Absolutely Mystified

This post is the follow-up to “Sectarianism.”

This article snippet was recently brought to my attention (emphasis added):

The Mechanics of Sectarianism within The Christian Red Pill

Christian Red Pill Sects

The biggest “divides” that have formed in the Christian Manosphere are as follows, and roughly in this order. I think these could be extended to describe Christianity in general. (Converged churchianity is not included here.)

  1. The Sola Scriptura camp vs. the Mystical Faith camp.
  2. Moral Absolutists vs. Moral Relativists vs. Moral Discernment / Wisdom.
  3. The Ecclesiastical camp* (those having an allegiance to an established faith tradition) vs. the Independents (those who’ve had a bad experience with organized religion).
  4. The Sex = Marriage camp vs. the Sex ≠ Marriage camp.**
  5. The Headship Authority camp vs. the Peaceful Unity*** camp.

What we see in the Christian Manosphere / Red Pill these days is that each blog, forum, or content producer has settled into a rhetoric that befits their own individualized approach to each of the above five dichotomies.

Note: There are other divergences surrounding other areas of concern, e.g. church leadership, mentoring, parenting, etc. but these five are the most significant.

If one were to study the body of philosophy proffered by each one in depth, one would find the inherent constitutional principles thereof conforms to one of the above 5 types.  Here are a few examples broken down.

  • Bruce Charlton, Francis Berger – Mystical Faith, Moral Discernment, Ecclesiastical. (They do not explicitly cover the topic of marriage, so 4 and 5 are not emphasized.)
  • Christianity and Masculinity (Deep Strength) – Sola Scriptura, Moral Absolutist, more ecclesiastical than not (Protestant), Sex ≠ Marriage, and Headship.
  • Dalrock – Sola Scriptura, Moral Absolutist, Ecclesiastical (Protestant), Sex ≠ Marriage, and Headship.
  • Derek L. Ramsey (Ramman3000) – Sola Scriptura, Moral Absolutist, more ecclesiastical than not (Anabaptist), Sex = Marriage, and Peaceful Unity.
  • Jim – Leans towards Sola Scriptura, Moral Relativist, Independent, holds unique views of Sex = Marriage, and strict Headship.
  • Laughing at Feminism (Sharkly) – Sola Scriptura, Moral Absolutist, Independent, Sex = Marriage, Headship.
  • Michael Foster, Bnonn Tennant – Sola Scriptura, Moral Relativist, Ecclesiastical (Protestant), Sex ≠ Marriage, and Peaceful Unity.
  • Radix Fidem / Catacomb Resident (Tomb Refugee) – Mystical Faith, Moral Discernment, Independent, leans towards Sex = Marriage, and Headship.
  • Σ Frame (Jack) – Mystical Faith, Moral Discernment, Independent, Sex = Marriage, and Headship Authority.
  • The Orthosphere –  Moral Absolutist, firmly Ecclesiastical (Catholic, which determines 1 and 5), and Traditional Marriage.
  • Vox Day – Sola Scriptura background, but does not emphasize this, Moral Absolutist (Civilizationism), defacto Independent, Sex ≠ Marriage, and Headship (assumed).

Citation: Jack, “The Mechanics of Sectarianism within The Christian Red Pill.” Sigma Frame

I’m not sure that anyone reading this should consider it to be useful or trustworthy. I never thought anyone would call Bruce Charlton “Ecclesiastical,” but this list somehow manages it. I also have significant doubts as to the accuracy of the portrayal of Michael Foster and Bnonn Tennant. But perhaps most surprising are the descriptions of me.

For one thing, apparently I am a “moral absolutist” (which is an overly personal way to say “Moral Absolutes”, unlike the impersonal “Moral Discernment” and “Mystical Faith”).

There are four blogs in the list above that I have read most often over the last couple of years: Bruce Charlton, Sigma Frame, Radix Fidem, Catacomb Resident. Ask yourself “What do all of these have in common?” and then check out the list above.

That’s strange, isn’t it?

Then there is what I wrote in “Mutual Submission, Part 10” only a few days ago:

Mutual Submission, Part 10
As I laid out in the series, Paul is concerned with a proper submission in Christ. If it is proper for a woman (or man) to submit to a man (or woman) in the church—whether pastor, elder, teacher, etc.—then she (or he) should do so in an appropriate manner. Otherwise she (or he) should not. Wisdom is called for, not blind or absolute obedience to rules, axioms, maxims, and organizational charts.

Inherent in Jack’s comment seems to be the underlying assumption that submission is an imperative—a command—rather than a matter of conscience, discernment, wisdom, or common sense. As we’ve discussed at various points, the language Paul uses (e.g. middle voice) pertains more strongly to the latter rather than to the former.

Last year I promoted and encouraged, of all things for a supposed moral absolutist, “Christian Discernment.” Here is one pertinent point:

Christian Discernment
I thought this was supposed to be easy? What’s the point of discernment if I am required to ask [other bloggers] for the correct answer? Do we need discernment to know how and when to use discernment? That is a bit too meta even for my tastes.

Why, I wondered, if Christians are to have discernment, must I be subject to the demands of other bloggers, lest they cursed me to the very fires of Hell? This is a strange thing for me, a supposed moral absolutist, to wonder.

But if you think that’s crazy, you have not seen anything yet. According to the list above, I’m a proponent of sola scriptura. What do those four blogs that I have read most believe in?

Mystical faith.

I bet you can see what is coming next.

Consider what I wrote only a few days ago in “Review: The Path is Very Long:”

Review: The Path is Very Long
Many (most?) cults do this. Whether Mormon, Radix Fidem, Orthodox, Roman Catholic, or Islam do this: they include new constructions of God’s revelation that are—according to proponents—not subject to examination or falsifiability. All rely on appeals outside the domain of reason. But Christian mysticism is different. It relies on conformance to scripture by application of the mind (e.g. the Bereans; Paul’s teachings on prophecy and speaking in tongues).

And here is what I wrote, of all things, in “Traditions of Men” last year:

Traditions of Men
As Christian mysticism itself is fundamentally spiritual, …

“Revelation is inherently mystical. [..] The Spirit Realm is real and beyond comprehension.”

Citation: Radix Fidem, “Radix Fidem”

…what is revealed by mystical means through the spirits must be tested.

Without a test showing otherwise, revelations revealed through Christian mysticism must be presumed to be demonic and not from the Holy Spirit. It doesn’t matter if the revelation is personal and intended for just one person. Without validating its source, it cannot be trusted, even if the revelation comes from one claiming to be an angel, an apostle, a prophet, or a teacher sent by God. We are commanded by scripture to test the spirits. The Bible plainly states that the first test of knowing that spiritual revelations are valid is the acknowledgment that Jesus has/is come in the flesh. Another is that anything conflicting with scripture is not from God. Still another is the test for prophets. We are obligated ask the questions and seek out the answers.

Now let’s go way back to 2020, when I wrote this comment (in response to Novaseeker) on Sigma Frame. Jack even ‘liked’ it. It ties my belief in both Christian discernment and Christian mysticism!

comment by Derek Ramsey @ Sigma Frame
Does John contradict himself when he tells his readers (1) to listen to what he previously taught; and (2) the anointing [Holy Spirit] is sufficient to teach all things?

“I have long suspected that Christians will have to learn to agree to disagree about these kinds of things due to different interpretations of the scripture being defensible. It does mean that there will be divisions in practice”

This is true, but not as big a deal as it seems.

Consider how Ed Hurst [of Radix Fidem] will not debate his theological stances. He will state what the Spirit has revealed to him, but he won’t argue, nor will he insist that his views must apply to everyone.

In Matthew 18:15-35, Jesus makes it clear that division must be dealt with from within the congregation, ideally brother to brother. Outside that generally isn’t your responsibility or concern. The Spirit guides you and it is your responsibility to do what it says, regardless of whether that conflicts with what the Spirit has told me to do. We all have our individual missions, and sometimes this means that what is right for one person’s conscience is wrong for another (as Paul says in the NT).

This is Christian mysticism. You focus on what the Spirit is telling you to do and you do it. You concern yourself with what others believe as (and if) you are called to do so. Ultimately, the Lord of heaven will reveal whatever he wants to whomever he wants to reveal it to. It is in good hands. We can be content in that.

This was written in 2020 and my view has not changed.

Do you think this is crazy yet? We’re not done. The list also puts me in the Sex = Marriage camp. Yet, I wrote the following in this blog’s by far most accessed article: “What Constitutes Biblical Marriage?

What Constitutes Biblical Marriage
Marriage is more than just sex or a ceremony. Trying to reduce it to just one of these things misses the depth and importance of marriage. It is just another way of minimizing the importance of marriage in the eyes of God. We must not do this.

Do you think this is all crazy? There is more!

I was a bit surprised when Jack described me as “more ecclesiastical than not (Anabaptist).” I’m quite Independent and since there isn’t an Anabaptist congregation near where I live, I have not been a member of an Anabaptist congregation in at least a decade. In fact, in the last three decades, I’ve attended services in at least 9 or 10 different denominations, having regularly attended about half of them. My “allegiance” to Anabaptism is reflected in the fact that it is rooted in solid biblical exegesis that is both incredibly hard to refute and is much closer to the early church than most other denominations, especially the big names.  In other words, it’s the ideas I like, not the ecclesiastical structure per se. The reality is that I don’t generally weigh in on ecclesiology, nor have I ever declared which is that One True Denomination™.

Are you ready for more?

Jack has formulated his own conception of what he calls the “Peaceful Unity Model.” He places men with (apparently) successful marriages in this box. From what I can tell, these are Christian men who have not been divorced and who don’t publicly speak poorly of their wives, a low standard indeed. To be clear, this isn’t my model (emphasis added):

comment by Jack @ Sigma Frame
My original formulation of the Peaceful Unity model agrees with the Christ : Church :: Husband : Wife analogy, and even cited your post on that. I presume Derek has a Peaceful Unity marriage, but his own descriptions of his marriage don’t line up with my concept of Peaceful Unity, nor yours I see.

Others are similarly confused in thinking that it is my model. Nope, it is just me—and the ideas I present—being put into someone else’s box. Perhaps one day I will write more about it.

On the other hand, he’s right that I don’t subscribe to the anachronistic Headship Authority model. It isn’t biblical. So that’s the one thing he got right.

So what can we say about all of this? It turns out that I promote both sola scriptura and Christian Mysticism. It turns out that I promote both moral absolutes and Christian discernment. It turns out I promote both Sex = Marriage and Sex ≠ Marriage. It turns out that I’m very independent, but don’t explicitly oppose ecclesiastical approaches per se.

It turns out that most of my views require nuance on complex topics and that trying to put these views in a box—of binary comparisons—isn’t valid. I do not declare the One True Way To Do Things™ that all men must follow or be declared servants of Satan. Nor do I declare All Must Do As I Say™ or else be headed to hell.

The reality is that I’m one of the more openly “everyone come to the table” persons you will meet. I don’t censor viewpoints, but welcome other views that challenge my own. Much to the chagrin of others, I don’t always try to fix other’s errors. In meatspace, I’ve frequently been seen as the group mediator for my propensity to resolve conflict. So, surely, I must be hailed as a great leader and unifier of men. Isn’t unity is the very thing I promote more than anything else?

This focus and approach—along with my insistence on addressing the ideas and avoiding ad hominem—is almost certainly what—ironically—makes me so divisive to the black-and-white religious fundamentalist thinkers that dominate the Manosphere (and who absolutely love ad hominem). I don’t have nearly the same problems in my discussion outside the ‘sphere or, especially, in meatspace.

It should be rather obvious at this point that the reason what I write is so divisive is not the positions that I hold, nor the methods in which I interact with others. Those same views (and methods) do not create anger and rage—what one writer claims is the dominate emotion in society—when I share (and use) them in meatspace. Not a single member of any of the churches that I have preached at have ever complained that I was describing the meanings of words. In meatspace, people who interact with me are civil and generally live-and-let-live.

No, the problem is with the people who are reading what I write and choose to respond the way they do.

Jack did not have to write anything about me at all. He could have left me off his list. He was not forced to try to put me in a box that suited his biases (emphasis added):

If one were to study the body of philosophy proffered by each one in depth, one would find the inherent constitutional principles thereof conforms to one of the above 5 types.

He could have reached out to me for comment, asked the readers here what their opinion was, researched and read what I have written on these topics, or even remembered the comment that he himself ‘liked.’ But he chose to respond the way he did, and in so doing got it wrong. Those who have read “Habitually Being Wrong” will not be surprised by this.

But, I’m obviously biased, so what do you think? Are the portrayals in the list above accurate? Do you think I promote absolutism, discernment, neither, or both? What about the other attributes?

18 Comments

  1. professorGBFMtm

    ”Absolutely Mystified”

    i can boldly say i’m not! i knew early on at SF ,”jack” thought he was ”the new and improved” Dalrock(as he surrounded himself with Dalrock followers and supporters) or the one TRUE ”red pill ” pope, and as time has marched on I only ever believe that more.

    ”The Christian Red Pill Mimics the Divisions Inherent in Protestantism
    This is especially true in the Christian Manosphere, because the kind of Christian that tends to come here and identify as a “Christian Red Pill” type is overwhelmingly likely to be a fundamentalist type Christian, or another kind of ultraconservative Christian, and most people like that have a strong to very strong distaste for dissonance in general, and a particularly strong aversion towards anything that they may perceive to be doctrinally or morally incongruent. They are simply much less capable of entertaining arguments that they have already deemed ‘unscriptural’, or participating in things that are ‘tainted’ in their eyes, with the aim of extracting something good or useful out of them. Instead, the preferred approach is generally some form of separatism, an irreconcilable strategy that mirrors Protestantism in general.

    In the Christian Manosphere, that leads to division, silos, judgment, and the like being as common as dirt.

    This is a very strong tendency in all religious people, but since we are all Christians here, it is inside this faith of ours that we have experienced this most commonly. It has always made the Christian Red Pill incredibly divisive, divided, and splintered. Interestingly, The Christian Manosphere / Red Pill is exactly like Protestantism in this regard: “Can’t agree? Then form a new denomination / sect.”

    All of this means, what we are trying to do here at Σ Frame is very hard, maybe even impossible given the atomized state of the church, society, and philosophy itself.

    Christian Red Pill Sects
    The biggest “divides” that have formed in the Christian Manosphere are as follows, and roughly in this order. I think these could be extended to describe Christianity in general. (Converged churchianity is not included here.)

    The Sola Scriptura camp vs. the Mystical Faith camp.
    Moral Absolutists vs. Moral Relativists vs. Moral Discernment / Wisdom.
    The Ecclesiastical camp* (those having an allegiance to an established faith tradition) vs. the Independents (those who’ve had a bad experience with organized religion).
    The Sex = Marriage camp vs. the Sex ≠ Marriage camp.**
    The Headship Authority camp vs. the Peaceful Unity*** camp.
    What we see in the Christian Manosphere / Red Pill these days is that each blog, forum, or content producer has settled into a rhetoric that befits their own individualized approach to each of the above five dichotomies.

    Note: There are other divergences surrounding other areas of concern, e.g. church leadership, mentoring, parenting, etc. but these five are the most significant.”

    ”The Sola Scriptura camp vs. the Mystical Faith camp.”

    ”Jack” thinks I don’t know what that means?-Here’s a hint it has something to do with those supposed ”messages” he gets from God-that even Scott said was ”extra-biblical”!
    IOW he knows better than the scriptures which is right or True so WE better follow him!

    BUT I’m not one of his ”redpill” NPC followers nor supporters hence why I can see it clearly.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “This is especially true in the Christian Manosphere, because the kind of Christian that tends to come here and identify as a “Christian Red Pill” type is overwhelmingly likely to be a fundamentalist type Christian, or another kind of ultraconservative Christian, and most people like that have a strong to very strong distaste for dissonance in general, and a particularly strong aversion towards anything that they may perceive to be doctrinally or morally incongruent. They are simply much less capable of entertaining arguments that they have already deemed ‘unscriptural’, or participating in things that are ‘tainted’ in their eyes, with the aim of extracting something good or useful out of them. “

      Deeply ironic?

      The reason that the folk at Sigma Frame do not like what I write is because they are not able to escape from their fundamentalist-type background. The black-and-white worldview captures them. I do not understand why they think that I have a similar background. Rather than read and understand what I write, they insist on placing me in their binary boxes.

      I’m not ultraconservative. On the political compass, I’m almost dead center. You wouldn’t know this, because I don’t take many political positions.

      “IOW he knows better than the scriptures which is right or True so WE better follow him!”

      The draw of mysticism is that its proponents like the idea that God is revealing something new and important to them. It appeals to the individual sense of importance. But Paul was very, very clear that anything revealed mystically must conform to scripture.

      1. Malcolm Reynolds

        This is still the fallout of a very effective election campaign targeting incompatible focus groups like “fundamentalist type Christians” or “ultraconservative Christians” and the anti-feminist spectrum like the “Manosphere” to construct a voter’s majority from those.

        All these splinter groups hold fundamentally irreconcilable beliefs. However through social media campaign messaging was carefully targeted to catch each focus group on its own. Conflicting messaging was possible by keeping each group within its bubble, so they all voted for the same boomer guy with the weird haircut in the end.

        Only afterwards when these people gathered together online they were trying to craft a unified Theory Of Everything. That must fail because they was no solid catechism behind that election campaign. It was a scam and these people have been fooled.

        1. Derek L. Ramsey

          MR,

          A healthy portion of the Manosphere definitely places its hopes on voting outcomes—utter foolishness—although I’d say there is a growing minority who now see it as pointless.

          Peace,
          DR

          1. Malcolm Reynolds

            What is more interesting than the fact that roughly 80 % Evangelicals voted Trump is that white Trump voters started to identify as “Evangelical Christian” AFTER voting Trump as Pew Research noticed.

            As these newly “converts” are mostly “God and Country” boomers like Trump while Evangelical offspring is leaving in droves (prominent example Abraham Piper), the whole Evangelical church population aged way faster than the general population of America.

            Also it’s pretty obvious how much fruit of the Spirit these kind of “Christians” display. The vitriol and hatred in comment sections is a blunt giveaway. Applying Vox Day’s Social-Sexual Hierarchy these men are mostly displaying behavior tells of the Gamma category.

          2. Derek L. Ramsey

            “…identify as “Evangelical Christian” … as Pew Research noticed.”

            I’m quite skeptical of this kind of “study.” When I looked into the methodology of how the Glass/Levchak researchers determine what constitutes “Evangelical Christian,” I noticed that the researcher’s term is garbage and doesn’t measure what it purports to measure.

            Pew Research is only a small step above the pure opinion of the researchers. You can put your faith in it if you want, but if that’s the best evidence you have, count me out.

  2. Lastmod

    Yes, they have all the Gifts, all the knowledge. Happy for them. God loves them more than the “rest of these”

    No hope for anyone. Smug. Better than you.

    Derek. Why even try? Pray for them. Be there for one or any of them if they did ask for help. Otherwise? Let them have it. You wont be convincing anyone there.

    Women are only good for sex. Everything is Red Pill. Its like speaking to a Marxist; everything is doctrine, The Party, through a class-struggle-race-gender skew. Everything is a chart or graph, or study.

    These are very boring people indeed. Let them be.

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “Derek. Why even try?”

      Lately, a lot of my posts have been gathered around a particular theme. This theme has been mostly hidden, but the general idea is this: we are all not as smart as we think we are. This theme is pretty strongly stated in “Everyone’s a Genius, ” in “It’s Always Someone Else’s Problem,” in “Habitually Getting it Wrong,” and even in “Sectarianism” and “A Comment from History, Reviewed.”

      I’m exploring the idea that much of what we think we know is wrong. Just look at Jack’s list in the OP. It is full of errors, yet his audience just drinks it up uncritically.

      I’m doing this because identifying these errors is actually quite difficult. It requires training one’s mind into a different mindset, altering how one looks at the world. It’s all part of truth seeking.

      The contrast to this is how most people on the internet can’t even be bothered to fact-check their own beliefs when their beliefs wouldn’t stand up to a google search that takes 30 seconds.

      I find it valuable to point this stuff out, at least I find personal value in this. I’m not sure that it is valuable to anyone else.

      It’s somewhat ironic, I think, that Dalrock was known for this kind of activity. He drilled into the heart of certain deceptions, revealing the underlying errors. It was his biggest strength.

      1. professorGBFMtm

        ”I’m exploring the idea that much of what we think we know is wrong. Just look at Jack’s list in the OP. It is full of errors, yet his audience just drinks it up uncritically.

        I’m doing this because identifying these errors is actually quite difficult. It requires training one’s mind into a different mindset, altering how one looks at the world. It’s all part of truth seeking.

        The contrast to this is how most people on the internet can’t even be bothered to fact-check their own beliefs when their beliefs wouldn’t stand up to a google search that takes 30 seconds.

        It’s somewhat ironic, I think, that Dalrock was known for this kind of activity. He drilled into the heart of certain deceptions, revealing the underlying errors. It was his biggest strength.”

        Boy are you right Derek!DAL didn’t need his wife to divorce him to look into the Bible or the mystery of Roissy &GBFM-the- the guys he was trying to imitate as were his idols Rollo & Athol Kay.

        Speaking of which here’s an example of a very sad divorced guy who thinks now he knows all of the Bible just because his wife divorced him as was the case when she was married to him during his ”blue pill days”:

        Sharkly says:
        2024-07-06 at 7:40 pm
        Most of the problems go back to as soon as the apostles died. Those who were next to rule the church syncretized parts of Gnosticism as church doctrine and took most of the written words of Christ literally, but Jesus had spoken to the people in parables and hard to comprehend sayings so that even while hearing they might not hear His point.

        Matthew 13:10 And the disciples came up and said to Him, “Why do You speak to them in parables?” 11 And Jesus answered them, “To you it has been granted to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it has not been granted. 12 For whoever has, to him more shall be given, and he will have an abundance; but whoever does not have, even what he has shall be taken away from him. 13 Therefore I speak to them in parables; because while seeing they do not see, and while hearing they do not hear, nor do they understand. 14 And in their case the prophecy of Isaiah is being fulfilled, which says,

        ‘You shall keep on listening, but shall not understand;
        And you shall keep on looking, but shall not perceive;
        15 For the heart of this people has become dull,
        With their ears they scarcely hear,
        And they have closed their eyes,
        Otherwise they might see with their eyes,
        Hear with their ears,
        Understand with their heart, and return,
        And I would heal them.’

        They took most of Jesus’ hyperbole literally. Like that lust is adultery, yet they didn’t literally rip out their right eye or cut off their right hand, because that further bit of hyperliteral interpretation would cost them a body part.

        I agree that their errors left them defenseless to stand up against the rise of Feminism within church doctrine. Mary could not become equal with God, because women were not even considered to be in the image of God. (1 Corinthians 11:7) So they changed that, declaring women to be the image of their god/goddess so that Mary could become the “Queen of Heaven” and a redemptrix equal with Jesus, and a good substitute goddess for forcibly converted goddess worshippers in Rome.

        Part of the problem with church history is that the Catholics and other churches like to claim to be infallible, or nearly infallible, so they lie their butts off to try to hide their true history of one great apostasy after another.

        But, by making women into a supposed feminine image of the divine Father & Son, in order to promote Mary into the Godhead, they also laid a doctrinal basis for all women to become divinely equal to all men. Making a hermaphrodite out of God, was the emasculating seed of blasphemy against the Father, and the Son, and their masculine Spirit, who Himself impregnated Mary, that has now grown into Western Feminism.

        Almost every time you see a “Christian” mount a defense of their Feminist idolatry, they immediately conjure female equality with men from women supposedly being equally the image of God our Father.

        And God’s holy order of categorical patriarchy isn’t fitting unless all men are categorically divinely superior to all women. Otherwise surely there would be some home where the woman (supposedly divinely equal) was the mentally superior one and her husband should then be made to submit to her in everything, for wisdoms’ sake.

        But God knows that He made all men superior creatures to all women. And that is exactly why our loving God set up, a blessed patriarchy where all fathers rule over their dependents in the best interest of everyone.”

        ”Almost every time you see a “Christian” mount a defense of their Feminist idolatry, they immediately conjure female equality with men from women supposedly being equally the image of God our Father.

        And God’s holy order of categorical patriarchy isn’t fitting unless all men are categorically divinely superior to all women. Otherwise surely there would be some home where the woman (supposedly divinely equal) was the mentally superior one and her husband should then be made to submit to her in everything, for wisdoms’ sake.”

        As Derek has said & the original MGTOWS( & who made fun of the ”old guard” 70s-style MRAS because of it) 20-25+ years ago knew feminists don’t believe in or more accurately ”want” equality just the marketing and ”good -feelz” of supposed ”equality”.
        BUT ”guys” like ”Sparkly” don’t seem to understand that as his research and knowledge are both an inch-thick and inch(NOT mile)-wide in most matters.

  3. professorGBFMtm

    Hey MOD remember when you said on the other post ” some of them say ”women are NOT in God’s image period!” for some reason Sparkly had nothing to say when I showed him at Spawnys one of his anti-”lawlessness” idols with Aaron Renn of course, Jordan Peterson says ”how in the world could you say ” women are to be subservient to MEN?”-when the Bible says ”MEN&woMEN are made in God’s image?” his ”red pill” Marxist bot NPC program based doctrine, charts, studies and graphs couldn’t figure it out I guess.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OwpNzfr6weU
    That’s the short summarized version of the video of the one I showed Sparkly that shut his mouth(as he was found dumb)up @Spawnys.

  4. Lastmod

    Mystified. Not.

    Was out last night for Teppanyaki with some fellow DJs. One of the DJs brother came with us. We were supposed to help cheer him up, a night for a good meal and the like with the “bros” so to speak.

    He’s 29. He did the “passport bro” thing before it was a big thing. Left the USA when he was 25 to go “bang” Ukraine and Slavic Europe. He meets a stunning blonde Ukrainian in 2018. Of course she is WAY above him in looks. She’s model level. He’s a solid five. Not ugly. Not bad looking. Average dude who has his pros and cons to appearance. No, he is not fat.

    She of course finds out he is from California (Los Angeles). Gets pregnant almost immediately. He brings her back to the USA. Baby is born here. Her Visa is going to run out, and of course he cant send her back to “war torn Ukaraine”and the pandemic is over, so marries her.

    She gets the Green Card in 2024. In May actually. Suddenly is GONE. He has hired an investigator to track her down. Her phone number has been changed. Bank account was emptied the morning she “disappeared” several credit cards maxxed out as well at places like Coach, Gucci, Yves Saint Laurent.

    He came home from work. The kid is at home by himself. Just says “Mommy said she would be right back”

    He is a mess and a wreck. He cant understand “why” this happened. I shut my mouth.
    Now is not the time, dude just needed a night out for a good meal, and fellowship.

    He showed me the pics of her. He was delusional to think she would go for him “in that way” and that she was “genuine” because no model looking woman in ANY country goes for a 5’8″ American guy who is average looking with no status, or money and I dont think he had a porn star penis. He was hardly funny or cocky. He was kind of a dish rag in a personality….now that may be because of what has just happened to him. Me coming of drink and drugs was not a pleasant thing either. Who knows. His job? He is an insurance adjuster for a multi national company. He is not an executive, the branch owner nor a regional manager. He got that job in Ukraine because they didnt require him to speak Ukrainian. Before that he was working in a call center for US Bank here in LA

    Again, going to Eastern Europe where all the women are devout Christians and want to “Serve” their man is another line of bad cocaine and advice to men. Its a falsehood and frankly the ones who do this and find success……are outliers

    1. Malcolm Reynolds

      > He got that job in Ukraine because they didnt require him to speak Ukrainian.

      A monoglot speaking English to foreign women got exactly what he ordered from the menu.

      Note how this outcome is completely independent of the sexual attributes of the passport holder and the sexual attributes of the green card aspirant, despite you putting emphasis on them.

      It’s even orthogonal to the gender of the passport holder. A hypothetical case of me entering a bi-national marriage with an American would also be only about getting access to a green card as well. Enduring talking a foreign language to a potential spouse the whole time would be only about moving closer towards that goal.

      Otherwise the local stock of women speaking my native language is more than sufficient for all my needs. Also note how with a green card in my bag there would a be a whole new world of options available as well. Conclusion: There is not a single reason to stick with a stepping stone. And this is why this outcome is totally predictable.

      > no model looking woman in ANY country goes for a […] American

      Exactly. High-status women stick with their own breed everywhere.

      1. professorGBFMtm

        Sorry MR but i’m going to have to half-Oscar you here:

        ”> no model looking woman in ANY country goes for a […] American

        Exactly. High-status women stick with their own breed everywhere.”

        How about Melania Trump with Donny, and the ”most beautiful woman in the world ” Queen of Sheba with King Solomon huh?

        &Sheba pre-dates 1969, 1869, and the most h8ed of all protestants ”puritans”-whom the declining in birthrate ”orthodox” and ”catholic” nations often imitate too!

        1. Malcolm Reynolds

          Yes, some Protestant sects treat the Authorized Version like a history book. I don’t. The Hebrews didn’t either, not the Septuagint nor the Masoretic Text. So why should I?

  5. Lastmod

    This “the future is for those who show up” statement seems to be only for those who get married.

    Lets apply this statement is a real “biblical” sense

    The answer is Jesus.

    He showed up, and look at the price he paid for humaity. All of humanity.

    A broken bloodied body on a cross, and the people hurled insults at him. “This is Jesus of Nazareth, King of the Jews” was all that was posted.

    When we “show up” for a future that we cannot predict, the outcome is not nice wedding photos of UMC attractive couples and their children. The future we all have will be one day to stop breathing, turn very cold and die.

    It may be quick, it may be long and drawn out. We might be young, or very old. It could be a child. Accidental. Accident. Sent to die in a war for personal interests of governments / kings (ahem, David).

    The future we “show up” for Jesus explains clearly. Frequently. Expectantly. That future where there is not one tear. A future and hope and promise of a kingdom where all can be a part of it through Him, and him alone.

    Not a wedding. Not children. Not a wife. Blessings of course……but not a requirement. Not a job provision. Not on your appearance. Not on your IQ. Not on how many women gave you IOIs.

    Jesus told the masses and his disciples to be “ready” and to “watch” and he also told them to “trust and believe” (not just to Thomas)

    He didnt say “the future is for those who show up and father children and have a pretty wife who has sex with you on command”

    The future is not known, but again…….making this “future” for people with nice teeth, good looks, and conducting a biological act (even animals do this) is not “showing up”

    Besides, plenty of parents (christian or not) are pretty horrible people and should have no business being a parent.

    1. Malcolm Reynolds

      The quote is about a simple biological fact:

      Protestants can invent the most sophisticated school systems to transmit their (Puritan) values down to new generations (like the Romans tried and failed).

      But if they fail to reproduce in numbers, the values of those people who do will prevail.

      Doesn’t matter how these people look. Most Muslims are not really attractive, yet they multiply. Protestant nations do not.

  6. professorGBFMtm

    Hey Derek and MOD maybe this is what ”Jack” should have done between September 20, 2021, to early March ’22-when Scott came back from being on ”hiatus”i.e. Mychael told him to drop ”jacks” & ”Sparklt’s” gay porn butts, after ”officially” ”hernia surgery” A.K.A. the headship swinger gay porn ””Lessons on Life and Marriage from Matthew 10: plus lots of gay butthexting empowerment thanx to ”jack”!” post. That destroyed ALL the success Scott, Nova, I and about a dozen others gave SF in 2021.

    ”Hiatus Once More
    Posted on 7 July 2024 by CatRez/Catacomb Resident

    This blog will take a break. Why, you ask?

    1. Readership has declined. Several people have commented privately that they can’t keep up.

    2. I sense a shift in the Unseen Realm. I’m not the only one who feels it. Something has changed behind the scenes and I need to see what it is in order to address the needs of my readers.

    3. By the same token, there’s a sense in which the work I’ve done up to now is finished.

    I’ll start posting again when there’s something to say.”

    See? If ”Jack” had waited ’till had something ”new” to say about his boring, lame too long ”red pill” screeds maybe he wouldn’t have had to blame Derek and I for his failures!

    1. Derek L. Ramsey

      “This blog will take a break … I’ll start posting again when there’s something to say”

      Not bad advice. One of the things I like about Catacomb Resident—despite my obvious criticisms of Radix Fidem—is that he isn’t worried about engagement and clicks. His message is a genuine one.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *