This is part of a series on patriarchy, headship, and submission. See this index.
See also this index on Sharkly posts.
Among proponents of Christian patriarchy, this passage is one of the four most cited (along with “be silent“, “don’t teach“, and “cover“):
Wives are to submit to their own husbands as to the Lord, because the husband is the head of the wife just as Christ is the head of the church, being himself the Savior of the body. But as the church submits to Christ, so also wives are to submit to their husbands in everything. — Ephesians 5:22-24
It is commonly claimed among these proponents that the Greek verb “submit” has a military connotation. This implies that submission is like that of a military grunt submitting to the uni-directional hierarchy of authority within a chain-of-command. To wit:
As you’re probably aware, my position is that 1 Corinthians 11:3 is a chain of command. — Sharkly
Proponents of Christian patriarchy also like to cite this verse:
Yahweh God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper corresponding to him.” — Genesis 2:18
It is commonly claimed among these proponents that the Hebrew word “helper” denotes being a servant and connotes inferiority, subservience, or being dominated. Sharkly illustrates this view that women are subservient to men because men were given dominion over all animals:
“God intended and foresaw all men as being delegated God’s natural dominion over God’s own earth, and all women were created for men to be their helpers and like the rest of the creatures, which Adam also named, women fall under men’s dominion.” — Sharkly
The Greek “submit” and the Hebrew “helper” are both used to imply a uni-directional hierarchy:
“[I]t looks like only you get to define what “help”/helper means, or “head”. Because, if you allow the normal definition of those words apply then the woman is to serve her husband. The Bible does not say that the wife is a “military ally”, it says she’s the help. LOL” — Sharkly
So in summary, the patriarchal view is that “submit” is a military term and “helper” is not.
Would it surprise you to learn that the normal definition of Greek “submit” is mostly not a military term in the New Testament? Would it surprise you that the normal definition of Hebrew “helper” is a military term? Would it surprise you to know that the Christian patriarchal view is inverted from the truth?
Were women “helpers” created for men to be their servants, subordinated to their authority? The commentaries have this to say:
“18. sustainer beside him. The Hebrew ‘ezer kenegdo (King James Version “help meet”) is notoriously difficult to translate. The second term means “alongside him,”, “opposite him,” “a counterpart to him.” “Help” is too weak because it suggests a merely auxiliary function, whereas ‘ezer elsewhere connotes active intervention on behalf of someone, especially in military contexts, as often in Psalms.“
— Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 14.
…and…
“Elsewhere “helper/help” usually refers to divine assistance, but it is used in three prophetic passages of military aid (Isa 30:5; Ezek 12:14; Hos 13:9). To help someone does not imply that the helper is stronger than the helped; simply that the latter’s strength is inadequate by itself (e.g. Josh 1:14; 10:4, 6; 1 Chron 12:17, 19, 21, 22). The compound prepositional phrase “matching him,” literally, “like opposite him” is found only here. It seems to express the notion of complementarity rather than identity. As Delitzsch (1:140) observers, if identity were meant, the more natural phrase would be “like him.” The help looked for is not just assistance in his daily work or in the procreation of children, though these aspects may be included, but the mutual support companionship provides.”
— Gordon J. Wenham. Word Biblical Commentary, “#1: Genesis 1-15”, p.68
When this term “helper” is used in the Bible, it is used literally and figuratively of divine assistance and military aid, as with the active intervention of an ally in war.
A wife was created to help her husband just like an ally in war comes to one’s aid, standing beside him and fighting with him. It does not imply that the wife is stronger than the husband or the husband is stronger than the wife (see God as helper to Israel, in Hosea 13:9, against sword and death), for the word carries no implication of relative position between the one aiding and the one being aided. None at all.
Sharkly’s sense of women as servants (“she’s the help”) carries the specific and strong sense of a servant or a slave[1], but the word used here implies neither equality nor inequality, but rather the companionship of two entities, of the teamwork of two distinct and independent allies in a war.
The Hebrew word “helper” used in this way implies that the man was not sufficient on his own, that he required an ally lest he fail. The Bible isn’t describing Adam as a great war-leader wielding authority over the soldiers under him. It’s describing him as one with attributes—whether strength, power, or authority—that were insufficient and had to be bolstered by the woman beside him. Within his domain he was missing an important part to share it with.
Adam was missing something at his core and needed Eve to make him one flesh living in unity. The husband and wife, as allies in life, complete and complement each other. There is no sense in which she is taking the role of unpaid “hired help” (i.e. a slave).
Is submission of a military nature? What proponents of Christian patriarchy mean by a militaristic usage here is not that of mutual allies working together, but that of subservient underlings who work at the behest of their commanding officers.
The word is used 39 times in the New Testament. It is occasionally used in a legal context of subordination to rulers (e.g. Romans 13:1-5; Titus 3:1) and slavemasters (e.g. Titus 2:9; 1 Peter 2:18), but it is never used in the New Testament in a military context.
The Forerunner Commentary makes the claim…
“It is actually a military term, and in the military there is a strong sense of submitting to someone of higher rank.”
Another Greek Lexicon here clarifies that the term is used in both military and non-military contexts where the meaning differs according to the context in which it is used:
A Greek military term meaning “to arrange [troop divisions] in a military fashion under the command of a leader”. In non-military use,it was “a voluntary attitude of giving in, cooperating, assuming responsibility, and carrying a burden”.
The Bible—in Ephesians 5 in particular—isn’t using the term in a militaristic way, even when it is referring to obedience. When the term is used as a verb in the active, it implies an imperative or command. When the term is used in the passive voice, it implies obedience or subservience. When it is in the middle voice it is more like on a team, in an alliance, or ad hoc leadership.
The use in Ephesians 5 is of the third type. It is accompanied by verb elision and participles, which deemphasize or eliminate the military sense. The literary inclusio further implies that even if this were a militaristic term, in this context it would be more like two allies working together.
And what do we find in Ephesians 5 immediately preceding the verse quoted above? This example of allies working together:
[B]e filled with the Spirit… [..] … submitting to one another out of fear of Christ, the wives to the husbands as to the Lord…
“Submit” in Ephesians 5 (obviously) isn’t literally a militaristic term—neither the marriage and church are military organizations—and the grammar doesn’t support a metaphorical militaristic meaning either.
The proponents of Christian patriarchy claim that “helper”—of being a subordinate—is not a military term and that “submit”—of being a subordinate—is a military term. But the reality is the opposite: “helper”—of being allies—is a military term and “submit” is not “of being subordinate” but is more accurately either a loosely militaristic “of being ally” or not militaristic at all—”of being a partner.”
In short, the Christian patriarchy has decided that the militaristic word is non-militaristic and the non-militaristic word is militaristic. This is inversion.
Christian Patriarchy fails to use the Berean method to verify that what Paul had to say matched the Old Testament. Instead, it verifies the Old Testament against what it thinks Paul said in the New Testament. Inversion indeed.
It’s times like this that I miss Artisanal Toad. In his final comment, he wrote: Sharkly views a wife-as-helper as “the help,”[1] which when unpaid[2] and bound for life is literally describing slavery, with the husband literally being the master. Indeed, in 1 Peter 3:6, Sarah is said to have called Abraham her master and lord (the Greek word is “kurios“).[3] Artisanal Toad believed that a wife was to be subject to her master, her husband. The relationship between the husband and wife is one of master-servant. — “Sexual Morality“, Artisanal Toad I would have liked to see his well-reasoned retort to my very opposite conclusion: But unless he makes a miraculous return, we will likely never see the word studies on kurios that he had planned to make—like he did with dabaq. We are all worse off for that.
Footnotes
[1] The term “the help” has a long history in America referring to African-Americans working in white households (especially of slaves on cotton plantations). It is a term laced with implications of slavery, subservience, and racism.
[2] “She’s paid in children, intimacy, room (as long as she cleans), board (as long as she cooks), and being with me!”
[3] A word study on kurios is beyond the scope of this article.
“Oh, Lisa….there’s a verse somewhere in the Bible that could probably be construed or made to mean that you are not even allowed to go to the bathroom…”
Rev Lovejoy, “The Simpsons”
Helper, helpmeet, calling your husband “lord” and military term or meaning v submit, the Greek of the 3rd century AD v the Hebrew that Jesus spoke or perhaps Aramaic v Tyndales translation v the King James v the Vulgate and the concept of sin v which sin is worse v which verse is more important v take a wife v finding a wife v did God (Peter) really mean it that way v the historical context of Roman occupied Israel…….
This can endlessly go on. If it is indeed the “word of God” and its placed on “our hearts” and “God would never lie”
Why the confusion, the endless sectarian debates? The debate of linguistics going back to the ancient world. I thought satan was the author of confusion and chaos? I thought the Christian faith was “simple and easy to understand”
That is what we all are told.
And……to throw gas on this fire………..
Scott’s wife worked. Why? I guess they are not following scripture. They’re going to hell! Jack’s wife works as his admin or something, why isnt she at home with a “visceral look” waiting for him daily?
None of the guys in the sphere have their wives walk ten paces behind them, and all the problems in the world are because of “female nature”
Then follow your own advice, “You will obey me, or Im divorcing you and I will get a 19 year old virgin who will be a doormat, they’re everywhere”
This is WAY over the average christian man’s head. It was over the average practicing Jew in Jesus’s time. It was over the average medieval peasants mind of his day.
Its an intellectual faith now focused on word-splitting, what “Paul, Peter, Rollo, or some 12th century monk thinks” over what Jesus actually did and said.
Lastmod,
Yes! Like scientific inquiry, there is no practical limit to possible explorations. Not everyone is supposed to be a scientist…. or theologian. The most important point is that while it is a beneficial pursuit, it isn’t necessary.
What I write is not essential.
When I read Genesis 2, I grasp without difficulty that Adam was incomplete and Eve was necessary to complete him. I understand that a husband and wife are one flesh: in unity. Anyone reading can come to this conclusion without going through any of the motions that I have done on this blog.
When I go to the commentaries, I see that they’ve come to this same conclusion. What were the chances that I’d stumble by accident on the same thing everyone else has already noticed?
But, what if a man and woman want to read it in a different way? Well, they certainly can choose to do so. It’s a question of freedom and discernment.
Most actually happy marriages have two wage-earners.
Some men want unity and alliance and would be unhappy with a master and servant relationship. The manosphere would have these couples throw away what they have based on another person’s opinion in a sectarian debate.
My axiom implies that Peter, Paul, and Jesus never contradicted each other, for whatever that’s worth.
Peace,
DR
Christianity isnt “science”
Its a faith. Its not open to “hypothesis” and the “scientific method” because if it was, the Word would tells us that.
There was a debate in the church in the early 18th century about “who the ‘elect’ were” and todays christain cannot even tell you what that means but then it was a massive debate within the church. The christians that were led astray by a wrong interpetation of a verse by their church are now going to suffer in eternity because they couldnt grasp ancient greek and didnt have the intellect to study and debate it.
I dont buy it Derek.
If an “average” man is taught, and a century later that teaching is “proven” to be wrong or incorrect…….that poor fellow suffers forever because of some supposed authority figure in his church.
If its all gonna be hair split, and no one can agree….would rather default to Jesus that what King said to whom, and I would take what Jesus said directly over Paul, or Peter, or one of the gazillion saints the Orthodox pray to and read “liturgicalals” to.
You can’t go wrong listening to what Jesus said directly.
But the Word does tell us that!
The Bereans heard what Paul said, and then checked it against scripture—the Old Testament—to see if the two things matched:
In doing so they were lauded as being “more noble.”
When the Bible speaks of the Anti-Christ, it speaks of verifying what the false teachers say against what is contained in scripture. But when Roman Catholicism arose, the majority of Christians did not do so. And that error has continued for 16 centuries.
The problem isn’t that we can’t know, the problem is that we won’t know. Most people refuse to accept the truth, so it doesn’t matter what you tell them.
The majority of Christians do not do as the Bereans did. Hair splitting is the effect, not the cause.
I’m lost on this.
A few Jews who were considered “more noble” as in what? Birth? Money? Status? How hot their wives were? Their education?
Jason,
The Bible explains why they were more noble than the Thessalonian Jews:
Very few men of faith do this. For many, this is verboten as a matter of church dogma.
You’ve already alluded to the fact that people add to the Word of God. It is why you focus on the words of Christ. The Bereans did something similar: they validated everything that Paul taught against scripture: the Old Testament. They believed, correctly, that whatever couldn’t be validated with the Old Testament was not the Word of God. This is the foundation of sola scriptura, and it is absolutely essential.
Your belief in the exclusivity of the words of Christ is just your perfectly valid version of sola scriptura: nothing that is taught in modern churches is valid if it goes against what Jesus said. In your criticisms, you are like the noble Bereans, which is one reason why your viewpoint is so valued here. The fact that you are able to do so with vastly fewer words than I can is why you will always be more valuable.
The Mark of the Beast (in Revelation 13:14-17, 14:9,11, 15:2, 16:2, 19:20 and 20:4) is an excellent example to illustrate the problem and solution. There are uncountable interpretations of it, with seemingly every individual having their own pet theory. It is the perfect example of a biblical teaching that is so complex that there is no way a person like you could ever explain it. It’s analogous to every other hair-splitting dispute where the “average man” is completely lost.
What if the average man reads those sections of Revelation and compiles a list of attributes? Here is what he would find:
– The image will come alive
– The image will speak
– The image will be worshiped
– Those who do not worship the image will be killed
– The mark is received on the hand or forehead
– The mark is received when the image is worshiped
– No one without the mark will be able to buy or sell.
– Ugly and grievous sores on those who received the mark
What are we to do with this? It seems overwhelming and irreconcilable. Wouldn’t you agree? Let’s see what we can see by looking at the Old Testament as the Bereans did.
Most of these things concepts are easy to understand: worshipping, being unable to buy or sell, and something inanimate coming alive and speaking. But not everything is as clear:
First, what is an idol? the image of the beast is something that is worshiped as an image, an idol. If one is familiar with the Old Testament, they find that images/idols are as discussed in the 10 commandments: those things “graven” (or carved) by human hands. They are made things (whether carved, cast, baked, molded, spun, etc.). Throughout the Old Testament, if one takes the time to read it, you will find that idols are overwhelmingly physical, made things. Even the idolatry of greed is the worship of physical, man-made things. So the Berean approach tells us that the image of the beast will be worshipped as an idol: a thing made by human hands. (Modern Christians—like Tim Keller—have spiritualized idolatry, making it largely a non-physical concept to fit the sensibilities of modern audiences)
Second, what is meant by “hand and forehead”? the mark of the beast is received on the hand or forehead when the image/idol of the beast is worshipped. Here also the Berean approach bears fruit. Let’s look at the Old Testament and see where this language (“hand and forehead”) is used: in the use of unleavened bread of Passover (in Exodus 13:6-9), in the redemption of the firstborn (in Exodus 13:12-16), and in the teaching of God’s word to our children (in Deuteronomy 6:6-8 and 11:18). Of these, all of them are taken figures and symbols of something else. Of these, only one involves something made by human hands: the unleavened Passover bread.
Looking at the Old Testament, as the Bereans did, there is only one explanation for the identity of the image of the beast: unleavened Passover bread. Of the three uses of “hand and forehead” in the Old Testament, it is the only thing that is made, and so the only thing that can be worshipped as an idol.
Throughout all of history, there is only one place where the unleavened Passover bread—made by human hands—is worshipped as something divine: in the sacrifice of the Roman Catholic Mass: the “real presence” of the body of Christ in the unleavened Passover bread, which is not-so-coincidentally received literally in the hand or mouth.
Having identified what the image and mark of the beast must be from the Old Testament, it becomes a matter of historical study to find the fulfillment of the rest of the prophecies on the list:
– When has the sacramental bread come alive?
– When has the sacramental bread spoken?
– When have people been killed for repudiating the Roman Catholic Mass sacrifice?
– When have people been economically sanctions for repudiating the Roman Catholic Mass sacrifice?
– When have people who received the sacramental bread received sores?
All of these have occurred at various times throughout history, some on numerous occasions. All of these are easily documented, often by the testimony of the Roman Catholic Church itself, which often flaunts these things as proof of its authority. Roman apologists are eager to tell you about the Eucharistic miracles, the very things spoken of by John.
So, all one has to do is examine the Old Testament scripture as the Bereans did and one can understand what John the Revelator was saying. After all, that was the only scripture that John’s audience had!
Such examination and learning takes time and effort. That is why Bible study is typically the work of many different people working together. No one person is expected to figure it all out on their own. But if we can spend 13 years of our lives in public schools getting a basic education, we can certainly dedicate far less time of our time to studying scripture.
Centuries ago, even before the Reformation, Christians understood that Roman Catholicism was the Whore of Babylon, rejecting it and treating it like a pagan or tax collector. Unlike the modern “cult of nice”, they lived in direct opposition to it, even at the cost of their lives and livelihoods. But modern Christians are almost all blankslatists: purveyors of equality. Men like Tim Keller and Jack @ Sigma Frame believe that all Christian sects should work together, with no faith getting everything right and every faith with something to share (this is the modern church version of the leftist creed “diversity is our strength”). The confusion and lack of harmony we see is a direct result of this refusal to purge what we know is wrong from our midst, as Jesus commanded. By striving for too much harmony, confusion is multiplied. Jesus and Paul both insisted on excommunication!
As for other examples, consider how Roman Catholic Photius called the Paulicians heretics for allegedly rejecting the Old Testament because he was unfamiliar with the words of Jesus: John 10:8. Photius accused the Paulicians of heresy due to his own ignorance of scripture.
Consider also how Roman Catholic Peter of Vaux-de-Cernay called the Paulicians heretics because they said that God had two wives. Peter was unfamiliar with Ezekiel 23. Peter accused the Paulicians of heresy due to his own ignorance of scripture.
Why are there so many denominations and theologies? Ignorance: the abandonment of the Berean approach. Meanwhile, when I looked at the primary sources written by the Albigensians, Waldensians, and Anabaptists of many centuries past, I find that their theology isn’t much different from my own. How can that be if it is impossible to know the truth? Obviously it isn’t. And, notably, they were all persecuted by Roman Catholicism.
Peace,
DR
I was raised “culturally Anglican” (preppy Catholic) due to my mother, and we rarely went to church. The Anglican tradition kinda-sorta is still today tied to the culture of England…..the monarch being recognized as the “head of the state church”
When in Manchester, UK I did attend a “high” Anglican service in June 2022. I did it mostly for my late mother. I also did it for “culture” and my own “heritage”
Yes, the cathedral was beautiful. I loved the organ…..to HEAR an organ during a church service was such a wonderful treat. Something that is gone from most churches today….even the Cathoic ones, and Methodists, Presybatarians………
I loved the hymns and corale response.
I felt my knees buckle for a moment as the procession of the Cross passed down the main aisle…….all men in attendance bowed their heads in reverance. The women gently courtseyed. Then the sword and other regalia followed. This was for Her Majesty. I stood politely in a pose of respect, but did not bow. I dont bow to “monarchs” I am an US Citizen…..as much as I like and follow the British monarchy
An intense feeling swept over me though…..and I cannot explain it. The same prayers, and procession. The same organ music was played in 1560, 1604, 1658…..1767, 1832, 1897, 1920…..you get it. It was something “consistant” through the ages, and unifyer of sorts. I could almost feel my ancestors and know they did this same thing in the long ago past in their local parish in Wales (my mothers side were all Anglicans….they call it now The Church in Wales)
I cannot be an Anglican for obvious reasons……aside from the “common book of prayer” being ruined in 1978…….but I do understand man made ritual to a point. I do miss traditional hymns. Christianity lost “something” with contemporary praise (to me)
A few years back The Bishop of Cantebury said on the BBC “There is a place for Shria Law in Britain”
In another age, he would have been righgteously tarred and feathered for such a statement, would have had a dressing down by the King / Queen and removed. He might have even been beheaded if it was during the Medieval era for such a statement.
No outrage by the members, or other Vicars. No outrage even from the Cathic church in England. No denouncement from other movements in Britain……not even The Salvation Army. No preachers from the pulpits across the UK calling this statement “rubbish”
No big name “evangelical” pastor in the USA called it out.
They were afraid of offending people. The usual “We cannnot judge / God has a plan” nonsense would have been said if anyone dared say anything.
Nobody said anything. Look where England is now………..
I see and know something is wrong in the church, but I cannot articulate it. I can’t stand and quote the Bible. I cant get into a deep theological discussion about it because most of it is over my head.
I just knew it was wrong, un-Christian and frankly….evil to say something like that.
I was a terrible christan, and even worse before then. We can go on forever about “the church” and we should; but if a church cannot be a community for believers to learn, stand, be discipled, loved, cared for and have actual results in a personal relationship or growth, or learning from mistakes.
Call it what it is. A social club
Yes, it’s largely a social club.
Undeniably, knowledge of the Bible is sorely lacking. For cultural Christians, the Berean approach is simply impossible. It takes knowledge of scripture and a dedication to studying it that simply does not exist. And it takes a team of men who are all able to do this.
Even my own knowledge pales in comparison to my ancestors, in large part because I don’t rigorously study the whole of it (and my memory isn’t good enough to retain it all). In a functional church, I’d be one of many theologians and scholars working together for a far more cohesive result, alongside the prophets, teachers, and elders of the church. These days, the best I can hope for is that someone raises a good point that I missed or identifies something I got wrong. It’s kind of sad, really.
The blankslatism that plagues society—e.g. fear of offense—is also behind the corruption of the church.. all of them.
It’s not just the bishop of Canterbury: it has been well-publicized that the current pope has welcomed various false religions and pagan artifacts and practices. Protestant churches went from pejoratively calling the Roman Church “papists” to seeking a type of unity, as if all faiths are equal, further corrupting themselves in the process.
The manosphere likes to complain about weak pastors defending the bad behavior of women, but that’s just one small instantiation of the whole problem. My frustration with the ‘sphere is that I am only expected to address women’s behavior, but I’m not to try to address the wider causes!
As do I. I love those moments of tradition, but alas they are not the solution to anything.
Jason,
It was definitely on the hotness of their wives!
That was well placed humor, I got a chuckle.
Well, what’s a mother to do, right?
Look, in Dal’s forum, one random poster / commenter mentioned that because I wasn’t “baptized” I wasnt going to heaven (The Salvation Army does not practice water baptism). No one countered him, mind you. Not even Dalrock.
I met a Christian who believed that “if you did not speak in “tongues” you were not really saved”
Met many in the sphere through the years by the way of the comments section, pretty much they believe “Their sins are forgiven / yours are not / consequences for my sins….theirs? No. “they would not be the real man they are today without their sins”
These types of things Jesus himself never spoke about. Everything was to please the Father in Heaven. His will. He didnt speak about “female nature” and “male sins v female sins”. He didnt go on about “shades and grades of sin”. Nor did he waste time debating about what word meant or what prophet “really” meant. Nor did he go into a “treatize” about the times and places the prophets lived in, or under what circumstances they made prophecy.
It was all “it is written” and “when Adam walked in the garden” or “When Moses….”
No nuance. No, “Well, the Hebrew of six hundred years ago actually meant this”
“Do you speak in tongues?”
Oh man, does that stir up a memory from about 25 years ago. I don’t know how it came about but maybe the best looking woman I’ve seen up close was at my back door. I wish I could remember why.
She’s smoking, but not in the “look at me” modern way. Maybe it was an evangelistic outreach, but then why was she at the back door. I’m a Christian and the conversation goes to that issue right away.
As you can guess, she lays the line on me, “if you don’t speak in tongues you aren’t saved.”
Killed everything right there. I don’t remember even trying a follow-up contact. I may have done so, I sure hope so, but I don’t think I did.
I didn’t have to lie to go further, just needed some practical game tips (which you were learning at the time). I don’t like game, but a little savoir-faire could have helped, but I remember thinking there was an unscalable wall between us.
Regarding Dal, I can only speak for myself, but when I see an online argument, I think of the Proverb that meddling in a quarrel is foolish and is like pulling on a dog’s ears. Maybe other folks are thinking the same. I try not to go where not invited with other adults. The SharklyDerek spat is an example of that. I stayed out. I don’t like their end result, but that’s not wise for me to get involved. Same with you and Oscar, or Oscar and others, or Billy and Earl at Dalrock’s.
Surfdumb,
You show good wisdom.
If you’ve read the quotes from Bruce Charlton here then its easy to understand why he more-or-less agrees with you: simply don’t involve yourself in these kinds of discussions because there is nothing to gain. One of the men I respect—John Lennox—handles disagreements in a completely different (from me), highly respectful and non-confrontational way.
Whether I was right or wrong, was it a good idea for me to burn those bridges with Sharkly? Did I accomplish anything good? I don’t know.
Many people can only see the conflict, but out of every conflict like this is an opportunity to produce something meaningful. Sharkly has inspired a lot of content here, including ten different posts. Another thing that came out of that spat was finally pushing me to publish “1 Corinthians 14:34-35“, which lead to my last post “Ambiguity in the Bible“, and then to this post.
I’m trying to maneuver the content here to a place where I emphasize that theological ambiguity is extremely common. While it’s fine to express one’s view, even forcefully, it’s not okay to close your mind to other possibilities, nor to judge people over their opinions. I freely acknowledge that I write with a distinctly forceful and arrogant tone, but my epistemology is one of open-mindedness and “scientific” exploration.
I draw the line between aggressiveness and “Cult of Nice” at the boundary of person and idea. Fulton Sheen once suggested that we be tolerant of persons and intolerant on truth.
If you ever feel that I crossed the line from attacking ideas to attacking persons, I would hope that you would move out of the sideline and correct me, even (and perhaps especially) publicly. That’s the kind of tone-policing I don’t mind.
Peace,
DR
Jason, you say you aren’t smart, but don’t give many examples of it. That story about the friendly single 10 talking to me is one example of me being dumb. I don’t want to add more to prove a point, but given this is the manosphere, that’s an on topic story.
You just gave me a thought, I can start a stand-up career based on true and real screw-ups I’ve done. An RP modern version of Woody Allen humor. Since there are so many game coaches and successes, there should be a wide open market for an anti-game dude. If I try it, I’ll look you up for contacts, and stage presence tips.
Dumb as rocks and my comments over the years prove it. If I wasnt, I’d be like Oscar, or Jack, or Scott, or Deti…..others.
I would have multiple degrees, ten gazillion talents, would know automatically “everything” and would not have had to worry about finding a wife….she would have made herself known and def found ME. Why? “because women are attracted to this, and this, and this and that, and also this but also that”
Dont have these things? “Oh so sorry, but did you know there is no marriage in heaven! Rejoice in your suffering!!!! This faith doesnt promise you anything! You must have asked for the wrong thing!”
As for your idea, I like it…….however, you must consider the following:
*You must look like Matthew Hussey, that hot “dating coach for women” and have that look.
Once after a DJ gig, the topic of dating came up with a few of us, and one lady LOVED Matthew Hussey “He is so spot on, you men need to listen to him”
I quoted something he said, and she called me “bitter and jaded”
Why?
Because Matthew Hussey is good looking. Any other average looking dude who said the same things to a crowd of women is deemed “bitter” and “creepy”
Matthew Hussey says it and women fawn and pant “oh, he’s really on to something”
*You would get more blowback from men than women
The usual smears “clouded by bluepill thinking” and DS “you didnt have a life mission, and you have failed to go to the gym enough”
So, it could work…..but comic timing would have to be like a clock, and good looks would help
I know Im being a bit over the top here, but the “Red Pill” world and “Game” is hyper defended by many men today (see Jacks page). They’re like feminists, criticize a tiny bit
They come out swinging and throw low blows.
Hence another reason why its not working. They dont live in the world the lower 80% do. Never have if truth be told
Jason,
I understand why you feel this way.
As I observed in my comment under “Unlearning Inversion”, most men do not view Christ’s promise of life after death as the cure to suffering. It’s why the manosphere reads 1 Peter and instead of understanding it as the most direct biblical answer to their marital suffering, they only see marital authority and hierarchy, that is, a solution to suffering in the here-and-now.
Recall when Jack said:
I answered “1 Peter.”
So just today, Bruce Charlton makes this post:
And so I make this basic observation: we must unlearn inversion, because inversion prevents modern man from desiring salvation at all.
Peace,
DR
Getting better now with dealing with (and have been for quite awhile) with my singleness / not married / not being a father
It “rub” comes in for me (and countless other men) when the statements like above come from men who:
never have had problems with dating, sex, love, getting a wife….and have the nerve to stand on “well, there is no marriage in heaven” type of comments. They make it sound like “meh, no problem, if I was in your situation, I would be a gazillionaire, travel, serve God more deeply (whats stopping you now? your hot wife?) and be grateful for the amazing things He has done for me.”
Then at the same time talking sex, marriage, family, children…..falling birth rates, carousel riders, sex now “sanctifying” marriage, a man isnt complete without sex (tell that to Jesus), a man will indeed die without sex.
Sitting in church hearing non freaking stop about how marriage and children are so important to God (no marriage in heaven though), and the endless man-up rants. In the sphere hearing all this linear thought, saying women are illogical, crazy, need-to-be-controlled, will submit or you “have grounds for divorce and she gets nothing” (tell that to a judge in family court during proceedings). At the same time telling us “they cannot help who they are” (excusing the behavior), and expecting them to think like a man, and act like a man while hating it because “women are not men”
Who is wallowing here?
And finally, if a women is *hot* for some strange reason, they believe it means “good” (deluded by cultural Game thinking)
They all want to know why the sphere is splintered, and its not “good ol days” like when……when……..ah, yes, they could justify their behavior and women fell for it. They could justify sin and sex, and using people that God evidently did not create in his image (women) but the man who IS created in His image is going to be stuck with something that isnt…….
You tell a young man this tripe, and add the gazillion rules, lore, laws, taboos, norms, expectations…combine that with charts, graphs demanding a “logical” world from a very illogical place. No, I have-no-idea-why-many-young-men-dont-come-to-church-to-get “answers” nor the “spshere”
Any contrarian advice or “hey, what about this”
Is met with “not an argument” / “strawman” / “ad hominin” (and I still have zero idea what that means exactly)
Most of these men in the end are miserable. Demanding perfection of an imperfect word, and projecting it on women, all the “simps” like me out there and “how come all these men are messing this up” statements.
They all should move to Oscar’s town and circle jerk there
Lastmod,
In Spawny’s Post “Man-Up” I said:
I doubt that I will ever say it better than this.
I find Man-Up rants by big-baby feminists to be as equally obnoxious as the soft Christian patriarchy making excuses.
You may say…
…but, when it comes to suffering, its the losers who win.
Peace,
DR
Pingback: On Suffering
Pingback: Links of Interest
Pingback: The Disadvantage of Authority
Pingback: Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse
Pingback: GunnerQ and The Beast's Mark
Pingback: Patriarchy
Pingback: They Can’t Understand the Word, Part 4
Pingback: A Comment from History, Reviewed