One of the interesting things about some of Jesus’ parables is that he sometimes explained what the parable meant. In September, I wrote a two-part series on the Parable of the Sower (here and here), where I discussed how Jesus explicitly stated the meaning of the parable. Coincidentally, Jack @ Sigma Frame—a member of the Radix Fidem cult—posted on the same topic in “The Parable of the Seeds : Red Pill Edition” where he re-imagined the Parable of the Sower in a way that—to put it mildly—had nothing to do with Jesus’ teaching.
Now more of the same bad fruit of Radix Fidem has been produced in the same way; this time in a comment by Catacomb Resident, another member of the Radix Fidem cult. Like Jack’s twisting of the Parable of the Sower, Catacomb Resident is twisting the Parable of the Good Samaritan.
The whole point of the Good Samaritan story was Jesus pointing out that “neighbor” was not a matter of Jewish DNA but obedience to divine priorities as stated in the Covenant. The Samaritan does not represent a random stranger, but someone who lived by the Torah, regardless of any other affiliations. The Hebrew concept of “neighbor” is not a geographical term as it in English, but one who shares a covenant commitment.
Jesus told His disciples His new covenant law was “love each other as I have loved you.” It does not included random strangers, for whom we might have compassion, but that’s not the same thing at all. Genuine sacrificial love requires a shared moral commitment. There’s an awful lot of humanity out there to whom I might be merciful, but I cannot love them unless they first love my Lord.
Liked by thedeti.
For those who do not know, Catacomb Resident is invested in reinterpreting the Bible to conform to his so-called “Ancient Near East” cultural understanding. Those viewpoints are being referred to by the terms “divine priorities” and “covenant commitment.” They may sound vaguely biblical, but they are not.
Notice how CR defines one’s neighbor as “one who shares a covenant commitment.” Now let’s read the parable, and see what Jesus has to say:
And Jesus said to him,
And he, answering, said,
And he said to him,
The Parable of the Good Samaritan begins with Jesus’ teaching on the Law of Love. One cannot understand the Good Samaritan without also understanding Jesus’ Law of Love.
Recall how I wrote in “Heart and Mind, Redux” that it is in the Law of Love that Jesus emphasized using one’s mind (e.g. critical thinking). Radix Fidem—in true gnostic form—rejects the use of the mind in favor of a purely heart-led approach. In doing so, it falsely divides one’s being into separable parts (just like in Greek philosophy).
The Law of Love states that to love God and live, you must use your entire being, not just your heart. Salvation itself requires the mind!
Now, let’s read the rest of the Parable.
Jesus answered and said,
Which of these three do you think proved to be a neighbor to him who fell among the robbers?
And he said,
And Jesus said to him,
The error in Catacomb Resident defining a neighbor as “one who shares a covenant commitment” is simple. The definition given for the neighbor is “one who shows you mercy,” not “one who shares a covenant commitment.”
What makes someone your neighbor is not what you do to or for them. It has nothing at all to do with your own actions, rather it is is based entirely on what they do to or for you. So, if a Gentile—who does not share the covenant commitment of Israel—shows you mercy, he is your neighbor.
Take time to think about this.
Now, there is even more to this story. If someone shows you mercy, he is your neighbor, but you are not his neighbor unless you do the same. See, the Samaritans and Jews—both ethnic Israelites—unambiguously shared the same covenant commitment. But in the story, the Jewish Levite and the Jewish priest were not neighbors to the beaten Jewish man even though they shared the same covenant commitment. Why? Because they personally failed to show him mercy.
This is very important. Men who shared a covenant commitment were not neighbors to one another because they failed to show mercy. Thus, by logical contradiction, it is false that the Hebrew concept of “neighbor” is one who shares a covenant commitment.
This is obviously the case.
Having established what a neighbor was, did Jesus instruct the lawyer to seek out like-minded men who shared a common covenant commitment? No, he said “go and do likewise.” Go, and show mercy. Now, do you recall what Jesus said after citing the Law of Love? “Do this.” Jesus explicitly told the lawyer that his obligation was to show mercy and to love.
Does this sound familiar?
What can I do with you, Ephraim?
What can I do with you, Judah?
Your love is like the morning mist,
like the early dew that disappears.
Therefore I cut you in pieces with my prophets,
I killed you with the words of my mouth—
then my judgments go forth like the sun.
For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.
As at Adam, they have broken the covenant;
they were unfaithful to me there.
To fail to love, to fail to show mercy is to be unfaithful and to break the covenant with God.
Jesus was not concerned with men finding neighbors, he was concerned with men being neighbors by loving and showing mercy.
The idea that we are not supposed to show love and mercy to strangers, or that sacrificial love requires a reciprocal covenant relationship is clearly not supported by Jesus’ own explicit teaching. Jesus taught that we must love our enemies!
You have heard that it was said, Love your neighbor and hate your enemy. But I say to you, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you
Love and mercy are not restricted to fellow believers. The whole point of the Good Samaritan is that you are supposed to make your others your neighbors by loving them and showing them mercy! This necessarily includes your enemies. For in loving them and showing them mercy, you prove that even though they are your enemy, you are not theirs: you are their neighbor.
Jesus did not teach the lawyer that all he had to do was love him in order to become mutual neighbors only with all the other men who also love Jesus.
Fortunately, I’m not the only one who noticed Catacomb Resident’s misuse of scripture (which, incidentally, Radix Fidem member Jack defended, and commenter Deti liked):
Yeah, I’m gonna disagree with that. During Justinian’s plague (3rd Century A.D.), Christians cared for sick pagan neighbors who’d been abandoned to die by their families, and buried the abandoned dead. Many of these Christians got sick and died.
You know what that’s called? Sacrificial love.
You know what resulted from that sacrificial love? Pagans became Christians.
Obviously, love radiates outward from the center (God, family, church, etc.), but to say that we cannot love someone who doesn’t love our Lord is plan false. In fact, evangelism is an act of love.
Jack says:
That’s not what CR wrote. He wrote that he can’t love someone unless they first love the Lord. That’s false. We follow our Father’s example, who demonstrated His love for us in that, while we were yet sinners, while we were His enemies, Christ died for us. The same Christ commanded us to love our enemies.
What CR wrote is wrong, false, and contradicts Christ’s commandments and actions. If CR meant something other than what he wrote, then he’s free to clarify.
As of this writing, Catacomb Resident has not clarified.
What is really amazing about Jack is he thinks he should be a ”risk-taker” yet he (& mostly others) seeing himself/SF as the new Dalrock is what got him so huge in early-mid’21.
When he started taking ”risks” with gay porn(instead of the ”tasteful” risque one before)like the most infamous one here https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2021/09/20/lessons-on-life-and-marriage-from-matthew-10/ posts.
That got this response from the SF audience:
Eternity Matters says:
2021-09-20 at 8:30 pm
“Being the head, I don’t argue with my wife at all, because what superior argues with their direct reports?”
That sounds like a good strategy.
Good distinction between dominant and domineering.
All that said, I’m not sure why you link to a site with pornography. The guy may be great at leading his wife, but I don’t need a picture of her giving him a BJ.
cameron232 says:
2021-09-20 at 9:04 pm
That’s because the manosphere is a reactionary movement and we sometimes have a bad habit of reacting against Churchian denial of male sexuality (the idealization of female non-sexual embrace of beta male husbands) by going too far in the opposite direction. I do it all the time with inappropriate comments and sometimes the pictures posted reflect this as well. There’s been non-explicit BJ pics posted here before.
thedeti says:
2021-09-20 at 11:15 pm
I don’t need a pic of it either. But I’m not going to clutch pearls about it. Leave that to the girls and their useless shaming language.
This is a site by men, for men, to help men, where men talk about things important to men. We speak and depict things frankly and explicitly. It’s time we stopped our squeamishness about this and talked about it, looked at it, faced it, and dealt with it all head (heh) on.
Look. We are Christian men, but we’re men. There has got to be a place where we as men can discuss women, what we like about them, and what we want from them and what we want to do with them, without someone getting irritated or grimaced because they saw something a little shocking or out of the ordinary. Can we develop a bit of a thicker skin here?
Liked by 1 person
Reply
Eternity Matters says:
2021-09-20 at 11:36 pm
Oh, piss off. I’m no prude. But a Christian site shouldn’t link to porn. If you want to do some pathetic macho virtue-signaling over why that’s OK, then go ahead. I’m not buying it. Don’t be intellectually dishonest and conflate it with not being able to discuss women and such candidly.
Liked by 4 people
thedeti says:
2021-09-20 at 11:47 pm
Shrugs
Say what you want to about me, but I’m here doing the work. I don’t care what you call me – the work’s getting done whether you help or not, whether you like it or not. Either pitch in and help, or stand aside while we get the work done. It’s not about intellectual dishonesty. OK, fine, you don’t like Davis’ site. Don’t look at it. Now that that’s out of the way, can we get back to the task at hand and fix this sh!t? Can we focus on what we agree on and not concern ourselves with irrelevancies and what we disagree about?
& this commenter /reader(among many others) Jack permanently lost.
forsoothredux says:
2021-09-21 at 9:04 pm
I have been reading here for years now, Jack. Silently, sincerely seeking to understand.
I have lost more and more faith in masculinity and patrichy with the majority of posts and comments here.
With the exception of a few, perhaps Ed Hurst, GBFM* , Scott and Jason, I hold out little hope for male leadership. (Though, Jason, I’d like to see you state your opinion without the pseudo passive voice. Live loud and prosper.)
I could never have imagined the way some people think. It’s cracked my heart a little more. (Today’s ki$k-driven po%n view is the least destructive viewing I’ve vicariously experienced here.)
In the end visiting here has at least taught me a little more to accept what I can’t change and that perception is truly either treasure or trash.
I am grateful the Almighty is unknowable because this creation is crazy.
How to end? Kindness is greatly underrated.
*Thanks GBFM for your quiet voice and long view. You’ve been a demonstrable influence for clarity in this space.
& then the ”(red pill)”uniter” NOT divider” showed up uniting as usual.
Sharkly says:
2021-09-25 at 2:32 pm
So I leave Σ Frame for just a few weeks, and the rumor reaches me via another site that they’re now taking advice on how to be husbands from some porn pimping pillow-biter whose wife wears a strap-on! LOL
I know it wasn’t very churchian of me, but I found out as my work was ending, and I just couldn’t stop laughing to myself my whole drive home.
Liked by 2 people
Red Pill Apostle says:
2021-09-26 at 12:44 pm
This is for anyone reading through the comments in the future. My references to Mike Davis, and his generous gifts(that don’t cost much at all!) of his time and wisdom learned by actually getting his wife to be submissive, are from an extensive email conversation I had with him. Because of that experience and wisdom he was able to point out some specific things from my story that would be good areas to work on. His insights and help played a crucial role in helping me improve my marriage and keeping it intact so my kids grow up with parents that actually live under the same roof and like each other.
Mike, who Sharkly is dismissing because of the naked pictures, both of his wife and the two of them in the throes of marital acts, that Mike posts on his own blog, is a man whose marriage was not going well and figured out how to fix it. Mike focused on masculinity, took a long hard look in the mirror to see where he was falling short and began working. He saved his marriage and gave his 3 kids and intact home to grow up in with all the benefits that entails for them. He has been so effective at becoming more attractive and leading his wife that she’ll do just about anything for or with him. She was, at one point, a wife who would have sex once per week with the lights off and now is a wife that is enthusiastic about bringing him pleasure, which according to them is almost daily.
Contrast this with Sharkly’s marriage, which is in the process of divorce. In this process his wife is doing what she can, at the very least, to limit Sharkly’s involvement with his sons. On his blog, Laughing at Feminism (link above on the sidebar of this blog), you can read about his marriage.
I take Sharkly at his word on the details and they are excruciating to read. Going only by what is written, I can see many ways where Mike’s advice on masculinity could have been helpful to Sharkly. It’s impossible to tell if Mike’s wisdom on the topic of fixing his own marriage would have helped Sharkly be successful in fixing his or at the very least mitigated the fallout during the divorce proceedings.
Here’s a link to a specific paragraph Sharkly wrote that is quite pertinent.
“On about the fifth day of our honeymoon Pam suddenly announced she thought her period was starting, and that we would not be having sex for a couple weeks until it was over. I said, “Well I’m excited to get the first blow-job of my life”, to which Pam got an evil smirk on her face and told me that even though she had been happy to do that for a lot of other men, she felt it would be demeaning to do that for her husband. I reminded her that she had claimed that she had wished she had saved that all for me, and she responded by explaining to me that she did that for all those other guys because she respected them, and that she would never respect me like she had respected them. She literally said that, just like that, less than a week into our honeymoon, with an evil smirk on her face.”
In February of 2020 my wife told me that I didn’t deserve sex with her, that she did not respect me in any way, and told me the classic, “I love you, but I’m not in love with you.” Fast forward to this past week and I got everything Sharkly wanted on his honeymoon and I didn’t have to ask for it. Mrs. Apostle acted of her own volition. This is my result from applying Mike’s wisdom regarding masculinity to my own marriage.
So if there is an issue of contentiousness with your wife and you are having trouble with her, then who would you ask for help? Sharkly? Mike Davis? That depends on what you want help on. If you are looking for advice on what not to do, you can ask either of them, because they have both been there. If you want to know what to do to fix it … well, y’all know who you should email for advice for reasons that are more than obvious.
After that 140 i.q. genius post SF lost all the success and popularity it only had because of the Roissyosphere, Dalrock, MOSES, JESUS, GBFM, Derek, NovaSeeker, Scott, Liz, MOD, Elspeth, CAMeron323, and a few others that haven’t been there since 2021.
But now Jack in his love of his new cultic denomination will lose one of his oldest workhorses in Oscar(like he did Deti before he even made his allegiance to Radix Fidem official) if he’s not careful and if Oscar goes?-most likely Feeriker, as well as Sparkly, will then compete with anyone else left there to be Jack’s number #1 pet(the main position he has desired there for some 4 years now, anything to outdo Scott) as he has called Oscar and when he was there instead of M.I.A.( cuz of being doxxed (as Jack told it later at Mike Davis site)by a gay porn connoisseur who thought SF was right up his lefty alleyway): Scott.
Who at least reached out when I was in dire need? Who asked to pray for me? Who fed? Who asked questions about me?
Well, I will say it was believers. All actions done to help me were in “christs name” at that low point. If they had not opened the door when I knocked, and asked for help……who knows what would have happened.
Nor did they ask “What is your church, relationship with Jesus?” before they offered helps.
William Booth (founder of the salavtion army) once said in the 1890’s. “You do not demand a certificate of virtue before you rescue a drowning man.” and “You dont demand proof of paid insurance before you rescue a man man from a burning building.”