A few weeks ago Nathan Alberson reached out asking if I would be willing to join his podcast Sound of Sanity for an interview. I declined the request to join the podcast, but offered instead to do an interview via email. Nathan agreed, and we are nearing completion of the interview. I’ve responded to all of Nathan’s original questions as well as his followup questions to date. Once we are done Nathan will create a podcast regarding the exchange and I’ll publish the discussions as a series of posts lightly edited for clarity.
Nathan is the Creative Director of Warhorn Media, a media ministry of Clearnote Church, Bloomington, In. Clearnote Church is Pastor Tim Bayly’s church.
Nathan describes Sound of Sanity as:
…a podcast combining discussion, satire, and storytelling to examine where we are as a culture today and remind Christians we’re the sane ones, not them.
My guess is I will start posting our exchanges either next week or the week after. I doubt the exchange will change many (if any) minds on either side, but at least it will help us better understand where we disagree. I appreciate that Nathan was curious enough to reach out to me and I have enjoyed our exchange. More to follow once we wrap it up.
Update: Click here to see the whole series.
It is certain that many will disagree with me, but you are quite right to avoid the podcast and limit interaction to email questions. Talking with any media of any sort is not a good idea right now for a variety of reasons. Text is much, much better.
Your postings on the interchange will make for interesting reading. Thanks very much in general.
Toni is now considering scholarship offers from Bethany College, Adams State University, Graceland University and Kentucky Christian University
Never, ever talk to the media. Good job limiting to just email. That way, when things get misconstrued and edited to their benefit, you can produce the actual exchange.
Yes, I know, “they’re Christian” but, as Reagan said, trust but verify.
As the world is eulogizing Stan Lee this week, and as we wait for the coming interview, here is something to toss around. I’m curious how folks respond to the following.
Stan Lee did superhero characters. When young, I enjoyed reading comic books about super heros. I was never confused that the superheros were real, doing real exploits. But I like the way that they fired my imagination. One of my favorites was a fellow by the name of Plasma Man. His unique gift was that he could peel off parts of himself and those separate parts could turn themselves into any object that was needed in the moment. When the need for them had passed, the effortlessly rejoined the main blob of plasma that was Plasma Man.
The issue that has troubled the church is the doctrine of the Trinity, specifically whether the Son is subordinate to the Father in eternity. Tim and David Bayly assert that he is. People such as Liam Galigher, Carl Trueman say he is not.
As I matured and became exposed to the concept of the Trinity, I carried the concept of Plasma Man with me. Not being disrespectful at all, but because of my familiarity with Plasma Man’s exploits, the idea that Jesus and God are one, yet can be two separate entities (if that is the correct word) seemed perfectly natural to me. Particularly since we do not know what form God and Jesus are in their own domain. If Jesus and God truely are one, as Jesus said, then we can assume that they are of the same substance. As needed, Jesus proceeds from the Father, and does whatever needs doing, as a separate entity (the manger, the miracles, the cross, etc). When finished, he returns to the Father. Since eternity is a long time, I think we are not the only things that God has ever created, and so I can envision this separating and rejoining as an ongoing thing over eternity. And if Jesus and God are indeed of the same substance, then the spirit of each would be of the same spirit (and I mean this in the manner of “she has such a sweet spirit; he has such a belligerent spirit; he demonstrated such a courageous spirit, etc.”) I know the early Church split over, among other things, their belief in whether the Holy Spirit emanates only from God, or from both God and Jesus. So I am not stating a position on the term “spirit” here. Just offering something to think about while we wait.
In the context of Plasma Man, when Jesus separates from God, retaining the substance that is God, but turning himself into whatever form is needed at the moment, his is indeed at that moment a subset of God, the smaller blob of plasma separated momentarily from the larger blob of plasma. But subset of does not need to mean subordinate to.
I’ve just painted a picture image for purposes of private thought. Not enough time or space here to suss it all out. But if the general thrust of what I said is true – subset of, not subordinate to – we must think that through in terms of the subset saying “not my will but yours”. In that transaction, the subset is subordinating his will to something. There is significance in that. That calls for the simple model I’ve presented here to be fleshed out into something more complex that takes all of the known truths into account.
I intend this to just be something to think about, and debate in an informed fashion, not something to argue over.
I look forward to the interview post. The Christians that do try to engage with these issues generally are signalling their virtue in some way. Honest debate is in short supply, as the recent twitter exchange between Bnonn and Rollo Tomassi showed.
Frankly it’s embarrasing as a Christian to watch “Christian leaders” such as Bnonn Tennant debate in such a dishonest manner, and reveal that they are just there to try to gain a following instead of chasing the truth.
I hope your interview with Warhorn went better.
Thinking about the Trinity is pretty funky stuff, confusing not the least. Even highly specialized theologians fail to understand each other, let alone the concept. Even the RCC recently admitted after a 1000 years that the filioque issue was some kind of theological “mistake” caused by misinterpretation of the Greek
“the condemnation made at the Second Council of Lyons (1274) of those “who presume to deny that the Holy Spirit proceeds eternally from the Father and the Son [filioque]” is no longer applicable.”
“That, in the future, because of the progress in mutual understanding that has come about in recent decades, Orthodox and Catholics refrain from labeling as heretical the traditions of the other side on the subject of the procession of the Holy Spirit.”
So only in recent decades people have started to understand each other better, and realize they still have lots to learn about the Trinity.
If only the RCC had backed the Byzantines back then…
recent twitter exchange between Bnonn and Rollo Tomassi showed.
I’ll have to go look for that. Probably in the evening, with an adult beverage near to hand.
“For entertainment purposes only”, of course.
Keep protecting your identity, Dalrock. It can only protect you and help you continue to write what you do without giving complementarians or feminists the ability to punish you in real life for saying the truth.
Pingback: Coming soon: Interview with Warhorn Media. | Reaction Times
“Keep protecting your identity, Dalrock. It can only protect you and help you continue to write what you do without giving complementarians or feminists the ability to punish you in real life for saying the truth.”
Agreed. When I saw the reference to “podcast” in sentence number 1 of this post, I was quickly relieved to see the word “declined” in sentence number 2.
We need Dalrock to keep writing without nervous glances over his shoulder for the doxing vultures that would gather.
RichardP, sounds like you know about the LORD, but you haven’t met the Son of Man. He is distinct from the Ancient of Days. There is nothing wrong with liking comic books, but it does not compare to loving the LORD. Read Matthew 22:36-40, and meditate on it.
Good on you, Dalrock, for deciding to take the email route. Your message is important but your safety and family are more so.
Good on Nathan for wanting to hear you out. Better to have these conversations.
Whilst this is probably true there have been times when the argument is too sound that willfully disregarding it will become harder and harder over time. Perhaps this interview is the next step and in time will win them over. Never stop trying, you might learn something from Nathan yourself.
Identity protection by anonymity is probably the best route to deal with all the harassment both governments and private institutions can throw at you, while still making an impact by publishing. Only a cursory glance across the globe will show you how we are arriving in ‘1984’ and beyond at break-neck speed. And it is anti-Christian for sure, disguised in whatever form. If only the money could be made (semi-)anonymous, you could even make a safe living out of it.
One of the biggest issues of chivalry being bad is that it holds up people like Dave Wilson as an example of what TO do as opposed to what NOT to do. Marriages are surely destroyed because of it. I just can’t get over this story, which seems to imply that Mrs. Wilson did something particularly righteous by trapping her husband in a room when both of their tempers were escalated:
Hate to keep going OT here, Dalrock if there’s a better place to contact you with this stuff, let me know.
Bnonn presenting himself as the only real man in the room, calling out Dalrock and Cane Caldo: https://www.getdrip.com/broadcasts/420243878/1b3c279aa8d580054dbbd (it is an article).
We can state the error simply as the inverse of Dalrock’s Law: the belief that women are evil and naturally want to dominate men, followed by demands that women solve this problem by submitting to men.
The Son is subordinate to the Father. King Jeshua talked about that a number of times. Can’t these geniuses just read the Book?
The Spirit is subordinate to the Son. He is the spirit of truth, not Truth itself. Truth is Christ.
Both proceed from Father, and His name is in them.
Paul — “And it is anti-Christian for sure, disguised in whatever form.”
It is and it’ll get a lot worse, real fast, as you’re already aware from studying Scripture.
Man punches two women, while other men watch: https://ktla.com/2019/01/30/man-turns-himself-in-after-video-captures-brutal-assault-on-2-young-women-near-dtla-hot-dog-stand-police/
A man was released on bail Wednesday after authorities arrested him in connection with a brutal assault on two young women in downtown Los Angeles …
The incident apparently began with a man “causing a scene” over the prices of hot dogs being sold outside an unidentified bar …
As the line grew, one of the victims told the man to take his hot dog and leave, prompting him to punch her, the Los Angeles Times reported, cited LAPD Detective Meghan Aguilar.
He then threw one of the women to the ground, and the other came to her defense, the video showed.
But the man — described by LAPD as being 6 feet 3 inches tall and weighing 270 pounds — punched her in the face before “socking” each of them in the head “multiple” times …
Although a crowd formed during the incident, no one intervened to stop the man, nor did they try to help the two women … Instead, the group acted “as if they are watching an MMA fight!” he wrote. “For a crowd of men to sit back and not only watch, but film two girls get beat on … My family and I are disgusted to say the least.”
The ranks of White Knights appears to be thinning.
The man says he was defending himself: https://ktla.com/2019/01/31/i-was-defending-myself-man-accused-of-assaulting-women-in-downtown-l-a-says-video-lacks-context/
“I hear a woman just cussing me out from the back,” he said. “The woman spits on me, and her friend attacks me — physically hits me.”
Oroojian said he then lost his balance and fell to the ground, where the women began kicking him.
“I didn’t really know how many people there were or what was going on,” he told KTLA. “When I got up, I just felt like I had to defend myself. That’s where the video started to show.”
A pack of feral women attack a man, and are surprised that 1. he hits back, and 2. other men just watch.
ray: The Son is subordinate to the Father. King Jeshua talked about that a number of times.
The way I heard it explained …
Jesus is both man and God. As man, he is subordinate to the Father. As God, he is equal to the Father.
@7817 Bnonn is basically saying it takes men to reinstate the patriarchy, we should not wait for women to spontaneously submit.
Jesus said: I and the Father are one. — John 10:30
How can “one” entity be subordinate to itself?
Clearly, Jesus both is, and isn’t, subordinate to the Father.
Bnonn is in a category of church leaders that condemn men for being to patriarchal when they say things he doesn’t like, and not patriarchal enough when they point out the faults of women in a way Bnonn doesn’t like.
He has some good things to say, but throws the amoging in there as well. If men would read the older posts by Dalrock and Rollo they would have the information necessary to see the errors of men like Bnonn. The manosphere has got so many new people coming in though that at this point we have to redo discussions of things that were already figured out before, like AWALT, and what that actually means.
For example, Bnonn says it is unchristian to accept the idea of AWALT. Thing is, all AWALT is is understanding the nature of female biology in a fallen world, and what behaviors that biology pushes a woman to exhibit. Even Christian women have a body that is still subject to the same temptations as any other woman. But Bnonn says this is denying the possibility of regeneration, when in fact it is recognizing biological facts.
Bnonn tweeted out their latest newsletter. They mention Dalrock, but that’s not the part that really concerned me. The overall theme is that men who complain that women have power are placing the blame in the wrong place. Yes, women in power are bad, but only men can give them that power, and men are able to take it away if they want. Therefore, the primary problem is the men who refuse to preach and practice patriarchy out of fear of losing their paycheck, or enraging their horrid wives. I accept that. Men are in charge, and men are in a position to remove women from authority and relegate them to their submissive place in the home and society.
They even recognize the hell men can find themselves in if they decide to teach and practice patriarchy.
Bnonn recognizes the high cost that a man could pay if he mans up and doubles down on his authority over his wife and his home.
My objection stems from a previous paragraph:
It’s true that men could take away women’s power. Whether they can take it away isn’t the point- women have power NOW. Since men will not take women’s authority away, in society or in the church at large, a 50/50 approach makes sense. An emasculated male won’t magically transform into a courageous devil-may-care patriarch overnight. But the wife or husband may change faster than the other. Wouldn’t it make sense to exhort them both equally on the chance that a wife may bow the knee to God and her husband and relinquish the power she should not have? That could certainly happen before the husband asserts his leadership and stands up to her. That sounds like the smartest route to take.
Why would they disagree with this? (I have the answer, but hang on a bit.) Consider another statement they made:
So why not address both problems?
…Because of a lack of energy.
I’m not kidding. Their words, not mine.
Oh, you don’t have the energy to do both? That’s a pretty lousy excuse considering they also wrote:
So what does that make them? Does a silly excuse like a lack of energy make you the chaff? I mean, from their own perspective (emphasis mine):
Why on earth would a lack of energy seem like a sufficient reason to forego the IDEAL SOLUTION??
Re-read that paragraph. They know addressing both immoral men and immoral women is the ideal solution. But they won’t do that- or, can’t, supposedly, because they don’t have the energy to do that.
Does anyone seriously buy that? I sure don’t. And the irony is not lost on the author:
Yeah, it sure does seem to match up. The thing is, they’ve admitted to knowing too much to help themselves to such a flimsy excuse as a lack of energy. They know it makes them look bad, they know the ideal solution requires speaking to women, but because of laziness, they can’t be bothered to do anything but write screeds against men.
Again, does anyone buy that it’s due to a lack of energy? Or isn’t this just a long-winded way of justifying their refusal to confront sinful women? What they call a lack of energy, I call a glorified defense of their cowardice. Because that’s what this is.
Think about it like this: The Patriarchy led by Bnonn and his colleagues- the Patriarchy that will praise and uphold masculinity despite all the possibility of life and limb, paycheck, reputation etc., is going to be spear-headed by men who won’t focus even half their efforts on rebuking immoral women… Because they are lazy.
For the third time-does anyone think that’s the real reason they won’t speak to women?
Do you think these men consider themselves as a bunch of lazy men who can’t be bothered to shoot for the best solution for the sake of the church and obedience to God?
No. They clearly think themselves worthy of scorning pathetic cowardly men who should man up or shut up. Well, they gotta pick one or the other. Either they’re lazy slobs who are taking the cheap easy route of criticizing men only, or they’re courageous Patriarchs who will speak the truth no matter the cost. They can’t be both.
I didn’t expect to write a comment this long. But you know what- the suspicion surrounding the good men project, Bnonn, and Foster has all been justified with this one newsletter. The red-pillers’ worst suspicions have been confirmed. This new project on masculinity is yet another… A-FREAKING-NOTHER collection of cowards who want to teach masculinity by bashing men. And they’ve gone out of their way to punish those very red pillers who caught on to the problem long before they came along.
My guess is that they have to do that because they’ve been forced to address red-pillers’ concerns. They had to respond to them in some way, knowing the usual B.S. excuses like Driscoll’s or Wilson’s wouldn’t work. They had to give themselves cover while admitting to the problems the red pillers focus on, but in doing so, proved that they have no excuse for taking their concerns to heart. But that won’t stop them- the man-bashing will continue, as will the hand-waving of immoral women in power.
Dalrock, I look forward to your response to this article if you decide to write it, but for the love of God and your family, continue to keep your identity safe from these men. They’re just as cowardly, and therefore just as dangerous as complementarians. They will dox you and harrass you if you give them the chance.
RPL says “Although a crowd formed during the incident, no one intervened to stop the man, nor did they try to help the two women … Instead, the group acted “as if they are watching an MMA fight!” he wrote. “For a crowd of men to sit back and not only watch, but film two girls get beat on … My family and I are disgusted to say the least.”
RedPillLatecomer, you know what amuses me?
What are young boys taught in school? Fighting back= mean! Defending or standing up for yourself = mean. Youngs boys are taught in schools to massage each others, while young girls are taught to stand on tables and shout “I’m strong” and stuffs of the kind.
So, what do those men become when they grow? Meak. And what do those women become? Agressive and delusional, thinking they have a chance against a man twice their gabarit!
When those men don’t stand up for themselves or for those strong women who don’t need them, they are shamed, and, in the DailyMail’s comments, called not men.
I thought, after watching the Gillette ad, that men acting agressively and fight playing was toxic. What are men supposed to do? Have an on/off button, with which they can activate an ability to fight at any moment or be passive at any moment?
BTW, here’s the link to the Newsletter I was critiquing: https://www.getdrip.com/broadcasts/420243878/1b3c279aa8d580054dbbd
@ Red Pill Latecomer
Jesus also said that a husband and wife are one. – Matthew 19:4-6
Is a wife subordinate to her husband?
Furthermore, you are a trinity, created in the image of The Holy Trinity. Is your body subordinate to your mind?
Then there’s this:
If “he head of Christ is God”, and Christ is not subordinate to the Father, then you have to also conclude that “the head of woman is man” means that wives are not subordinate to their husbands.
So, is a wife subordinate to her husband, which whom she is “one”?
The overall theme is that men who complain that women have power are placing the blame in the wrong place. Yes, women in power are bad, but only men can give them that power, and men are able to take it away if they want.
Once again the problem with “some” and “all” arises. I have a problem with Sen. Feinstein; her driver for 20 years was an agent of the People’s Republic of China, and she herself is likely working for the PRC. Tell me how I can “take back power” from Diane “Hand them in” Feinstein?
Or if that’s too challenging, how about this: a church that is male-leadership only winds up getting cucked and allowing women onto the leadership board (“Elders” in some polities). How does Joe Average who works full time supporting his wife and three children “take back power” from those women?
Over and over I have run into TradCons and conservative feminists who cannot seem to grasp that “some” men have more authority and power than “all” men. The idea that men with authority have more responsibliity, that if a man is given more power he has more to answer for…they can’t grasp it.
Personally, I learned this idea in my teens as a Boy Scout. I relearned it on the job in my 20’s. How a man could be married with children and yet have no concept of “some” and “all” being different is quite curious. It’s rather feminine…
BTW, here’s the link to the Newsletter I was critiquing:
First: Those guys need either to learn how to write concisely, or to get an editor. Wading through that turgid blob of “ManUP” emotionalism devoid of reason was tedious. I’ve read essays by 20 year old college girls that were much better written.
Second: No way to comment. This is not a surprise.
It is impossible to eliminate hierarchy from the Trinity without erasing the differences between the members of the Godhead. If the Son and Spirit do not submit to the Father, then why aren’t they all three called “the Father”?
We eagerly await the results of the interview, Dalrock. Many have said it and I’ll reiterate: you’re wise to avoid the media at all costs. They are unscrupulous harlots and they particularly love pillorying Christians.
They split this hair by saying only Christ’s human nature is subordinate to the Father, not the Divine nature of God the Son. I agree it’s nonsense, but that’s the argument you need to address, since that is the one they are making.
More Bnonnsense! (the B is silent)
I skimmed through the linked screed, and could not help but notice the internal contradictions.
Thanks 7817, and princeasbel, for the link.
I’ll try to keep this brief, so I’ll not refute their nonsense point by point from scripture, but I’ll just point out that they lack the foundation. Bnonn thinks women are in the image of God, and thus he always starts off base to begin with, his god apparently is feminine, while he is decrying effeminate men for screwing up patriarchy. If God has a feminine side, how can the effeminate be less Godly for emulating their hermaphroditic God? My God is entirely masculine. Feel free to try to answer any of my previous challenges.
Show me a characteristic of God that is exclusive to females?
Show me a place in scripture where any woman is stated to be in the image of God?
Who should we reprove and rebuke and exhort and train in righteousness?
If we have to choose, should it be the men of God, or the women of God?
We don’t believe there’s even the slightest question about this decision. The answer is always the men.
Then they reverse themselves to give plausible deniability to the stupidity of what they said earlier.
In the same way, if you’re a pastor whose congregation will not hear you telling women no, if they will find a way to remove you from leadership, you are called to stand firm. You will suffer, and you may lose your job, but is it better to be a weak man, scratching their itchy ears to save your paycheck? Of course not.
So basically since their isn’t any body forcing them to make a choice and only address men or only address women, they are choosing to mainly address men, due to their false conclusion that men should repent of the rebellion of females.
Your many small victories may be dwarfed by your colossal defeats on the most important and life-changing issues. There is an army of white knights who will fight you on behalf of women, and many of them have real power—pastors, employers, police, judges, bureaucrats. It sucks, and we have every sympathy for you if you are defeated; but war is hell, and this is war. We’re not promised personal victory; we’re promised cosmic victory
Either exercise the power God gave you and stop giving it to brassy whores, or stop whining about brassy whores taking power. It’s your choice. Not theirs.
They invert bible symbol symbols for fun and profit too:
This is because the backbone of the church—as with all society—is patriarchy; not submissive women.
LOL Unfortunately men are only the head. The backbone is part of the body.
Ephesians 5:23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.(church/bride/wife)
Ephesians 5:28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself.
Ephesians 5:32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church.
33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.
Sorry, but women, bearing children, and nursing them, form the generational vertebrae in the backbone of the society. Children are the future, hand that rocks the cradle, Etc. Men are the head, and women are the body, according to God. The men need to direct the women, the women need to do as they’re told. If the man directs his wife to submit and she doesn’t, Bnonn thinks the man needs some lecture from an interloping pastor, who is not head over the man, and the man needs to repent of some evil, that must be in the man, causing her to rebel.
1 Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
There are no religious leader in God’s hierarchy.
Here is a question to wrestle with. If the husband and the wife are an image or picture of Christ and the church, which one is in the image of God? LOL LOL LOL I got you there! But the fools will never learn.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
Bnonn’s god is hermaphroditic!
If ministers want to be something, here is what Jesus told His disciples, who were the heads of the early church:
Mark 10:43 But so shall it not be among you: but whosoever will be great among you, shall be your minister: 44 And whosoever of you will be the chiefest, shall be servant of all. 45 For even the Son of man came not to be ministered unto, but to minister, and to give his life a ransom for many.
So if those “ministers” want to minister to men, they do it by serving them. Helping them confront their rebellious wives, not taking a shit on them for their wives’ rebellion!
They’re fake! False teaching! At the end there was a place to collect your money out of gratitude for how they beatdown men made in god’s image.
James 3:8 But the tongue can no man tame; it is an unruly evil, full of deadly poison. 9 Therewith bless we God, even the Father; and therewith curse we men, which are made after the similitude of God.
Dalrock has never hit me up for money. He freely shares what he has been given of the Lord.
I think, in this age, “minister” has come to mean, not somebody who serves others, but somebody who makes a living mooching off of Christ’s bride.
They can’t serve two masters, God and money, but they’re trying! They’ve got their hand out, after claiming to be God’s servants. And it is because of the money that they have the energy to mainly confront men. Because woman are far less likely to pay for criticism, no matter how constructive it might be.
In the same way, if you’re a pastor whose congregation will not hear you telling women no, if they will find a way to remove you from leadership, you are called to stand firm.
One of the authors is a pastor in South Carolina. Perhaps a survey of his sermons would be a good thing to do, because he’s got to be leading by example.
I would like to fisk that article. Can you confirm that Bnonn is the author of it, however? The link had no identification and the parent website seems to be an e-commerce platform.
Here’s the Tweet where he linked to it and called it “our newsletter:.
Your god is made in your own image and ability to think. Over analyzing God leads to idiocy, whatever your goal.
God has some feminine aspects in the Scriptures, yet is portrayed as very masculine most of the time. Stop trying to put it all in a neat box and focus on what is important, not arguments over foolish words.
One thing about the TradCons: they never lack for generic “Just be a patriarch! Be yourself!” advice, and they never, ever, have any real, actionable advice. Probably a combination of some degree of natural Game and a compliant woman.
Men in other parts of the androsphere are turning marriages around with Game. No thanks to any preacher, celebrity or otherwise. This fact speaks for itself.
In fact, I will be more blunt: there are men who were on the verge of killing themselves over women who are still alive because of some part of the androsphere having the right Red Pill / Glasses truth available that pulled them back from the edge, gave them the mental tools to deal with the situation instead of despairing over it.
How many preachers can say the same?
I think I found the Twitter exchange between Rollo Tomassi and Bnomm. Not much of an exchange, really. Rollo’s points went completely unchallenged – probably uncomprehended – by Bnomm. But I did enjoy it with my adult beverage.
Men are becoming like a bad cocaine addiction because of Game………..ruder, meaner, nastier, badder and to top it all off a self-righteous arrogance. Pedetalizing women by catering eactly to her moods, what poking her PMS at the moment and creating a whole cottage industry to “decoding the secret clues and language of what women really mean”
Sounds and IS exhausting. I prefer the Bible. Have your yes mean “yes” and your no mean “no” and that applies to all believers
I welcome all discussion challenging the feminist status-quo, and as such am interested in what Bnonn has to bring to the table regarding a Christian viewpoint on this issue. To be fair, in the man-o-sphere a lot of voices correctly identify the problem with feminism, but offer solutions totally unacceptable to any devout Christian. As such we need to integrate viewpoints and rethink the issue from a biblical point of view. I’ve yet to see Bnonn deliver; what I’ve seen from the linked articles and some of the excellent remarks in the comments here, he does not impress.
In fact…..AR, since you know of men being saved or pulled from the edge…….I humbly ask:
Please get one to come here, chat with and explain Game or the “real” Red Pill (as opposed to the fake red pill 99% of men are not following). I would even be willing to use Dalrock or Boxer as intermidiary to prevent public displays of phone numbers or emails.
Perhaps this changed life, a really desperate man could perhaps really explain in a tangible way that all of you have not been able to explain to me with the usual negging, blowing off, and outright nastiness that many of you are known for here.
I’m serious. Find this man in the androphere, and explain, “got a really tough case here. Needs help with this, could you try and help him, or explain in a very basic way of how this changed or helped.”
Wishful thinking I know 😉
@seventiesjason, you can easily open up https://therationalmale.com and go to “About” where you will find comments from such men.
The site by Bnonn and Michael Foster is now up.
All the articles are short, some frankly look like expanded Tweets. There are two that all of us can benefit from, and I wish to bring them to your attention. Because in my opinion your mindset, your outlook needs work.
There is a very interesting detail in the second link, Foster actually points to this article at Rollo Tomassi’s site:
You might benefit from reading that essay as well. I am heartened that Foster is willing to link to Rollo, given the swipes that some other essays he is associated with take at the androsphere.
I was going to suggest that you read Deep Strength’s valuable blog, but I see in the comments that you are already there, although unfortunately a notorious autistic manosphere troll is also there.
Suggest you read Deep Strength’s essays but not the comments.
In closing. I will point out from personal experience that if a man wants things to change in his life he has to be willing to put away butthurt and to do some different things, think different ways. Just a suggestion.
@Red Pill Latecomer
Christ is distinct from the father even as he shares divinity with him. For if they are one and the same. That ends up being the heresy of modalism.
The passion of christ becomes a farce.
Off Topic: Sodomites “married” by the Notorious RBG extradited to Texas for raping a man.
I’m sure it’s just a bizarre set of coincidences.
You are free to hate game if you want. You have been around long enough and had enough people try to explain it. Believe what you want, but try to provide a solution instead of just complaining.
kill myself? 😉
Your god is made in your own image and ability to think. Over analyzing God leads to idiocy, whatever your goal.
I used to believe just what I was taught, probably quite similar to what you have been taught about God. I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things. As a maturing Christian man, I am not to trust my soul to other fallible men, but, I am to search out the scriptures and learn from God’s word, and pray for the Holy Spirit to illumine my understanding and to give me wisdom. I did just that, and I’m here sharing what I have discovered while in God’s word, So that others may be able to be sharpened, and sharpen me.
God has some feminine aspects in the Scriptures, yet is portrayed as very masculine most of the time. Stop trying to put it all in a neat box and focus on what is important, not arguments over foolish words.
LOL If God’s nature and image is not important to you, and indeed foundational, in your efforts to bring about a proper Christian patriarchy, you’ll be building on sand, and not on the correct cornerstone. FWIW the “builders” in the time of Christ rejected their true messiah, for not opposing Rome with a rod of iron, but instead being meek and lowly, just as the “builders” of today preach an effeminate Jesus who loves to get cucked and forgive repeatedly those who trample on His precious blood, and they do not accept their coming king, who has finished demonstrating His meekness and lowliness, and is exalted forevermore, coming at the right hand of power, and has been given all power in heaven and in earth, and will break them with a rod of iron; and dash them in pieces like a potter’s vessel.
I said: My God is entirely masculine. Feel free to try to answer any of my previous challenges.
Show me a characteristic of God that is exclusive to females?
Show me a place in scripture where any woman is stated to be in the image of God? Etc.
I noticed you did not answer, with scripture, or examples, and left my/God’s “neat box”/cornerstone intact. Every written attempt to defend our faith can be called “arguments over foolish words”, but at some point you need to wise up and figure out where to begin defending the faith. If not at the foundation, then where?
I said: If the husband and the wife are an image or picture of Christ and the church, which one is in the image of God?
I believe I know your answer, but because it would look foolish, you didn’t say it, that the church and the wife also must be images of a counter god to Christ and the husband who we are clearly told, are God’s image.
2 Corinthians 4:2 But we have renounced disgraceful, underhanded ways. We refuse to practice cunning or to tamper with God’s word, but by the open statement of the truth we would commend ourselves to everyone’s conscience in the sight of God. 3 And even if our gospel is veiled, it is veiled to those who are perishing. 4 In their case the god of this world has blinded the minds of the unbelievers, to keep them from seeing the light of the gospel of the glory of Christ, who is the image of God.
Romans 5:14 Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam’s transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come.(Christ)
Adam, the Bible tells us, was created as a figure/image/likeness/similitude/son of God. And we men, like Adam’s son Seth, are this also.
Genesis 5:3 And Adam lived an hundred and thirty years, and begat a son in his own likeness, and after his image; and called his name Seth:
1 Corinthians 11:6 For if the woman be not covered, let her also be shorn: but if it be a shame for a woman to be shorn or shaven, let her be covered. 7 For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.(So cover your heads ladies. You are not the image and glory of God)
Our generation’s “ministers” should renounce their disgraceful underhanded tampering with God’s Word, to effeminize God and make women after His image. Is it any wonder the sexes cannot relate correctly when the basis for their relation is no longer God’s truth, but a lie?
We are told that each marriage is to be a likeness of Christ and his bride, the church. The husband is to act as Christ towards his bride, and the wife is supposed to submit to her husband as unto the Lord. I’ll ask you again, Which one in that image, is the likeness of God? Here is some of God’s word to read as you consider it:
Ephesians 5:22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.
The image of God is foundational to who we are as men. If you lose your foundation, by thinking men and women are essentially the same, You might want to start covering your head when you pray as a sign of submission to your wife, who prays with hers uncovered. /S
Hopefully you understand that suicide would only propel you to Christ’s judgement throne, unprepared to meet him because you failed to meet the challenge He sent you here to overcome. To me it is a very serious matter because several of my friends committed suicide shortly after their wives detonated their marriages. I am a long time reader but rarely comment, but I have read enough to I know you have overcome very difficult challenges in the past and I am confident that you can overcome your current challenges by using your faith in Christ.
For me, the “red pill” – I would prefer to simply say truth- allowed me to see things as they really are. I won’t go into details, but like many men here I found that following conventional wisdom and advice of pastors about relationships only hurt me. A long journey of experience and instruction in truth from the Bible, this blog, and other blogs such as The Spearhead helped me understand how things really work. Some of the “red pill” advice helped me to stop inadvertently sabotaging my efforts.
Basically, I came to realize that- despite conservative denial- conditions really have changed since I was a child, and most of the old conventional wisdom doesn’t work. There are conditions I absolutely detest but have no power to change. What I have changed are my attitude and my approach to dealing with problems. First and foremost, I have found peace through Christ. Peace is a prerequisite for contentment and happiness. If you haven’t already made peace with God, that is your first and most essential step in finding happiness. Second, I have come to realize that the solutions I want – and sometimes even know are the best solutions- may no be possible given current conditions. This requires me to adjust my attitude with respect to what I can achieve. There are a lot of fake options out there- options that appear to be real but that will never actually be given to us (think job postings where an internal candidate has already been selected). Understanding my true options enables me to make and carry out decisions that are often suboptimal in the absolute sense, but optimal with respect to what is actually possible. I used to keep pounding on doors that were slammed in my face until my proverbial knuckles were raw and bleeding. Now when life slams a door in my face, I still feel some sadness but don’t linger very long before I try another door.
I hope this helps at least a little.
I have a reply to Jason that apparently is stuck in mod because it contains 3 URL’s.
[D: Found it.]
Just discovered The Mercenaries. I haven’t seen it, but it looks like an all-female Dirty Dozen:
I guess the Pentagon couldn’t find any special ops men tough enough for this job, so they had to recruit women.
Well, you gotta admit, for a woman to get thrown in prison, she must have done something really awful.
Of course, it’s still unbelievable. Three of the women are way too hot for a judge to ever send to prison (and the fourth could easily get a reduced sentence with the right clothes, makeup, hairstyle, & attitude).
Pingback: MGTOW Life: Original Sin | Gunner Q
Early Music (which includes the Counter Tenor voice) has long been seen as the home of musical Gay Mafia (frankly most music before 1600 is I have to say somewhat lost on me). Not that it is limited to that; the last three of Her Majesty’s Masters of her Music have been of the Homosexual persuasion – where is the equality in that! One day as an adolescent and doubtless having spent the fare on something else, I walked to the main road to hitch a lift home from school at the end of the term or as you might say semester. A middle-aged man in a Jaguar and doubtless wearing a sheepskin coat stopped and gave me a lift and our subject of conversation turned to a rather well known composer then still living. My chauffeur began to rail at this composer not as one might now do, given the composers penchant for young boys but because as everyone in the country (including The Suffolk Constabulary who obviously turned a blind eye) knew, he lived and not in the Holmes and Watson sense, with another man – a tenor.
When entering the United States one has to fill-in (not fill-out) a form whereby amongst the questions to be answered is one asking if one is guilty of, as it is quaintly put, moral turpitude. That Tenor has certainly sung at the Met and so I can only suppose that his answer was No – even though his behaviour was certainly a crime in England at the time of his flourishing. Even so I am sure Mr Daniels is innocent – one does not go back to the home of two flagrant Homosexuals and expect to be left in peace and anyway men are always up for it.
Am greatly surprised to learn that in America one can be legally married in a ceremony officiated at by a Judge and indeed of the Country’s highest Court at that.
RedPillLatecomer , Are you going to see that movie? ^^
The last kick-ass women film I saw was Kill Bill, some 20 years ago. I was deeply annoyed and have avoided the genre ever since. Kill Bill was also the last Tarantino film I ever saw.
I believe that just about anyone can officiate a wedding, after taking a simple online class, in most of the USA.
Gosh, I forgot all about LSDGamer. I can’t believe it, he’s still at it, you know, ‘just be more alpha’ ‘do you even lift, bro?’… but found a new home at least. Thank the Lord! Small mercies and all that.
Do give my regards to the ducks. And the geese. Tell the geese not to get nasty.
Damned if the first quarter’s not over in the super bowl, and satan already trotted out a female ‘reverend’ while the announcer pandered to ‘social justice’ causes.
The ‘reverend’ is MLK’s widow. Who can object to THAT or are you a racist AND a misogynist?
Gamers advice is really no different than I got here. DS at least pointed out a few interesting things. Too long gone for me, even if I turned it around tomorrow, trying to date meet, vet, find a wife…..I’ll be 65 by the time that happens.
It’s over. It’s really freaking over
Thanks for the links, Anonymous Reader.
It turns out Bnonn is quoting my trendsetting red-pill thoughts again:
On the other end of the scale, many red pill Christians have abandoned meeting together for online community. “This is my church,” one deceived fellow recently commented on Dalrock’s blog.
According to Google, I’m the only person who said that exact phrase on this blog, and I said it twice.
It is funny to me how even though Bnonn acknowledges the “community” aspect of our online fellowship, Bnonn’s god is apparently unable to keep up, in the internet age. Or maybe he/she just can’t be at more than one place at a time, during her period, since women are also in the image of Bnonn’s god. I believe Bnonn is trying to serve his god through his website, but those of us who find fellowship here at Dalrock’s site are somehow not a church recognized by Bnonn, even though he, himself, apparently comes here to be sharpened also. Why the hell? Can’t the old ladies at his church sharpen him about red-pill ideas, just as well?
Keep whining. I had an almost 30 year marriage blow up leaving me with literally no family. (One adopted son I do have some relationship with, but nothing close.) You had others, as you have noted at times.
I could whine all day and it still hurts like hell, but what good would that do me?’
I wish I had time to dig it out, but I believe El Shaddai has implications of being a “breasty one”. That is not a masculine image. Nevertheless, keep trying to fit God in the box of your little mind and I am sure things will work out well.
Do note that it says that created man “male and female created He them”. This may refer to making woman soon after making man, but it could be that man was originally masculine and feminine, but the feminine parts were pulled out for Eve. I haven’t meditated on it long enough to have a firm position, but it is not the trivial matter you proclaim.
I am quite assured on many things, but I also know my own mind is far smaller than God’s (and that is an understatement) so I am not arrogant enough to decide I know all that God is. You seem to be, so enjoy it.
They call it marriage, but it still is not.
You made me laugh.
I wish I had time to dig it out, but I believe El Shaddai has implications of being a “breasty one”.
I Googled “El Shaddai” and I think you’re grasping at straws. El Shaddai is conventionally translated as ‘God Almighty’. Apparently there is some disagreement about what it means, so everybody is trying to force their particular heresy into it, including a lone nutter who looked at the inkblot and saw boobies, and then wrote a book about it. I thought about Googling “breasty one” to find out more about your god, but I suspect there may be many mere mortals who claim that title also.
This may refer to making woman soon after making man, but it could be that man was originally masculine and feminine, but the feminine parts were pulled out for Eve.
I haven’t heard that one before. Please tell me more about it?
Perhaps I can help you locate your long lost lady-parts, or at least make ’em tingle.
Pingback: When All Else Fails Read the Instructions | Things that We have Heard and Known
As for arguments on males being created in the image of God, and females not, you might want to read the discussion over at Bnonn:
I find that photograph of the two Christian men being purportedly married by a notorious woman and one who is not a Christian quite shocking. I thus thought back: I have attended five weddings in my home country and all five were conducted according to the rites of the Anglican Church between one person of each sex officiated by a member of the cloth (male) They all looked like this:
Pray tell me in exactly what sense is America as we were led to believe a Christian country?
Looks like they’re up to the same old shenanigans. Perhaps framing “real Patriarchy” to back door/segue into the usual pedestalization nonsense.
The best of:
We are not interested in bitching, raging, or defeatist moping. Patriarchs do not wallow in whatever red pill boilerplate they picked up from Dalrock or Rollo or their clones. They do not, in all frankness, act like Jesus is not reigning, and exercising dominion, progressively ordering the world to make his enemies his footstool.
“Patriarchs man-up and…..”
It was something I had heard a good while ago. Looked at the Hebrew, not Google. I would have to dig in. I also recall other things, but I don’t have the time or inclination to really dig in. But I am not stupid enough to think I know God perfectly the way you seem to think you do.
God is God, we are not. Putting human terms completely around Him is idiotic.
Decent comments on the issue: https://livingfaithforum.com/showthread.php?5397-El-Shaddai-Real-Meaning
It does not that God is said to put us under the feathers of His wings elsewhere, so we need to watch taking all discussion of God in direct imagery.
I am not saying it has to mean what this link disputes BTW, but I do remember hearing other things long before the current batch of white knighting. I still would warn against making God in our image.
Bnonn…. what sort of name is that? Swedish? Swiss? German? I can’t tell.
Anyway, he is a classic case of AMOGing. He uses the Red Pill because there is truth and practically to be found within it. We all understand that.
However, to sell the Red Pill you have to show how your ‘Red Pill’ is the real pill and everything else is nothing but a sugar coated placebo.
Dalrock has actually worked at creating a blog that delves deeper into the troubles befalling us, instead of being grateful that someone does this task, they try to steal his work from him, denounce him and then call it there own.
There is something quite unholy about their method.
I meant practicality and not practically.
What fruit have those men produced that leads you to believe they are Christians?
The link says it all. This author is featured on Dennis Rainey’s show the next two days. They are doubling down on The Beatdown. Bnonn and his ilk, IMO, are carrying the baton they were handed by their predecesors. Rainey et “Boomer” al.
Heard a minute or so before rolling the dial, from the transcript:
BOB: Are you seeing smart women settling in Washington, DC ?
DEEPAK: I see smart women settling all over the world.
BOB: Okay now, hold it. Back up. What do you mean, “Smart Women Settle?”
DEEPAK: Well, someone can choose to marry a man who’s not a wise choice-as long as he’s calling himself a Christian, he showers, and he comes to church, “then I’m going to go to the altar with hon because he’s nice to me.”
DEEPAK: I mean, that’s about as low as you’re going to go.”
THIS the boilerplate, Bnonn. These are YOUR PEOPLE. THIS is why we’re here. Denounce their evil teaching on your blog.
-Cue Sheila, Wendy, and the Cat Vendors. Sone smart women gonna need ’em
hon should read “him”
We are not interested in bitching, raging, or defeatist moping.
If a man complains, he’s “bitching.”
If a woman smashes all the dishes and furniture, it’s a “Godly tantrum.”
DEEPAK: someone can choose to marry a man who’s not a wise choice-as long as he’s calling himself a Christian, he showers, and he comes to church, “then I’m going to go to the altar with hon because he’s nice to me.” … I mean, that’s about as low as you’re going to go.”
Really? As low as you can get?
What about an unemployed by choice, alcoholic druggie, who gambles, cheats, and regularly beats the woman. Is he not lower?
Seems to me that if a woman marries a nice guy, who treats her well, showers, works hard, and provides for his family, then she’s “settled” pretty high. What does she expect, a millionaire rock star?
Mark Twain’s famous question:
“How many legs has a dog? If you call his tail a leg, how many legs has he got then?”
What does she expect, a millionaire rock star?
Sure. Because she’s special. Special!. Sooooo special that she deserves just that, at the very least.
Later on in life, she deserves a hunky handyman living in a garden cottage who is a secret millionaire…
Eat, Pray, Settle.
Eat, Pray, Deepak.
A very common problem among men is a failure to understand the difference between “is” and “ought”. I’m reading The Red Queen from 1993 and the British author chose to spell out that very thing 25 years ago.
Perhaps it is an issue of reason vs. emotion; the emotional person hears a fact such as “AWALT” and emotionally reacts as if the words were “All Women Ought To Be Like That”. Lack of reasoning ability is a real problem in the modern world.
I’m cheered a bit by Bnomm even mentioning hypergamy and “monkey branching”, that is progress. Too bad it has to be mashed up with that empty chest-thumping. However, there is another serious flaw…no “path to daylight”.
Leaving aside all that “We are the ONLY REAL MEN IN THE ROOM!” emotionalism, the little observation on the Red Pill written by Bnomm is conspicuously lacking in anything actionable. Yeah, women are hypergamous. Yeah, they all have an unconscious desire to “trade up”. Now what? What should a man do about that? Should he have long, rational, reason-based talks with his wife while her eyes glaze over in boredom, or something else? (This is a hint). Should he just chant “Ephesians 5, Ephesians 5″ over and over again? Or something else? (This is also a hint)
What’s the plan?
That site is off to a fairly good start, but more meat is needed.
 This is one of the aspects of Traditional, Conservative types that is just tediously arrogant. It’s like being around precocious college undergrads, the types who always want to show off in class ‘Me! Me sir! I know!” during lecture.
TradCons: let your actions speak of your super-duper manliness, maybe by the way you help build up other men. Words are just words. The game of “lift yourself up by tearing others down” is better suited to a grade school playground.
or something else? (This is a hint).
And, “something else,” as you commented awhile ago, isn’t “I’m nice to you. Why can’t you just be nice to me?”
A man should live and move and make decisions in the world that is, not what he believes or any system tells him it should be. The problem with these RaineysWendysWilsonsSheilasDeepaksEtAl is they *are* that system. Thus TRP.
The ‘reverend’ is MLK’s widow.
My father used to call her, Yoko Ono, and Jackie Onassis, “professional widows.”
Both male and female are made in His image. It even got repeated, which should show something.
Please reread it carefully. The word used in the original was ‘âdâm.
Genesis1:27 So God created man(‘âdâm) in his own image, in the image of God created he him(‘âdâm); male(zā·ḵār) and female(ū·nə·qê·ḇāh) created he them(’ō·ṯām).
What got repeated twice was that God created ‘âdâm(a masculine noun) in his own image. Then God went on to tell us that He also created both sexes, but left off the part about His image.
If you read at the link Paul provided above, there is much more discussion, far too much to repeat, here is part of one of Paul’s comments:
To go back to the Genesis text, what many commentators and exegetes, including Bnonn, fail to see in the Gen 1:27 quote, is that at the moment this is said, it is only a summary event of what is expanded in chapter 2. “in the image of God he created him” is clearly talking about Adam being created out of the earth, directly receiving the breath/Spirit of God, whereas “male and female He created them” refers to the moment both Adam and Eve were created, with Eve being created both AFTER Adam and OUT OF Adam, two theologically VERY significant events. The “in the image of God he created him” cannot therefore not immediately be extended to the creation of females.
Therefore the “in the image of God he created him” seems to more properly refer to Adam only, which would better fit the 1 Cor 11:7 text.
1 Corinthians 11:7 For a man(anér) indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man.
To make the point Bnonn & Co. are merely loudspeakers for their predecesors, who own Uteroanity and are/run millionaire ministries…
Bob Lupine on Family Life Today radio:
Bob: Because I’ve met the guys who are like “No, I am spiritually interested. I like the
church and all of this,” but in the back of their mind it’s like “What I really like is you.” It’s
pretty clear to me. I remember when I met my girlfriend who is now my wife.
She was more spiritually mature than I was—it was pretty clear. We had our first face to
face conversation and I said to her “So, tell me about guys you’ve dated”—which I
shouldn’t have been asking on the first date but, anyway, it wasn’t’ a date. We were just
talking. She said, “There was this one guy, but you know” she said, “he just did not lead
the relationship spiritually.” I said to her, “Oh yes, that’s too bad.” I’m thinking to myself,
“I have no idea what that means, [Laughter] what she just said. But it’s clear—
From Bnonn’s bio (tks FH):
I was brought to faith in 2004, after several years as an outspoken atheist, when finally God clouted me over the head with a Christian who actually knew what the Bible says—my now-wife, Smokey the Magnificent.
So, where in fact *does* the buck stop?
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Who am I and why do I blog? | Dalrock
Only based on the first question so far, I’d say Nathan succeeded at showing us where the culture is at. Except it’s the churchian culture he is exposing, which looks sick and worldly, but in a perverse way, I can see how he thinks its sane.
I’m floored by how consistent it is for a ministry that wants to show the world some positive aspects of being a Christian to be saltless, worldly, and spineless in regards to female rebellion.
Dalrock said he enjoyed it, so maybe that means I am being presumptive and Nathan’s questions and positions improve later in the series.
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Male responsibility and female agency. | Dalrock
Pingback: Dalrock and Doxxing | The Lexet Blog
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Define red pill, Game, and MGTOW. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn interview: What does a man need to do to live a satisfying and productive life? | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Have you stopped beating your wife? | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn interview: Does work like yours attract misogynists? | Dalrock
Pingback: Friday hawt chicks & Links – No country for white Christian men edition. – Adam Piggott
Pingback: Warhorn responds. | Dalrock
Pingback: Warhorn’s projection | Dalrock