history of the world is nothing more than a testament to what God decided to do from all eternity for “Act 15:18 Known unto God are all his works from the beginning of the world.”

  98. BillyS says:

    I will note that my reply was aimed at the idea that the devil cannot do anything outside God’s direct will. God clearly involves Himself in the affairs of humanity as He sees appropriate. I see it more like a CEO than a micro-manager. He can intervene in almost any area, but only does so in very limited areas. (He will not make someone be reborn, except for Calvanists, for example. He also cannot sin.)

  99. FNG says:

    Thank you, Dal. et al.
    Married 16 years, pattern established, many other details, screwups on my part, as they say Long Story. Working on my frame. And no, I’m not a lawyer myself. STEM guy…never saw it coming….

  100. feeriker says:

    You must understand, God tolerates the devil only because the devil can do things God can’t, like lie to & tempt us.

    I think it’s much more accurate to say here that Satan can do things that God WON’T do. God is fully capable of doing anything and everything that Satan can do and more that we can’t even begin to comprehend. He is, after all, God. Almighty. All-knowing. Creator of the universe.

    The difference is that God WON’T do the evil things that Satan does. He assures us of this in his Scriptures. He doesn’t need to do evil, because that is the Supreme Fallen Angel’s department. If God was committed to spiritual duality (think of “The Force” from Star Wars, half good and half evil), then He would have destroyed Satan when he rebelled. Or, even more likely, He would never have created him in the first place.

  101. Höllenhund says:

    Why do so many pastors preach self-serving “Only real man in the room” and belittle men? Who benefits? Who makes money off it? Power?

    To go against current cultural trends is an alien concept to them, because these churches have traditionally seen themselves as a hegemonic cultural force in US society. They think it’s self-evident that they are a mainstream phenomenon, and they also assume that the US is still a fundamentally Christian society with a Christian majority. To do a sort of U-turn by promoting the idea of female agency and responsibility, and also male headship, which is something they have pretty much never done, would be the equivalent of becoming a marginalized countercultural force in a society where public morals are set to become even more dechristianized in the future. They don’t want that.

  102. BillyS says:

    Feeriker,

    [Heb 6:18 KJV] 18 That by two immutable things, in which [it was] impossible for God to lie, we might have a strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold upon the hope set before us:

    It is impossible for God to lie. That is not just something He won’t do, He cannot do that. Yes He remains God, but He can’t lie. Some see that as a limitation, but I see it as an innate characteristic.

  103. feeriker says:

    To go against current cultural trends is an alien concept to them, because these churches have traditionally seen themselves as a hegemonic cultural force in US society.

    It’s much more prosaic than that.

    The reason pastors spew the egalitarian feminist garbage from the pulpit and written page that they do is because to preach the truth from the plain text of the Scriptures, which also would mean holding the women of the church accountable for their ungodly and rebellious behavior, would precipitate a tsunami of estrogen heading for the exits, which would naturally lead to most of the testosterone (what precious little there is of it) following suit. This would lead to nearly empty collection plates, an intolerable notion in today’s churchian corporate environmemt. Since churchians yave no real trust in God to do anything, they see no other alternative than to pander to the secular culture.

  104. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @Feminist Hater:

    Name calling in lieu of argument is the last vestige of an exhausted mind; I am sure you are better than that. I think its a theory worth investigating; I haven’t read much discussion on it, just a presumption by most that it was a literal tree and not figurative. Why is that so hard to contemplate? Satan was referred to by many names, as was the Christ. The serpent was most certainly a figurative reference to Satan in that very chapter, so why is it impossible for him to also be the tree. Is Christ not referred to as the “tree of life” in Revelation 22:2? There are so many opinions and extrapolations of scriptures and logic here, that I find it hard to understand why you view my question as “stirring shit up”. Not that at all, just a good faith question as I have always wondered why Eve would fall into rebellion so easily and why Adam let her draw him into it so easily when they were living in paradise and could have had eternal life in Eden. The sexual impulse being the most ingrained, natural, and strongest while also being the most destructive (in my opinion) would explain alot about many of the things discussed here.

  105. Boxer says:

    Dear Billy:

    It is impossible for God to lie. That is not just something He won’t do, He cannot do that. Yes He remains God, but He can’t lie. Some see that as a limitation, but I see it as an innate characteristic.

    This is an interesting philosophical argument (caveat: I’m not much good at philosophy) that resembles theodicy. (Theodicy is a fancy term that refers to an old epicurean question about why a perfect god created an imperfect world).

    Personally, I don’t see any reason to hobble this character. When I read about him, it seems like he can do anything he wants, from moment to moment.

    I do think there’s a fair point to be made saying he wouldn’t bother to lie to us. Would you lie to your pets? There’s no reason to.

    God is on a much higher plane than we are, and I can’t see any motivation for him to do that. Closest he comes is just ignoring us when we ask questions, as we really aren’t in any position to demand any answers.

    Boxer

  106. BillyS says:

    The Scriptures say God cannot lie, so I take that as a given Boxer. He clearly does live far above us and we cannot fully understand Him, but we still know what is truth in almost any reasonable situation. Jesus said that no earthly father would give his children bad things, thus we could trust our heavenly Father. I believe this principle would also apply to lying.

    Allah is the one who is free to lie as he sees fit, which should tell you about who is ultimately in charge of Islam, as an example.

  107. Feminist Hater says:

    Blah, blah Samuel. Provide the Scriptural proof for the assertion that Eve had sex with the devil and Adam had a threesome with them after the fact. Provide the proof or shut up.

  108. Feminist Hater says:

    Not that at all, just a good faith question as I have always wondered why Eve would fall into rebellion so easily and why Adam let her draw him into it so easily when they were living in paradise and could have had eternal life in Eden. The sexual impulse being the most ingrained, natural, and strongest while also being the most destructive (in my opinion) would explain alot about many of the things discussed here.

    It isn’t a good faith question. It is to stir shit up. No where in the Bible does God ask Eve, “Why did you have sex with the Devil, Serpent or Tree of knowledge?” It just isn’t there. It refers to ‘eating the fruit’, there is no need to conflate that as ‘sex’.

    You’ve taken a wildly out of place idea, that of the Serpent being the Tree of Knowledge, and then concocted some twisted plot to make the simple idea of Adam and Eve disobeying God into them having sex with the devil. If you’re going to make such an assertion, you need to find Scriptural proof that explains that it was so. Eating the fruit will remain eating the fruit and the serpent will remain the serpent until you find the Scriptural proof that calls directly the Serpent as the Tree of Knowledge.

    Furthermore, Jesus is not referred to as the Tree of Life, though he does bring eternal life. Don’t conflate the two. Your Revelations passage doesn’t say that Christ is the Tree of Life. Once again, they are two different things.

  109. Feminist Hater says:

    The logical conclusion of Samuel’s inanity would be that to eat of the ‘Tree of Life’ would be to have sex with Jesus. And of course by there being the Holy Trinity, having sex with God and the Holy Spirit too.

  110. About selling the house……good you have. House with equity.

    About the rest. …..The Lift by any name is still The Lift

  111. @feeriker

    “which also would mean holding the women of the church accountable for their ungodly and rebellious behavior, would precipitate a tsunami of estrogen heading for the exits, which would naturally lead to most of the testosterone (what precious little there is of it) following suit.”

    Without a plan, that is likely what would happen. But consider this: I recently helped bury a friend in my hometown at the local Episcopalian Church, and what was striking to me (I am Catholic) was how *every* leadership position during the funeral was taken by a female. The only role for a man in the ceremony was altar “boy”. I was told by the family that that Church’s membership was dwindling rapidly, and male attendance was lacking (go figure). It was eerie being at that ceremony; as a male, call me a sexist pig, but I simply could not take it seriously. The pastor leading it had divorced her husband and remarried of course.

    @dalrock has challenged all of us to point to Church’s where women are called out on their rebellion, and he has had almost no takers. One solution for Protestants could be male-only, non-denominational (all denominations have been captured by the FI at this point) congregations where the truth is told and men can be men (i.e., Red Pill but without the fornication part). For Catholics, again this has to be formally independent of the church due to FI hegemony, but male-only (possibly secret) societies that are non-heretical and that create breathing spaces for men to practice their faith independent of FI hegemony. Yes there would be many practical problems with this (the biggest being Blue Pill Christian men being bullied into not participating by their wives), but we have to start somewhere.

  112. King Alfred says:

    @Emperor Constantine:

    I have had similar experiences at several funerals I attended in the last few years. It is very demoralizing to go to pay my last respects to a close friend or a family member only to be subjected to grandstanding feminist harpies and their lapdogs. It is revolting that they can taint even the most solemn occasions with their filth.

  113. BillyS says:

    I would guess that is for me empath. I agree that keeping the house is good. I have a bit of debt now, but I can work hard and retire that as soon as this thing is final.

  114. King says:

    Dalrock

    I just finished Tomassi’s book which was eye opening, but challenging in that it wasn’t completely clear how to separate that which was godly from worldly. I was able to get a good feel for what was truth but wanted to careful not to open up my heart too fully to the advice. Then he recommended you at the end, and I was deeply thankful.

    I began this journey several years ago with Wild at heart and have grown dramatically but still always keeping my life female centric. Now, I get it, and while it has created a bunch of sh** tests over the last fews days I can already see how it has dramatically improved my marriage, my freedom, and my wife’s.

    So can you point me to where I start at this from your Christian perspective?

  115. Dalrock says:

    Welcome King,

    I have a few posts that you might want to start with:

    I would also suggest checking out Cane Caldo and Scott’s blogs. I’m sure others will have good suggestions as well.

  116. Samuel Culpepper says:

    @Feminist Hater:

    I never said or implied that the scriptures expressly tell us that satan is the “tree” or that the rebellion was some sort of sexual sin, I only offered it as one possibility given my belief that this was figurative language. I thought of it more along the lines of God telling Adam and Eve to stay away from Satan and to have nothing to do with him, sexual or otherwise. Their shame for their nakedness was the strongest language that suggested this was a possibility, but you and I both know we will never know for sure in this life. If I understand you correctly, you read the scriptures literally unless the scripture itself reads that it is figurative or parable? That seems unworkable to me.

    P.S. You really should read some of the scriptures on being hot to temper as that seems your inclination when you find something disagreeable. I admire that you are on fire for the scriptures it would seem, but name calling makes you appear to be something I am sure you are not . . . an immature, liberal, woman. I am sure a feminist hater like yourself wouldn’t under any circumstance, want to appear womanish.

Please see the comment policy linked from the top menu.

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