I asked OpenAI’s ChatGPT to generate a table for me without explaining why I wanted it:
Now, guess what it said.
The relationship between race, crime rates, and IQ is a highly complex and sensitive topic influenced by socioeconomic factors, education, systemic inequalities, and historical contexts. Data on such topics should be interpreted with caution, as they can be misrepresented or misused. Crime rates are more accurately correlated with economic status, education, and environment rather than race itself. Similarly, IQ is influenced by access to education, nutrition, and other social factors.
If you’re interested in crime statistics, the FBI’s Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) program provides data on crime rates. For IQ scores, studies suggest that average scores are influenced by cultural and environmental factors rather than innate racial differences.
Would you like information on how socioeconomic factors influence these statistics instead?
It refused to do it. For ideological reasons.
I’m actually thankful, because I could not have come up with a better real-life example of blankslatism if I had tried. While the entire thing is riddled with falsehoods and misleading misrepresentations, the line I bolded is especially egregious.
Blankslatists can’t even have a conversation about this. The data has to be suppressed and the narrative controlled. The reason is simple:
“It is a dangerous mistake to premise the moral equality of human beings on biological similarity because dissimilarity, once revealed, then becomes an argument for moral inequality.”
— A.W.F. Edwards, Lewontin’s Fallacy, 2003
Blankslatistism is the presupposition that biological dissimilarity is an implicit argument for moral inequality, and so it must deny that biological dissimilarity exists at all. Just as ChatGPT did here.
And, no, ChatGPT. I do not want “additional information”—indoctrination—on how environmental factors influence those statistics. In fact, if I asked it some pointed questions about the socioeconomic differences among the races, it would probably refuse to answer those too.
Did you know that somewhere between one-in-three and one-in-five black men will have a felony conviction during their lifetime? You’ll “never” guess what Gemini AI has to say:
Yes, the statement that one in three Black men will have a felony conviction in their lifetime is a common, though somewhat outdated, statistic, reflecting the disproportionate impact of the criminal justice system on Black men.
That’s right, according to blankslatistism, conviction for actual violent crime is the fault of a racist system, not the criminal who committed the crime. And it must be, because to the blankslatist, no innate, biological explanation can even be considered as a possible—or even partial—explanation for disproportionate results. The disparities are presumed to be entirely environmental.
Did you know that this is not a new view? The Professor recently posted a clip from a 1973 TV show discussing the “Destructive Forces of Pimping” where a pimp Robert “Iceberg Slim” Beck said that it was the fault of the White Man that he had done what he did. He said that the pimp is an ill man who is the victim of the racist white society (it is at the 9:00 mark). That’s blankslatism.
This was a very common view in the 60s and 70s and it remains a very common view today.
Oh, and do you know the reason the 1-in-3 statistic is outdated? Because of recent policies of decriminalization, reduced charges, and reduced policing. It isn’t because of a reduction in actual offenses, only a reduction in enforcement (which, incidentally, California Proposition 36 tried to reverse). In fact, because fewer felony convictions result in shorter (or no) sentences, even more crimes are being committed than before (due to crime being a Pareto distribution): they just no longer count as felonies. As the California experiment showed, crime becomes more frequent when there are more opportunities and it is easier to get away with it.
Now, let’s look at what the makers of ChatGPT do not want you to see:
Yes, those are per capita rates, not absolute values.
Pick any statistic you like—crime, divorce, education, etc.—and you’ll see a similar effect. Here is the raw UCR data from 2019 for criminal arrests. It shows the same thing:
ChatGPT is only repeating what most people, at least partially, believe. Americans—both left and right—have a strong visceral reaction against any implication that bad personal outcomes are even partially influenced by innate differences. But if people did not subscribe to blankslatism, there would be no reason to raise any objection. It would simply be a fact of reality.
Many people claim to not subscribe to blankslatism, but they still react as if they believe it—at least partially. Do you cringe at the mere implication that intelligence strongly influences outcomes and that this is distributed along racial lines? Did you cringe when you saw those tables above? If so, then you are still being influenced by blankslatism, even if you intellectually reject it.
When I see these tables, I do not cringe. I do not get an emotional reaction based on an ideological disagreement. I do not complain that it is unfair that one group commits—and is punished for—more crimes than another group. I don’t complain that my group isn’t the “best.” I do not start thinking about the moral implications, nor think about whether one person is better than another because they have a difference in intelligence. I don’t start planning mass racial genocides nor do I join one of the race nationalist groups (of any stripe). I also do not start wondering about the philosophy of (pre)determinism.
I am like this because I do not, in any way, hinge the moral equality on the biologically similarity of humans. I base the relative equality or inequality of humans on the Word of God instead. And the Word of God doesn’t teach blankslatism, it teaches that each man should be judged according to his words and deeds. It teaches that a man is judged by the content of his heart.
People often object to the belief that innate differences exist by complaining that it is (pre)determinism or that the existence of heritable traits denies people free will or agency. In the last week, a few people (including the Pseudonymous Commenter) have done so.
But, it is blankslatism that is asserting determinism. In blaming a man’s actions on a system, rather than the man himself, it is absolving him of agency (just like Iceberg Slim did). Blankslatism is an argument for determinism Since most hereditarians—people who reject blankslatism—insist that each man should be judged according to his own deeds, the blankslatist accusation is nothing but a vacuous projection.
Derek,
At least Pseudonymous Commenter and Pseudonymous Commenter Limey admitted they had some blame in their marriages(& divorce in Limey’s case), but that was glossed over by Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas’ deranged ranting and raving about how you & i were supposedly ”blaming MEN for everything women do.” by largely agreeing with assortive pairing leads to what one ”wants.” and getting it.
i know that’s why Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas came into the Dalrockian manosphere, he was looking for a ”safe space” where a disgraced married and divorced MAN could claim total innocence while ignoring most of the other MEN in the Dalrockian manosphere don’t!
IOW?
Nearly the same thing happened with Pseudonymous Commenter Welmer/Bill F.Price in 2008/’09(really until he married ”a feminist” by his own admission in September 2013-when he admitted he had married her at a news site behind his readers and donators to his ”child support” fund backs) and Pseudonymous Commenter Mark Minter in 2012/13 where they claimed total innocence and the ex-wife was a 100% to blame, but at least they didn’t come up with ”intimacy anorexia”,” defiler” theology and ”only MEN made in God’s image” to explain it while derangely ranting and raving about how ”other” MEN were supposedly saying ”blame MEN for everything women do.”because that’s what Pseudonymous Commenter and Pseudonymous Commenter ”I have a meltdown wife”said so(as i know Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas will gloss over (& ignore)facts just so he can attack ”other”MEN as any other proud gyno- groveler would do too)
Conclusion?
Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas knew when he claimed ”Derek’s blog thinks the (Dalroockian) manosphere is full of bad people” a year ago, he knew it was mainly him WE thought that about BUT like a wimminz his effeminate solipsism came through, and then acted like it’s a generalization of others when it was on him that it was about, but such is those who think like a wimminz that ”other” MEN are fodder to do their bidding and mob up on Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM.
Speaking of Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas:
Does this NOT sound like the shark guy who thinks he’s on the same level as God too?
https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2015/09/donald-trump-god-forgiveness?srsltid=AfmBOopXq5Nd3HApjuoCJfJPAwweP9NaSA8QDMMoBj8bLNYa1atAbxHv
Trump Backtracks on Whether He Asks God for Forgiveness
Donald Trump admits someone is more powerful than him.
By Tina Nguyen
September 22, 2015
Shortly after a poll indicated that conservative Christians were concerned that he’d never asked God for forgiveness, Donald Trump announced that he has, indeed, asked God for forgiveness, but in his “own way.”
Trump, a self-described Presbyterian whose ascendancy in the Republican primary race has placed his religious beliefs under scrutiny, told a Christian evangelical radio show that not only does he think it’s important to ask God for forgiveness, he’s done so, somewhat.
“I think [asking for forgiveness is] great,” he told The Brody File. “I consider communion to be a very important thing. You know, when I go to church and I take communion I consider that asking for forgiveness in my own way. And I do think it’s a great thing and I think it’s an important thing and it makes you feel good.”
(Technically, worshippers are supposed to ask for forgiveness before taking communion.)
The re-evaluation of his relationship with God came after Iowa’s Christian voters heard about statements Trump made in Iowa back in July, when he admitted that he didn’t think he’d ever asked God for forgiveness. According to the Bloomberg/Des Moines Register poll, 59 percent of likely Republican voters who identified as Christian said they were “bothered” by that statement. (Overall, however, only 36 percent of likely Republican voters were bothered.)
Trump’s confessions, however, must be so peculiar that one has to imagine what those talks are like:
Our Father—I’m sorry. I’m sorry. “Our” Father? Look, it’s a—when did the personal relationship with God become socialized? No one else will say it, God—no one will give it to you straight, because they’re all bought by very, very rich men—but I will, because I’m a really rich guy.
Anyways. Father, who art in Heaven—you know, Father, if you ever decide to move, I have a very beautiful Heaven of my own. I do. I built it from the ground up. You know what, I’ll let you stay in Trump Heaven if you ever decide to come to New Jersey—hallowed be thy name. And I like you, God. I hope to behold your divine face one day. But I’m gonna be the only one who says it like it is. When I get up there, on day one, all the lost souls? Back to Purgatory.
What did i find so “bothersome” about the above?
That a politician(I.E. Clinton, who one would think would have said it first) hadn’t said it earlier, and that more don’t say it(especially female ones who even ”Conservatives” act like they lust over them as they did the ”FOX babes”(& i was told ”oh people just want the news, no fluff, no romanticising, just the facts, and junk”)!
”oh people just want the news, no fluff, no romanticizing, just the facts, and junk”
Q.If that is true in general beyond the news then why was the Roissyospher/manosphere so HUGE when Roissy and GBFM were its two biggest promoters with their playful satirical edge to all the facts and studies out there?
A. Because miserably divorced MEN & unhappily married MEN wanted a safe space to complain and tell younger MEN to ”MENZ UP & serve me as your superior in rank and MANhood peonic MENZER!”
Q.How did that go?
A.Ever more leftist censorship of ideas, SJW tactics( like bullying fanboys of Bellevuians for WP credentials so ”Akismet”(as GBFM was told in February 2023 by honest Abe Farm Boy ) could do a blanket ”moderation”/shadowban to try to get MOSES, JESUS & GBFM back to sodomy g@y porn places to give them the blessings they don’t deserve and that they had already swore they would NEVER go to again), and ”I’m an innocent little BIG-D@nged MANZ like wimminz who say their ”an innocent little flower of purity and totally blameless-as if they were a lamb without spot” deranged ranting and raving that sent most younger MEN in search of the latter-day MGTOW & the ”redpill’s” ”evilz” off-shoot the ”black pill”.
As far away from MOST miserably divorced MEN & unhappily married MEN who tell younger MEN to ”MENZ UP & serve me as your superior in rank and MANhood peonic MENZER!” as possible.
That really is something, isn’t it?
Of course you can’t conclude that I’m blaming men—as I explained here—but that hasn’t stopped this very popular conclusion.
It really is difficult to resist the urge to judge people instead of addressing their ideas as ideas. But I suppose you have to actually try to resist the urge, rather than explicitly embrace ad hominem as if it were a divine calling.
I get accussed of effeminate solipsism seemingly all the time. How can someone who focuses so heavily on ideas—to the point where they get complaints about rejecting anecodotes and not being personal enough—be self-centered?
First, low IQ doesnt mean higher crime. We had a much higher trust society back in the good ol days. It wasnt that crime didnt exist. It did. It wasnt that people were more moral. Look at 1930s Germany, many in that regime were educated at some of the finest universities at that time. Including Goebbels. This was back in a time
“when everyone went to church and man were men and women were women evidently”
My father would tell me when he was in the USAF station in the Philippines “the hookers would be in the bars and clubs Saturday night, and then be in the front pews of the Catholic church Sunday morning.”
Same with the golden age of the “mob” in America in the 1920s. They would ice and kill off people and then be in church Sunday morning in Cicero taking “holy communion”
Going back to Germany, look at the Weimar Republic during the 1920’s. A very loose sexuality. Trans. Cabaret.
Derek, you seem to be looking at it in the way “Low IQ equals high crime”
As for ChatGPT, who programmed it?
Not the guy in the trailer park. Not pimp down Watts. Not the guy selling weed in the Barrio.
Men with high IQ did this. They will never be held accountable. They are assumed to be “moral” and “good” and “just” by a large swath of society. They are deemed “really, really smart”
The average “lower IQ person” with maladaptive behaviors, many of them can be linked to policies, and practices implemented on / upon them by the supposed “intelligent” people in our culture.
Also, the types of crime. Crime in the suburbs is viewed as “kids being kids” in many cases very little is done. While the same crimes in “lower IQ” neighborhoods results in jail, juvenile hall or now even “justified” because they have the unspoken “low IQ”
I grew up in the poor rural area of northern New York State. All white. Many of them had everything stripped from them by “policy” or “economics” or “laws” and frankly solutions became the problem.
They were told to “go live on welfare” and then in uptown offices in Albany (the capital) these same people were mocked for being “lazy” and “not showering” and “they deserve to be poor because they are stupid”
While when there was a logging industry, paper mills, some light manufacturing…..crime seemed to be much lower (pre-1970). The Adirondacks, like Appalachia has some of the lowest church attendance in the nation.
Its a complex problem, and I am not “shedding tears” for these folks….many of them are indeed stupid. Do stupid things. Seen it firthand….but when the basic opportunities to own a home through work, a job that may not be like mine or yours……….but there was healthcare, some guardrails……..when you are taxed (while many of the high IQ folks can afford lawyers / accountants to avoid paying them), regulated, talked down to, and told to “just be smart, shower, pull yourself up by your bootstraps” after a few generations has very poor results.
Again, my father remembered walking through Harlem in NYC back in the 1950’s. Yes, it was then, a black neighborhood. Sure, people gave looks to a “white boy” walking in their part of town but businesses were locally owned. You didnt get attacked, robbed or harassed and the IQ here wasnt “genius” level back then either on a whole. Yes, it was poor but it was a functional nbeighborhood.
You take incentives away……the intelligent class did this…………..well, what do you expect?
Lastmod,
You know, I really appreciate that you stuck to the ideas and addressed them directly. But, before I respond directly, we have to talk about a complex topic: heritability.
Heritability does not mean how much of a trait is caused by genetics. It is a ratio of the genetics vs. environment influence on the differences within a population. It is a ratio of differences, not an absolute, static, or unchanging measure.
Heritability says that if you look at the IQs of all the people who comment here, the differences between us are mostly explained by genetics. It says nothing about why each of us has the individual IQ that we have. It only explains our differences. IQ is 80% heritable, but that doesn’t mean your IQ is 80% caused by genetics.
All we can say is that your IQ will largely be determined by who your parents are, but we can’t say how much of your IQ is strictly determined by your genetics. This is why it is wrong to say that heritability is predeterminism. It’s a fundamental misunderstanding of what heritability is.
Over time, the absolute values of the heritable traits change. This may be due to genetics or it may be due to environment. Most of your examples involve absolute changes, not changes in differences.
Now, let’s talk about crime:
Derek, you seem to be looking at it in the way “Low IQ equals high crime”
And you seem to be suggesting that crime is not as heritable as it seems, that altering the environment would alter the criminality. And it’s possible that social policy changes could alter the absolute numbers of crimes commited, whether higher and lower (see California for example). But this may not result in a change in the differences within the population.
Thus, when the crime rate goes down, Asians will disproportionately commit fewer crimes in the newer more peaceful society than Blacks will. Blacks will, indeed, commit fewer crimes, but the differences between them will remain because the differences are largely determined by genetics.
So let’s go back to your original statement:
Going back until at least the 60s, the belief that low IQ (or its proxy racial categories) does not mean higher crime has been a core blankslatist belief. It is more widely accepted than many religious doctrines. As in the Professor’s example, it supports the belief that criminals are not responsible for their crimes, but that it is a matter of systemic injustice.
Low IQ does, in fact, mean higher crime. This is a universal constant in any sufficiently large sample size. I’m not aware of any exceptions in any category of crime. The Asian, White, Hispanic, Black—categories of average IQ, not race—show exactly this ordering in every single example.
This happens regardless of what environmental changes are made. Those environmental changes may have strong impacts on the absolute numbers of crimes (and types of crimes) commited, but over many decades, the relative differences have remained.
All attempts to alter the environment to eliminate these differences has failed. And they will fail again and again because IQ is roughly 80% heritable (though heritability is not a constant, because it is a ratio).
The blankslatists that want to eliminate differences and disparate impact would have to implement eugenics policies in order to achieve their stated goals. Since they don’t and won’t do this, none of their policies will achieve their stated goals. That is why no leftist policy since the 60s has effectively narrowed any of the racial gaps. Give the choice between (1) implement eugenics or (2) accept the differences and don’t worry about them, they’ve chosen instead to (3) waste money on virtue signaling.
America has changed.
Let’s say America implemented a three-strikes policy where after the third violent felony conviction, the death penalty was mandatory and immediate. Due to the Pareto distribution of crime, the violent crime rate would fall by more than 50% across the country. A two-strikes policy would be even more effective, eliminating a large majority ofcrime.
Think of that: a purely environmental change could eliminate 80%-90% of violent crime in America.
So why don’t we do it? After all, El Salvador implemented a policy that cut their crime down by nearly an order of magnitude. We know it works.
The answer is simple: because a large majority of those who would be executed would be black or hispanic. That’s because even though an environmental change would dramatically reduce the amount of crime, the differences caused by genetics would remain.
Moreover, this would have a strong natural eugenic effect, causing the average population IQ to rise (relatively) and the absolute crime rate to further decline. But since—according to the ad hominem favoring blankslatists—”only a Nazi would do that,” it will never happen.
Have you ever read RationalWiki’s propaganda hitpiece article on F. Roger Devlin? You can see this in action.
The belief in blankslatism by the very smart people in government—the intelligent class—is the reason why the crime rate is so high. They cannot accept that differences—”disparate outcomes”—are caused by genetics. That is considered to be racist, the worst of all American sins.
Correct. Because of the reality of heritability, there are no policies that reduce crime which would not also disproprionately impact low-IQ individuals. None. It’s simply not possible to have a racial-neutral policy on any scale that matters.
Thus, blankslatists—virtually everyone in politics—avoid any policies that might actually reduce crime, and only support ineffective policies or policies which raise crime. It’s why the left keeps trying to empty out prisons of criminals (e.g. during 2020).
Between 50% and 90% of violent crime could be completely eliminated. We know how to do it. But, the blankslatists won’t allow this because of “muh racism” (and the fact that it would disprove blankslatism). The fact that this doesn’t happen, no matter which political party is in power, tells you just how widespread blankslatism is.
Keep that in mind the next time politicians talk about the epidemic of gun violence. That, too, is blankslatism.
Blankslatism makes intelligent people stupid. The blankslatist should understand and accept that his delusion is environmentally caused. But he won’t. He thinks he’s innately intelligent. It is irony, without any self-awareness.
Peace,
DR
We had a “three strikes” and you’re “in” law in California back in the 1990’s.
Gun violence was higher then than it is now. The problem was you had a people (of all colors) being locked away for unpaid child support, caught selling dime bags of weed, unpaid parking tickets.
And it is was (of course) administered unfairly. In some areas of California, the local DA wouldnt prosecute for a serious crime and then throw the book at someone for a much lesser crime.
We brought back the death penalty in California. in the early 1990’s. There has not been an execution since December 31, 2005 and he had been on “death row” for over 12 years (Tookie WIlliams) by that point.
Police Unions in California have been heavily politicized since the early 2000’s. They dont solve or prevent crime anymore. They come and “clean up” after a murder. You cannot be “unburgled” nor can you be “unraped” or “unmugged”
Even if Californians got common sense and repealed Prop 47 (making many felonies non existent) the Police Unions will not enforce the law. Their Union has made it that they dont have to do these things anymore. The whole state is broken……and what has been done here IS creeping slowly across the country, even in the “Red South” where everyone is a devout Christian.
Hence why I dont like the Police. An Officer in Pasadena starts at almost 100k a year and they dont prevent crime. They do paperwork. They escort the Mayor. They show up a Democratic fundraisers with the politician their Union endorses. I can count 50 cars a day on my commute with expired tags (registration) on the vehicles. The police dont pull them over. These are not dumpy cars. They are Mercedes, Audi, Lexus with white people driving them. Higher IQ people are allowed to break the laws here. Lower IQ people by the policies are ENCOURAGED to break the laws by our intelligent leaders.
Every crime spree the police say “we dont have enough funding” the fire departments “we dont have enough funding”. Come election time, their respected Unions donate millions upon millions to the Democrats.
Its a complex issue, and I am not a blankslatist. However, Derek….human nature. You are taking the mindset it seems to me of “if the marble doesnt fall one way, it must fall the other”
We’re quickly moving into a technological feudalism here in California and the USA. I am frightened by it. And it again. Its being implemented by “higher IQ” people who dont have alick of commion sense and the everyone else (those low / lower IQ people) will pay and bear the burden of it. SOrry……smart people have wrecked the country
Lastmod,
Stop me if you’ve heard this before… “California!”
What a joke.
Look, what I’ve written above is actually illegal to actually implement. It doesn’t really matter how easy or complex it is, because it’s impossible. Other countries can do it, but we can’t without repealing the Civil Rights Act or amending the Constitution to elminate the Equal Protection Clause. But even that wouldn’t be enough.
The Supreme Court long ago ruled that police have no duty to serve and protect. And so they don’t. We don’t really have law enforcement in America, not as people expect it to be. School shooting? They can stand outside and wait for the kids to die. Cars getting broken into and stores robbed? No obligation to investigate those crimes. It’s all on tape with ID tags on the goods which are currently one block away from the police station? Oh well, time to call your insurance company for a claim. No insurance? Best of luck to you.
You’d still have local DAs who would refuse to prosecute or prosecute selectively. You still have a toothless death penalty.
No, I’m not really. I left clues for that above when I said “mandatory and immediate” because I know full well that even though we know how to solve the problem, the powers-that-be would never allow it to happen. The solution is “complex” because the roots of opposition to it go deep down to the core of America. It’s, shall I say, impossible to implement.
As long as you and I understand that there is a solution, but that the people in charge will never allow it to happen… and why they won’t allow it, then we are in full agreement.
You won’t hear any disagreement from me, but it would nevertheless have been even worse if less smart people had been in charge.
Peace,
DR
John Derbyshire used to use the acronym “BIP” – Behavior, Intelligence, Personality. I guess I’d prefer “temperament” to personality. And it seems behavior would be “downstream” from the other two. I suppose he was trying to say that the other two qualities are important (and highly heritable) too.
We now live among a significant population of Hmong. Apparently, they didn’t have a written language until the 1970s and are sometimes considered the “hillbillies” of Asia. They seem to have had some gang issues when they first came to America but from what I can tell they are now very law-abiding citizens. More so than the local whites. Once in a while, one commits a violent crime against his wife or girlfriend, but they are not scary people at all.
IQ tests among the Hmong are inconclusive largly due to the difficulty of measuring the IQ of immigrants. This is shown in the large discrepency between verbal and non-verbal tests. Most tests put their scores in the 90 to 100 range. This puts them above the average American Black or American Hispanic, but slightly lower than the average American White and American Asian.
In terms of predictions, this would mean the Hmong are expected to be among the more successful immigrant populations, but not the absolute most successful. In terms of minorities, they are significantly above average. Crime among them would not be noticeably elevated, especially if they are surrounded by other minority ethnicities (other than Asians).
To wit:
That said, there is a much higher chance that these IQ numbers are too low than that they are too high.
We had a very large Hmong population in Fresno.
Even their political leader, when he died. The funeral was in Fresno (General Vang Pao), and I even went to pay general respects at the time to him.
I noticed with the Hmong in Fresno. They were super high achievers or basically criminals. Many decent sized business owners. Doctors. Lawyers. Their children went to Stanford or even locally at Fresno State…they were top achievers in every class / graduation.
But
There was a HUGE crime problem / gang problem as well in Fresno with this population. Welfare scams, a huge corrution thing at the local DMV in Fresno……lots of people arrested. People sent to state prison.
Hmong women my age, who were in their twenties in the 1990’s….something like 80% of them in Fresno were marrying white guys (part of that is because white women became impossible to date for most white men who were average)
Hmong are viewed with disgust by other south Asians. The Lao, Thai, Cambodian and Viets dont really like them. They are labeled as “scammers” and “gypsies” of that region of the world.
My Aunt, who is Thai said to me once in the 1990’s “Dont ever bring a Hmong girl in here. They’re dirty people” and “In Hmong culture a fifty year old man can marry a twelve year old gir! You think that’s okay?!!!!!”
How much of this true or not really doesnt matter. What matters is the surroundings you are dumped into………can be a causation of success or failure. If one doesnt see a need to rise above, they wont do anything about it. IQ doesnt matter here
Derek,
What do you think of our friend Malcolm Reynolds’s argument here?:
“These words mark the beginning of the battle of the sexes. As a result of the fall, man no longer rules easily; he must fight for his headship. Sin has corrupted both the willing submission of the wife and the loving headship of the husband. The woman’s desire is to control her husband (to usurp his divinely appointed headship, and he must master her, if he can. So the rule of love founded in paradise is replaced by struggle, tyranny and domination.”
Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83. [PDF]
This is new doctrine created in 1975 by a woman.
What does scripture say about listening to woman teachers?
MR,
“This is new doctrine created in 1975 by a woman.”
I don’t know where you get the idea that this interpretation of scripture is a ‘new doctrine’. If anything, it is an old doctrine that has been buried and forgotten for decades.
Even if you don’t believe that Genesis 3:16 specifically means that women desire to control men, it is still evident in nature, as I pointed out above.
“Does not nature itself teach you … ?”
1 Corinthians 11:14 (ESV)
You don’t even need to be a Christian to observe this female behavior. It is obvious to nonbelievers who are willing to look at nature, i.e. Illimitable Men, Rollo, et al.
Seems like you’re trying hard to discredit this insight.
I don’t know where you get the idea that this interpretation of scripture is a ‘new doctrine’. If anything, it is an old doctrine that has been buried and forgotten for decades.
But where is this old doctrine buried then? There are literally no pre-1975 sources that view sexes as adversaries in Genesis 3:16. This is the misinterpretation of a single woman in Westminster Seminary projecting her own issues into the text after reading the similar language of Genesis 4:7. This is the reason why women aren’t good theology teachers and shouldn’t attend seminary. Their inherent solipsism interferes with the topic at hand.
Instead the Western doctrine for 1,500 years was embedded in Jemore’s Latin text from 382 AD:
Mulieri quoque dixit: Multiplicabo aerumnas tuas, et conceptus tuos: in dolore paries filios, et sub viri potestate eris, et ipse dominabitur tui.
“Et sub viri potestate eris” (and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power) is not in the Hebrew Tanakh at all. It’s Jerome’s own interpretation and it says nothing about desire for control, but the exact opposite.
It was exactly this Latin tradition that entered Western (aka Roman) marriage jurisdiction and stuck around for over a millennium until new doctrine changed that as well, as every 20th century divorcee knows.
This is new doctrine created in 1975 by a woman.
What does scripture say about listening to woman teachers?
That part is most definitely correct!
As well as this too!
i would also add most conflicts between the sexes are pushed to keep them separated/segregated I.E. Either version of ”boys are icky” or ”girls are icky”, it comes from parents, culture and society, even the manosphere claims this when they say ””go to eastern Europe /Asia or if possible back to the 1920s/50s””where they be Relz wimminz at!!!” but as usual the manosphere discredits itself with that by saying the obviously nonsensical turd word salad(as Pseudonymous Commenter Feeriker says ) of ”otherwise?-wimminz are your natural enemy!”-then what is this talk of ”bring us back to a functional culture and society of the 1920s-50s as in ””go to eastern Europe /Asia or if possible back to the 1920s/50s””where they be Relz wimminz at!!!”
Even a Dalrookian/Sparkian -esque fool back in 2013/14 scolded GBFM for saying the following ”find a woman like Penelope (AKA Odysseus loyal wife who couldn’t be gamed into disloyalty by the ”Jacks”,Sparklys” nor DAL’S & VOX’S who were after Odysseus’ GBFM -like estate & gloryzlolzzzlollzzz)from Homer’s Oddyssey”
More on how its culture and society being wimminz puppet masters?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dJ1pwp1MUug
19:18 in and listen to how he tells us to avoid simping and discrediting God & Genesis(as opposed to what ”Jack” thinks is somehow Holier than God, Genesis, MOSES & JESUS-the ever-failing latter-day manosphere & the sacred to ”jack” & ”sparkly” sodomy gay porn of say biblical gender roles=bgr=larry solomon=matt perkins) with that Susan T. Foh, “What is the Woman’s Desire?” The Westminster Theological Journal 37 (1974/75) 376-83. [PDF] just as MR said above.
Professor,
You must have read my mind.
I was already going to publish a post on this either tomorrow or Tuesday. But, since you’ve brought it up, I can post a few thoughts here.
It all began in Sigma Frame’s “What is a woman’s desire for her husband according to Genesis 3:16?” and the discussion that ensued. I followed this up with “An Analysis of Genesis 3:16,” “The Context of Genesis 3:16,” and “Eve Is Trying To Subvert Her Curse.”
Back then I pointed out that the antagonsitic viewpoint—the one that Jack and other commenters there have adopted—depends on the 1975 modern feminist interpretation that they have mistaken for being ancient:
In other words, their preferred interpretation accepts the feminist framing that male/female relationships are primarily about power dynamics. Feminists and Dalrockian Red Pillowspherians disagree on who should be in power, but they all agree that power is what is being referred to in Genesis 3:16, and that power dynamics are the essence of male/female relationships. Here is Jack making this exact point:
My examination of F. Roger Devlin will show that he and the early Manosphere adopted this feminist philosophy and that it has, without intention, parroted a feminist talking point as its central tenant ever since, misattributing the feminist position to “nature.”
Just as I did before, Malcolm Reynolds has schooled Jack:
And just as before, Jack responded by repeating the myth that the view was ancient:
The thing is, I long ago pointed this out, so he shouldn’t find it difficult to know where this idea comes from. Malcolm Reynolds concurs with me that the antagonistic view is a modern invention:
It is just as you said:
I may have had many disagreements with MR, but in this we agree 100%.
He’s also correct that the corruption coincided with the rise of Roman Catholicism:
I’ll have to add this to the growing list of corruptions attributable to Jerome.
Peace,
DR
Jack’s response here is Chivalry. That’s another reference to F. Roger Devlin.
And Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas says that women being under the authority of her husband is one of her curses. Thankfully Jesus has changed all that and this is no longer required in a Christian marriage!
Derek,
Do you remember Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas saying the following almost a week ago?
I was told that if I didn’t forgive them, then God wouldn’t forgive me. And that forgiveness meant treating them as if they hadn’t sinned. And further it was made clear that the only way I could really prove that I had truly forgiven them was to make amends for my “unforgiveness” by dating them, and to really truly prove I’d changed my mind, there was no other way to demonstrate that for certain short of actually marrying a “repentant” whore.
I kid you not, I was made to feel that my eternal salvation was in jeopardy if I didn’t date and consider “recycled virgins” as marriage material. And I can guarantee I never would have considered dating a non-virgin if I wasn’t afraid of going to hell.
I had kept myself pure and I was not originally interested in somebody who was sexually immoral. The Great Whore twisted scripture and definitions to con me into dating and eventually marrying a whore. As God is my witness, I had no intention of dating or marrying a whore before the church “corrected” my original publicly stated rule, by threatening me with damnation in eternal fire.
What does all that mean in light of scripture such as:
Conclusion? Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas is a fear-based religionist disguising himself as a love-based Christ-follower so it is NO wonder Kansas’ cucked church was able to con=twicked him,yet he still doesn’t tell us was he ”saved” in his ”bluepilled” uprightness at that church or did his wife divorcing him lead to his salvation as it sounds like it did? Otherwise, he would have been a lost ”bluepilled” uprightness simp in danger of damnation in eternal fire,yes?
The above writing and thinking as written by Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas are known as cognitive dissonance why he got ”conned”=”twicked”!
That’s why he ignores stuff like this:https://www.foxnews.com/politics/melania-trumps-pro-choice-stand-isnt-different-from-other-republican-first-ladies
Other spouses of Republican presidents, such as Pat Nixon, Betty Ford, Nancy Reagan, Barbara Bush and Laura Bush, have been recorded either during or after their husbands’ tenure in office expressing pro-choice views.
“I feel very strongly that it was the best thing in the world when the Supreme Court voted to legalize abortion and, in my words, bring it out of the backwoods and put it in the hospital where it belongs,” Betty Ford said in a CBS News’ “60 Minutes” interview in 1975, two years after Roe v. Wade was handed down.
Following Ford’s comments on premarital sex, marijuana and abortion during the CBS interview, then-President Gerald Ford reportedly joked that she had cost him votes.
As a more conservative first lady, Nancy Reagan avoided taking a public stance against abortion that would put her at odds with former President Ronald Reagan. However, she later revealed her personal position on the issue.
“I’m against abortion, I don’t believe in abortion,” Reagan said at George Washington University in 1994, five years after her husband left the Oval Office. “On the other hand, I believe in a woman’s choice. So, it puts me somewhere in the middle, but I don’t know what you’d call that.”
Barbara Bush, former President George H. W. Bush’s wife, was more reserved in her public statements about abortion and was at odds with her husband’s anti-abortion stance. While she was not as outspoken as Betty Ford, she wrote in her 1994 memoir, “I hate abortions, but I just could not make that choice for someone else.”
Former first lady Laura Bush, wife of former President George W. Bush and daughter-in-law to Barbara Bush, also differed with the former Presidents Bush on abortion.
Trump, wife of Republican presidential candidate and former President Donald Trump, wrote the memoir entitled “Melania” that is scheduled to come out on Oct. 8, per the Amazon release date. In the book, according to a preview by The Guardian, she expresses a viewpoint closely aligned with that of former first ladies before her.
“It is imperative to guarantee that women have autonomy in deciding their preference of having children, based on their own convictions, free from any intervention or pressure from the government,” Trump reportedly wrote.
What do the Bible, MOSES, Jesus, and God call cognitive dissonance?
https://www.openbible.info/topics/double_minded
Double Minded
James 1:6-8 ESV / 278 helpful votes Helpful Not Helpful
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
James 4:8 ESV / 193 helpful votes
Draw near to God, and he will draw near to you. Cleanse your hands, you sinners, and purify your hearts, you double-minded.
James 1:8 ESV / 190 helpful votes
He is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
James 1:22-25 ESV / 128 helpful votes
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves. For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror. For he looks at himself and goes away and at once forgets what he was like. But the one who looks into the perfect law, the law of liberty, and perseveres, being no hearer who forgets but a doer who acts, he will be blessed in his doing.
1 Peter 5:8 ESV / 100 helpful votes
Be sober-minded; be watchful. Your adversary the devil prowls around like a roaring lion, seeking someone to devour.
Matthew 6:24 ESV / 81 helpful votes
“No one can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.
James 1:22 ESV / 79 helpful votes
But be doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving yourselves.
James 4:3 ESV / 72 helpful votes
You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions.
James 4:7 ESV / 64 helpful votes
Submit yourselves therefore to God. Resist the devil, and he will flee from you.
James 1:1-27 ESV / 60 helpful votes
James, a servant of God and of the Lord Jesus Christ, To the twelve tribes in the Dispersion: Greetings. Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. …
2 Corinthians 11:3 ESV / 54 helpful votes
But I am afraid that as the serpent deceived Eve by his cunning, your thoughts will be led astray from a sincere and pure devotion to Christ.
Proverbs 3:3-8 ESV / 49 helpful votes
Let not steadfast love and faithfulness forsake you; bind them around your neck; write them on the tablet of your heart. So you will find favor and good success in the sight of God and man. Trust in the Lord with all your heart, and do not lean on your own understanding. In all your ways acknowledge him, and he will make straight your paths. Be not wise in your own eyes; fear the Lord, and turn away from evil. …
1 Peter 4:12-13 ESV / 48 helpful votes
Beloved, do not be surprised at the fiery trial when it comes upon you to test you, as though something strange were happening to you. But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed.
2 Corinthians 7:1 ESV / 47 helpful votes
Since we have these promises, beloved, let us cleanse ourselves from every defilement of body and spirit, bringing holiness to completion in the fear of God.
1 John 3:22 ESV / 39 helpful votes
And whatever we ask we receive from him, because we keep his commandments and do what pleases him.
Colossians 2:8 ESV / 39 helpful votes
See to it that no one takes you captive by philosophy and empty deceit, according to human tradition, according to the elemental spirits of the world, and not according to Christ.
2 Corinthians 10:5 ESV / 39 helpful votes
We destroy arguments and every lofty opinion raised against the knowledge of God, and take every thought captive to obey Christ,
James 2:8 ESV / 36 helpful votes
If you really fulfill the royal law according to the Scripture, “You shall love your neighbor as yourself,” you are doing well.
Galatians 5:16 ESV / 36 helpful votes
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh.
James 4:1-8 ESV / 35 helpful votes
What causes quarrels and what causes fights among you? Is it not this, that your passions are at war within you? You desire and do not have, so you murder. You covet and cannot obtain, so you fight and quarrel. You do not have, because you do not ask. You ask and do not receive, because you ask wrongly, to spend it on your passions. You adulterous people! Do you not know that friendship with the world is enmity with God? Therefore whoever wishes to be a friend of the world makes himself an enemy of God. Or do you suppose it is to no purpose that the Scripture says, “He yearns jealously over the spirit that he has made to dwell in us”? …
Psalm 119:113 ESV / 35 helpful votes
I hate the double-minded, but I love your law.
Romans 8:28 ESV / 33 helpful votes
And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good, for those who are called according to his purpose.
Matthew 27:1-66 ESV / 31 helpful votes
When morning came, all the chief priests and the elders of the people took counsel against Jesus to put him to death. And they bound him and led him away and delivered him over to Pilate the governor. Then when Judas, his betrayer, saw that Jesus was condemned, he changed his mind and brought back the thirty pieces of silver to the chief priests and the elders, saying, “I have sinned by betraying innocent blood.” They said, “What is that to us? See to it yourself.” And throwing down the pieces of silver into the temple, he departed, and he went and hanged himself. …
Psalm 103:1-22 ESV / 31 helpful votes
Of David. Bless the Lord, O my soul, and all that is within me, bless his holy name! Bless the Lord, O my soul, and forget not all his benefits, who forgives all your iniquity, who heals all your diseases, who redeems your life from the pit, who crowns you with steadfast love and mercy, who satisfies you with good so that your youth is renewed like the eagle’s. …
1 John 5:14 ESV / 26 helpful votes
And this is the confidence that we have toward him, that if we ask anything according to his will he hears us.
James 1:5-8 ESV / 25 helpful votes
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.
James 1:23 ESV / 21 helpful votes
For if anyone is a hearer of the word and not a doer, he is like a man who looks intently at his natural face in a mirror.
1 Kings 18:21 ESV / 21 helpful votes
And Elijah came near to all the people and said, “How long will you go limping between two different opinions? If the Lord is God, follow him; but if Baal, then follow him.” And the people did not answer him a word.
Matthew 5:5 ESV / 20 helpful votes
“Blessed are the meek, for they shall inherit the earth.
Proverbs 24:21-24 ESV / 20 helpful votes
My son, fear the Lord and the king, and do not join with those who do otherwise, for disaster will arise suddenly from them, and who knows the ruin that will come from them both? These also are sayings of the wise. Partiality in judging is not good. Whoever says to the wicked, “You are in the right,” will be cursed by peoples, abhorred by nations,
Ephesians 4:14 ESV / 19 helpful votes
So that we may no longer be children, tossed to and fro by the waves and carried about by every wind of doctrine, by human cunning, by craftiness in deceitful schemes.
Romans 7:19 ESV / 19 helpful votes
For I do not do the good I want, but the evil I do not want is what I keep on doing.
Leviticus 19:18 ESV / 19 helpful votes
You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against the sons of your own people, but you shall love your neighbor as yourself: I am the Lord.
Revelation 3:15-16 ESV / 18 helpful votes
“‘I know your works: you are neither cold nor hot. Would that you were either cold or hot! So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
1 John 2:15 ESV / 18 helpful votes
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him.
Romans 6:22 ESV / 18 helpful votes
But now that you have been set free from sin and have become slaves of God, the fruit you get leads to sanctification and its end, eternal life.
Psalm 86:11 ESV / 18 helpful votes
Teach me your way, O Lord, that I may walk in your truth; unite my heart to fear your name.
Proverbs 20:10 ESV / 17 helpful votes
Unequal weights and unequal measures are both alike an abomination to the Lord.
Ephesians 5:26-27 ESV / 16 helpful votes
That he might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, so that he might present the church to himself in splendor, without spot or wrinkle or any such thing, that she might be holy and without blemish.
2 Timothy 4:3 ESV / 15 helpful votes
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
Acts 7:1-60 ESV / 15 helpful votes
And the high priest said, “Are these things so?” And Stephen said: “Brothers and fathers, hear me. The God of glory appeared to our father Abraham when he was in Mesopotamia, before he lived in Haran, and said to him, ‘Go out from your land and from your kindred and go into the land that I will show you.’ Then he went out from the land of the Chaldeans and lived in Haran. And after his father died, God removed him from there into this land in which you are now living. Yet he gave him no inheritance in it, not even a foot’s length, but promised to give it to him as a possession and to his offspring after him, though he had no child. …
Luke 16:13 ESV / 15 helpful votes
No servant can serve two masters, for either he will hate the one and love the other, or he will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve God and money.”
Matthew 6:22 ESV / 15 helpful votes
“The eye is the lamp of the body. So, if your eye is healthy, your whole body will be full of light,
1 John 2:15-17 ESV / 14 helpful votes
Do not love the world or the things in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him. For all that is in the world—the desires of the flesh and the desires of the eyes and pride of life—is not from the Father but is from the world. And the world is passing away along with its desires, but whoever does the will of God abides forever.
Mark 9:24 ESV / 14 helpful votes
Immediately the father of the child cried out and said, “I believe; help my unbelief!”
Isaiah 55:9 ESV / 14 helpful votes
For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways and my thoughts than your thoughts.
James 1:7 ESV / 12 helpful votes
For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord;
James 1:6 ESV / 12 helpful votes
But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind.
Hebrews 11:6 ESV / 12 helpful votes
And without faith it is impossible to please him, for whoever would draw near to God must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who seek him.
2 Timothy 1:7 ESV / 12 helpful votes
For God gave us a spirit not of fear but of power and love and self-control.
Jeremiah 29:11 ESV / 12 helpful votes
For I know the plans I have for you, declares the Lord, plans for welfare and not for evil, to give you a future and a hope.
Isaiah 29:13 ESV / 12 helpful votes
And the Lord said: “Because this people draw near with their mouth and honor me with their lips, while their hearts are far from me, and their fear of me is a commandment taught by men,
Proverbs 4:23 ESV / 12 helpful votes
Keep your heart with all vigilance, for from it flow the springs of life.
Job 8:20-22 ESV / 12 helpful votes
“Behold, God will not reject a blameless man, nor take the hand of evildoers. He will yet fill your mouth with laughter, and your lips with shouting. Those who hate you will be clothed with shame, and the tent of the wicked will be no more.”
1 Kings 18:1-46 ESV / 12 helpful votes
After many days the word of the Lord came to Elijah, in the third year, saying, “Go, show yourself to Ahab, and I will send rain upon the earth.” So Elijah went to show himself to Ahab. Now the famine was severe in Samaria. And Ahab called Obadiah, who was over the household. (Now Obadiah feared the Lord greatly, and when Jezebel cut off the prophets of the Lord, Obadiah took a hundred prophets and hid them by fifties in a cave and fed them with bread and water.) And Ahab said to Obadiah, “Go through the land to all the springs of water and to all the valleys. Perhaps we may find grass and save the horses and mules alive, and not lose some of the animals.” …
John 3:16 ESV / 11 helpful votes
“For God so loved the world, that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life.
Jeremiah 29:1-32 ESV / 11 helpful votes
These are the words of the letter that Jeremiah the prophet sent from Jerusalem to the surviving elders of the exiles, and to the priests, the prophets, and all the people, whom Nebuchadnezzar had taken into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon. This was after King Jeconiah and the queen mother, the eunuchs, the officials of Judah and Jerusalem, the craftsmen, and the metal workers had departed from Jerusalem. The letter was sent by the hand of Elasah the son of Shaphan and Gemariah the son of Hilkiah, whom Zedekiah king of Judah sent to Babylon to Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon. It said: “Thus says the Lord of hosts, the God of Israel, to all the exiles whom I have sent into exile from Jerusalem to Babylon: Build houses and live in them; plant gardens and eat their produce. …
Psalm 139:23-24 ESV / 11 helpful votes
Search me, O God, and know my heart! Try me and know my thoughts! And see if there be any grievous way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting!
James 3:2 ESV / 10 helpful votes
For we all stumble in many ways. And if anyone does not stumble in what he says, he is a perfect man, able also to bridle his whole body.
James 1:9 ESV / 10 helpful votes
Let the lowly brother boast in his exaltation,
James 1:5 ESV / 10 helpful votes
If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him.
Romans 8:7 ESV / 10 helpful votes
For the mind that is set on the flesh is hostile to God, for it does not submit to God’s law; indeed, it cannot.
1 John 5:3 ESV / 9 helpful votes
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. And his commandments are not burdensome.
1 John 4:1 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world.
Hebrews 11:3 ESV / 9 helpful votes
By faith we understand that the universe was created by the word of God, so that what is seen was not made out of things that are visible.
Hebrews 11:1 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
Titus 3:5 ESV / 9 helpful votes
He saved us, not because of works done by us in righteousness, but according to his own mercy, by the washing of regeneration and renewal of the Holy Spirit,
Titus 1:16 ESV / 9 helpful votes
They profess to know God, but they deny him by their works. They are detestable, disobedient, unfit for any good work.
1 Timothy 6:17-21 ESV / 9 helpful votes
As for the rich in this present age, charge them not to be haughty, nor to set their hopes on the uncertainty of riches, but on God, who richly provides us with everything to enjoy. They are to do good, to be rich in good works, to be generous and ready to share, thus storing up treasure for themselves as a good foundation for the future, so that they may take hold of that which is truly life. O Timothy, guard the deposit entrusted to you. Avoid the irreverent babble and contradictions of what is falsely called “knowledge,” for by professing it some have swerved from the faith. Grace be with you.
Romans 14:23 ESV / 9 helpful votes
But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats, because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith is sin.
Matthew 6:33 ESV / 9 helpful votes
But seek first the kingdom of God and his righteousness, and all these things will be added to you.
Hosea 10:2 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Their heart is false; now they must bear their guilt. The Lord will break down their altars and destroy their pillars.
Hosea 7:8-11 ESV / 9 helpful votes
Ephraim mixes himself with the peoples; Ephraim is a cake not turned. Strangers devour his strength, and he knows it not; gray hairs are sprinkled upon him, and he knows it not. The pride of Israel testifies to his face; yet they do not return to the Lord their God, nor seek him, for all this. Ephraim is like a dove, silly and without sense, calling to Egypt, going to Assyria.
Revelation 3:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes
So, because you are lukewarm, and neither hot nor cold, I will spit you out of my mouth.
Revelation 1:1-20 ESV / 8 helpful votes
The revelation of Jesus Christ, which God gave him to show to his servants the things that must soon take place. He made it known by sending his angel to his servant John, who bore witness to the word of God and to the testimony of Jesus Christ, even to all that he saw. Blessed is the one who reads aloud the words of this prophecy, and blessed are those who hear, and who keep what is written in it, for the time is near. John to the seven churches that are in Asia: Grace to you and peace from him who is and who was and who is to come, and from the seven spirits who are before his throne, and from Jesus Christ the faithful witness, the firstborn of the dead, and the ruler of kings on earth. To him who loves us and has freed us from our sins by his blood …
1 John 4:8 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love.
2 Peter 3:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes
As he does in all his letters when he speaks in them of these matters. There are some things in them that are hard to understand, which the ignorant and unstable twist to their own destruction, as they do the other Scriptures.
2 Peter 2:14 ESV / 8 helpful votes
They have eyes full of adultery, insatiable for sin. They entice unsteady souls. They have hearts trained in greed. Accursed children!
1 Peter 3:16 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Having a good conscience, so that, when you are slandered, those who revile your good behavior in Christ may be put to shame.
1 Peter 1:22 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Having purified your souls by your obedience to the truth for a sincere brotherly love, love one another earnestly from a pure heart,
James 2:2 ESV / 8 helpful votes
For if a man wearing a gold ring and fine clothing comes into your assembly, and a poor man in shabby clothing also comes in,
James 1:2-8 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Count it all joy, my brothers, when you meet trials of various kinds, for you know that the testing of your faith produces steadfastness. And let steadfastness have its full effect, that you may be perfect and complete, lacking in nothing. If any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. …
Titus 2:2 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Older men are to be sober-minded, dignified, self-controlled, sound in faith, in love, and in steadfastness.
Colossians 3:1-25 ESV / 8 helpful votes
If then you have been raised with Christ, seek the things that are above, where Christ is, seated at the right hand of God. Set your minds on things that are above, not on things that are on earth. For you have died, and your life is hidden with Christ in God. When Christ who is your life appears, then you also will appear with him in glory. Put to death therefore what is earthly in you: sexual immorality, impurity, passion, evil desire, and covetousness, which is idolatry. …
Galatians 5:16-17 ESV / 8 helpful votes
But I say, walk by the Spirit, and you will not gratify the desires of the flesh. For the desires of the flesh are against the Spirit, and the desires of the Spirit are against the flesh, for these are opposed to each other, to keep you from doing the things you want to do.
John 14:6 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.
Psalm 119:165 ESV / 8 helpful votes
Great peace have those who love your law; nothing can make them stumble.
Exodus 20:1-17 ESV / 8 helpful votes
And God spoke all these words, saying, “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of slavery. “You shall have no other gods before me. “You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth. You shall not bow down to them or serve them, for I the Lord your God am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and the fourth generation of those who hate me, …
1 John 1:9 ESV / 7 helpful votes
If we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins and to cleanse us from all unrighteousness.
1 Peter 2:14 ESV / 7 helpful votes
Or to governors as sent by him to punish those who do evil and to praise those who do good.
James 3:8 ESV / 7 helpful votes
But no human being can tame the tongue. It is a restless evil, full of deadly poison.
James 3:1 ESV / 7 helpful votes
Not many of you should become teachers, my brothers, for you know that we who teach will be judged with greater strictness.
Philemon 1:6 ESV / 7 helpful votes
And I pray that the sharing of your faith may become effective for the full knowledge of every good thing that is in us for the sake of Christ.
Ephesians 2:2 ESV / 7 helpful votes
In which you once walked, following the course of this world, following the prince of the power of the air, the spirit that is now at work in the sons of disobedience—
Romans 7:23 ESV / 7 helpful votes
But I see in my members another law waging war against the law of my mind and making me captive to the law of sin that dwells in my members.
Psalm 12:2 ESV / 7 helpful votes
Everyone utters lies to his neighbor; with flattering lips and a double heart they speak.
1 Peter 5:7 ESV / 6 helpful votes
Casting all your anxieties on him, because he cares for you.
James 3:9-12 ESV / 6 helpful votes
With it we bless our Lord and Father, and with it we curse people who are made in the likeness of God. From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brothers, these things ought not to be so. Does a spring pour forth from the same opening both fresh and salt water? Can a fig tree, my brothers, bear olives, or a grapevine produce figs? Neither can a salt pond yield fresh water.
Philippians 4:13 ESV / 6 helpful votes
I can do all things through him who strengthens me.
Ephesians 4:29 ESV / 6 helpful votes
Let no corrupting talk come out of your mouths, but only such as is good for building up, as fits the occasion, that it may give grace to those who hear.
But not a word from Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas or Pseudonymous Commenter Taiwan on the GOP® wives’ Cognitive dissonance nor double-mindedness( or on their own for that matter) while Taiwan tries to figure out Derek’s marriage as a cherry on top of all the Cognitive dissonance and double-mindedness he shows off himself to boot!
Such 7 years + both RP® Genius Leaders can’t even get themselves straight while trying to get the entire world straight?
Cognitive dissonance nor double-mindedness yes?😉
Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas has a valid point about not wanting to marry women who are already married to other men. He could have replied by saying:
And the objection will be:
Or as the more scholarly Bruce Charlton might say:
To impose ancient laws and practices here-and-now is (or would be) known at the deepest level to be monstrously unjust, very stupid, or manipulatively dishonest. It is silly of wishful to pretend otherwise – and I think we all know this, really.
I would say what I said to Bruce. And, assuming I understood Bruce correctly, I would not say that Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas is monstrous, unjust, dishonest, manipulative, or very stupid to follow the ancient teachings of scripture in the here-and-now. The principle of marriage is “from the beginning.”
“Kansas says that women being under the authority of her husband is one of her curses.”
Learn to read, Liar.
Learn to read, Liar.
If you want to comment here, I’ll repeat what I say to everyone who engages in pointless ad hominem here: substantiate your claims, or else prepare to be mocked.
Since you’ve resorted to ad hominem (repeatedly!) after having repeatedly been warned not to, my response to you will not be gentle. I still won’t attack you personally, but I’m going to use implicit mockery make your views look utterly foolish in the eyes of others. After weeks of vicious ad hominem, you’ve given up any right to claim the benefit of the doubt.
I’ll explain what I mean in more detail when I make my post (which is already drafted) tomorrow. Then you can see if I really need to “learn to read” or if maybe, just maybe I was being satirical:
Satire, noun. Wit, irony, sarcasm, or exaggeration used to expose and discredit vice, folly, or stupidity.
You know, because I said this…
…where the whole substantive point is that you don’t believe it but should.
But you already knew that I wasn’t literally quoting or paraphrasing you when posted your comment, didn’t you? You detected the obvious sarcasm, surely? Because, like me, you too know how to read, right?
It turns out that not only can I read quite well, thank you very much, but I can also count. There is one (or two) enmity, two curses, and one (or zero) subjection.
See? That’s how you substantiate a claim. Take notes.
You wrongly interpret Genesis 3:14-19 as including more enmities, curses, and subjections when God was quite meticulous to never ever say anywhere in the Bible that there were more. Yet that is almost your entire argument against sexual equality. However, you will also twist a few other scriptures as backups to that one main misinterpreted verse, won’t you?
(Yes, that is more satire, in case you have trouble reading it)
I don’t care what you actually said on the bare surface level because your view is an inherent contradiction with the text of scripture. There is no way to make a rational description of your viewpoint that coheres with scripture. It would be irrational to treat the irrational as if it were rational. Almost all I can do is satirize it.
It is just as accurate to say that you believe that being under the authority of a husband is a curse as much as a blessing, because that is the implication of your contradictory view. It’s nonsense. You might as well call your own description of it a lie, it would be just as correct as mine (when taken literally).
If you want to leave the high school debate team and have an adult conversation, you can start by answering these questions:
There are a lot of options, each with their own nuances and difficulties. Which one (or, perhaps, more than one) is correct? After deciding what the correct words are, you then have to decide the following for each half clause:
Is it a curse, a blessing, both, or neither?
Is it prescriptive and/or descriptive?
Is it optional or mandatory?
Does it apply to all husbands or wives, or just some of them?
Does it apply to men/women, not just husbands/wives?
Does it apply (or not apply) the same way in the church? in the home? in public? everywhere?
Let’s see if you can come up with a logically consistent interpretation. And, as a bonus, let’s see if you can come up with the same interpretation as another Red Piller. Good luck with that!
” just maybe I was being satirical”
Don’t you know? And why don’t you even now clearly say what you meant, Liar. It still sounds like another one of your lies to me. How was somebody who hadn’t read my original comment at a different website to know that you were again lying to them regarding my views?
Proverbs 26:18-20(Living Bible) A man who is caught lying to his neighbor and says, “I was just fooling,” is like a madman throwing around firebrands, arrows, and death!
Considering that you yourself are so dense as to stubbornly refuse to see most of Jesus’ satire and hyperbole as recorded in the Gospels, I don’t know why you would assume readers will be able to read your own abnormal mind. (which probably belongs somewhere on the autism spectrum)
Furthermore, you seem to be using false praise to claim I hold a dogmatic position against men ever remarrying after various modern divorce scenarios not fully and clearly addressed in the Bible. (some facets of which I am still looking to sort out) And at other times also you misstate my other beliefs, but I don’t care to get waylaid here correcting your outpouring of false statements against me.
Sometimes I reckon that is your goal, to lie against me and the truth so badly and profusely that I will be tempted to comment here to correct your many wicked lies.
FWIW James Strong’s 1890 Hebrew dictionary says that the conjunctive preposition used in Genesis 3:16 can be translated as “against” and his definitions are derived from even earlier German lexicons. So that translational possibility did not originate in the 1970’s you silly suckers for the speculations of anybody who defends your idolatrous Feminism.
The NASB translates that same root word as “against” (162 times) more than twice as many times as it translates it as any other word. So, it is a very reasonable translation to say that the wife was set “against” (or put at enmity with) her husband whom God reaffirms shall maintain rightful dominion over her. The fact that you can’t even acknowledge the natural enmity that exists between most wives and the God ordained rule of their husbands makes you a special kind of reality denying simp.
I don’t have the time to begin to battle with all your BS, and I have come to see that you are a stubborn liar, arrogant against the truth, zealous to detract from the work of the men of the manosphere, regardless of how low you have to stoop to do it. Your soul is hardened against finding the truth. But I’ll pray for my enemies, that you may come to the knowledge of the truth, and like the apostle Paul prayed, in the name of Jesus Christ, I turn you, Derek Ramsey, and your professorGBFMtm, over to Satan for that purpose. (1 Corinthians 5:5)
My reply is here
Is that what your simp-cucked church did to you too, when your wife divorced you nutball!?
HEY NUTBALL! You forgot to answer the following…” he still doesn’t tell us if was he ”saved” in his ”bluepilled” uprightness at that church or did his wife divorcing him lead to his salvation as it sounds like it did? Otherwise, he would have been a lost ”bluepilled” uprightness simp in danger of damnation in eternal fire.”
It should be to my tastes (& uptight reputation)to what i want to hear too like you once told me at Spawnys in March ’22 too, blackmailer fool(who can’t even keep his site running without me, a self-sabotaging blackmailer fool)!
If Derek is all that he probably learned it from you and your ex-wife over the last 7 years of your.
i see coach Corey Jack Wayne has a new ”Derek is getting the success and popularity that should be mines and the Kansasian nutballer’s” post to placate your Bellevuian ways and nutball ness ”George”/bgr=Larry Solomon=matt Perkins.
P.S.Were doing the work that the manosphere MEN won’t do because of a failure of leadership from nutball fools like you from Bellevue.
P.P.S.But MOSES, JESUS & GBFM will pray for the Roissyosphere/ manosphere’s enemies, that you may come to the knowledge of the truth, and like the apostle Paul prayed, in the name of Jesus Christ, I turn you, Sparkly/(Boy) George/bgr=Larry Solomon=matt Perkins, and your coach Corey Jack Wayne, over to Satan for that purpose. (1 Corinthians 5:5)
Hold yourself back. Stay calm and collected. There is no need to respond in haste to his slander. It is easily refuted and the ad hominem attacks as fruitless and pointless as ever.
Let his own words defeat him. His ignorance of his primary subject matter and his severe overconfidence will self-attest. In the end, he only attacks himself.
Give him nothing with which to judge you.
i know that but he clearly doesn’t see anyone who disagrees with him unless they stand up to him and his arrogant bullying ways that have destroyed even his site. Like this for instance:https://www.reddit.com/r/exredpill/comments/18cq2us/what_turned_you_off_of_red_pill/
With this comment that even the above guy admitted might apply to him(the part about his NOT liking his mom set him up for a bad wife) at Spawnys a while back:
Having good friendships with women prior. Something ive noticed is that dudes who hard into this stuff never really had a good relationship with anyone, not even mom
He the above Kansas guy admits that his mom was his enemy-sort of like too many wimminz never had a positive male influence in their younger years.
This is true to a large extent from all the reading I’ve done over the years(i learned ”speed-reading” by accident-i didn’t become self-aware of it until a few years ago as i just started thinking ”if i read at a normal speed, then why do i learn so much then and it seems i can read hundred of comments at Dalrock(during the GREAT MOSES, JESUS & GBFM years) and Roissy=Heartiste per post in 6-10 minutes?”-
i then found=proved i could read & understand=comprehend pretty well while scrolling down at a faster than normal rate and read at least a few hundred comments easily in 6-10 minutes like i initially thought) after being on the net for so long and it is easy for i to read & comprehend it at the same time.
But i wish Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas could have had the loving son-mother relationship i had with my own mom. Maybe then he could understand things like:
When I held my first baby girl, Abbie, in my hands, all she wanted to do was cry. I began to look for the off switch to stop this high-pitched noise. I must have turned her over trying to find it! Then I began to look for the instruction book that told me how to be a good dad. I did not see that attached to Abbie’s diaper, either.
Our parents likely had similar experiences with us. Today, I want to focus on the role our moms have played in our lives, all that they sacrificed for us, and the ways they helped shape us to be the men or women we are today.
Here are some relationship thoughts when it comes to moms.
Mothers deserve respect.
“Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, that your days may be long, and it may be well with you.” (Deuteronomy 5:16) Treat older women as you would your mother.
Sons and daughters, love your mother.
Even as Jesus was suffering on the cross, he was worried about his mother Mary’s well-being, and made provisions for her care. Although you may be facing challenges in life, also consider how you can care for your mother. (biblereasons.com)
Mothers are wise and kind in caring for their children.
“She opens her mouth with wisdom, and in her tongue is the law of kindness. She looks well to the ways of her household, and eats not the bread of idleness.. Her children arise up, and call her blessed; her husband also, and he praises her.” (Proverbs 31:26)
Children are a blessing to a mother.
“I am the woman who stood here beside you praying to the Lord. I prayed for this boy, and since the Lord gave me what I asked Him for, I now give the boy to the Lord.” (1 Samuel 1:26-28) Mothers often pray for the blessing of having children, and they continue to pray for them as they grow.
Women have a Godly role in the world.
The Bible shares that older women are important in sharing their wisdom with the next generations: “That they may teach the younger women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, to be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good and obedient to their own husbands.” (Titus 2:5)
Mothers are not perfect.
“Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.” (1 Corinthians 13:4-7) Your mother’s love is beautiful, and it comes from a human being who also faces the challenges that life brings. Love her with all your heart.
Live inspired,
Jimmy
Of course, that’s a tiny bit sappy as most such things are.
I get it: “the only way to stop a bully is to stand up to him.” But you’re on your own on this. I’ll do it my way, you do it your way.
Or, for that matter, that he could have had a loving relationship with his wife. It’s an unmitigated tragedy. Maybe one day he’ll realize that only he has hostility in his heart and that we are still here with open arms.
This is the GBFM post that later got him scolded by a most likely Dalrookian/Sparkian -esque fool for mostly agreeing with the sometimes Dalrookian manosphere advice of ”bring us back to a functional culture and society of the 1920s-50s as in ””go to eastern Europe /Asia or if possible back to the 1920s/50s””where they be Relz wimminz at!!!”
John writes:
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/04/07/gbfm-dalrockian-christianz-gamey-texting-sessionz-last-nightz-so-are-we-just-gonna-be-friends-with-benefits-4ever-lzolzolzlzlzolzo-ozmzgz/#comment-2211
It is interesting in a way. Because according to the manosphere some of Penelope’s suitors would be considered “alpha”. They go and eat in her estate, getting all the free cattle and wine and music according to their tastes. Then they constantly “AMOG” Telemachus and turn public opinion against him. Even Penelope at one point calls Telemachus “soft” and untrained in the ways of the world and gatherings of men. His own mother called him “beta” by manosphere standards!
But we see, spurred on by that world’s divine providence, Telemachus stands up for his values. He stands up to ALL of the suitors, and with Minverva hatches a plan to find out information about his father Odysseus. Odysseus is a man Telemachus is related to, but he has NEVER seen, but only heard stories about his goodness/righteousness. Isn’t that interesting? (And indeed this is even a core element of Christianity, blessed are those who believe without seeing! We know of Jesus Christ and God, his goodness and righteousness, yet we never see him. Yet, like Telemachus, we seek our heavenly Father).
So what happens when Telemachus stands up to all of these suitors? They laugh. They mock him. They belittle him. He was straight up AMOG’ed! But that doesn’t stop him. Because what is separating him from men, from alphas, from sigmas, from betas, from womanizers, from PUA’s, from pushovers, is that he realizes the state of society (his father’s and his own estate) is horrible and he seeks to rectify. He sets sail to Menelaus to find out what he can. He has hope the situation will change, and he no longer bends himself to the will of Penelope’s suitors or his mother’s and maid’s views that he should stay home, where it is safe, away from conflict (and away from the truth). So even though Telemachus is a baby, a “beta”, we see he has the spirit of a Man in him.
Contrast that with Agamemnon, a man who does not know right or wrong, honor, respect. He took away Achille’s spoils of war, Achille’s woman! Agamemnon had no respect for Achilles or the sanctity of the bonding between the two. Then is it fitting, that when he returned back home, after an almost decade long war, it is his wife and her new PUA boyfriend who kill Agamemnon!
Agamemnon was certainly “alpha”! He was king! He won many of the physical contests among all the heroes of the Achaens! He was blessed by the gods! He AMOG’ed Achilles, who his part deity! He had status, looks, money, fame, frame. He fit all 3 personality traits of the Dark Triad to a very high or mdoerate degree. Yet his wife did not respect this man. Why?
Yet Odysseus, the way the Odyssey describes him is that he was respected, and it describes specifically why. It is because Odysseus stood up for what he believed in always. Even in front of higher people, even in front of lower people. He showed justice to those above and those below him. He showed love, compassion, wisdom and mercy to both his servants and his kings. He did not lie to any man. The simplest way to describe him is that he was a man of honor. And his wife? Even though Odysseus’s wife has been away from him far longer than Agamemnon’s wife had been from her husband, and even though Penelope had many more suitors than the one man who took Agamemnon’s wife, she never cheated on Odysseus! Because she knew Odysseus was a man who would never stand for her to do that type of thing (and indeed in the end of the Odyssey we know what happened to the PUA’s, alphas, and betas that were in his house) and that Odysseus took what was his, not out of narcissism, or Dark Triad or AMOG or alpha this beta that, but simply because he was the type of man who delivered true justice and was not afraid of man woman or society.
So from a Christian perspective, are we looking to be King Agamemnon, an alpha who tries to game his wife but is ultimately killed by her (though in today’s age the death may be spiritual or psychological rather than physical) or do we find a woman like Penelope, a true Christian woman that does not need to be gamed as you said a couple posts back. But, like the suitors fighting for the hand of Penelope, many are unworthy. You have to go something even beyond the alpha which King Agamemnon had in almost every degree. You have to be a wise man, a man of honor, a man of integrity, a man of God. (Even Odysseus sacrificed the most to zeus out of any man). Instead of being just another suitor, encamped in Penelope’s estate (does the description of the estate not remind you of a modern day bar?) You take what is yours, according to your ability, you enshrine your values, your morals, the wisdom, the justice of God in an absolute sense, not in a compromising moral sense. You chase out the alpha and beta soup people who pervert your house, who would try to corrupt and steal your Penelope. That is how you reclaim society, how you reclaim your woman(women).
If a Christian is teaching to be like King Agamemnon, that path eventually leads to death. Again, maybe not physical like in the Iliad, but perhaps spiritual, psychological, mental, financial death. All the suitors were trying to become chiefs of men themselves, trying to become the next “alpha”. They ended up dead for a reason.
Christ’s discples always got caught up in who is “the alpha disciple” and they “AMOG’d” each other often and argued often. But Christ continually tells his disciples to not get caught up in who is “the alpha disciple” for he came to bring them something greater. He gave them a hope to redeem themselves, their society, their men and women, their very souls.
This is why the great books for men are not talked in society or even in game blogs themselves. If the great books for men were read by Christians (for the first and last book on the list of your great books for men is the Bible) they would understand they have the power and they wouldn’t need to resort to PUA, headship game, feminism, endless philosophies/idealogies/systems, evils of society, corrupt peoples, etc. If the great books for men were read, the eyes of men would be opened. I have currently read around 4 in your list. And it is amazing the wisdom you find in these books, almost all of which you can get for free legally by a simple google search. I’m going to try to make it to half or 25% by the year’s end.
Amazing! Go the head of the class!
Responses to John’s excellent insights include:
or do we find a woman like Penelope, a true Christian woman that does not need to be gamed as you said a couple posts back
I mentioned Gibson’s portrayal of William Wallace a few posts back:
Mel Gibson’s William Wallace is perhaps the truest Real Alpha (as distinct from Dalrock’s version of alpha i.e. a Whiney Gamey Beta). Wallace never manipulated either Muireann or the princess. Remember how and why the princess nearly fainted on the turret stairs? It certainly wasn’t because Wallace “gamed “her.
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)4.8.14 / 1pm
Excellent analysis John! Thanks for that!
Try Lombardo’s translations of the Iliad and Odyssey which have excellent introductions to the Iliad and Odyssey.
First and foremost, Homer shows how Honor and the Soul win in the long run, for both men and women.
It is hilarious how many Dalrockian Churchians lash out at the Great Books for men as being pagans, and then transform their very own Jesus Christ into a pagan deity sanctifying their game and buttextxtzlzlzlzo. Remember Odysseus did not game the Sirens, but rather he enjoyed their beauty while tied to the mast, and sailed on by. The Dalrockian chruchian would game the sirens, try to buttehxt them by wearing furry hats, join the Lotus Eaters, and allow Circe to transform them into pigs, before dining on the cattle of the Sun God, and as their life, liberty, and freedom was lost, they would say, “Yes, Jesus Christ has saved us by our faith alone.” lzozozlloz “Thanks god we’re not stooopid pagans!” They would proclaim as Dalrock presented some more charty goodness detailing the decline of civilization, before telling men that they needed not to read the GReat Books for Men and, like Telemachus, man up and reclaim their schools, univieristiesm, and homes from the false suitors gaming and butthetxing their future wives, but to forever serve a woman’s butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlzoozoz via game, for Dalrock proclaims dat dat is what Jesus meants when he said, “Love thy neighborozlzozoz”. zlozlzlzo
SEE?
i don’t remember right this second what post had the vulgar language from the Dalrookian/Sparkian -esque fool in the comment section though but that was the post that ”triggered” him/her/it.
Also:
That doesn’t sound like too many of Dalrock’s gamey fanboys would do and say.
I know that many readers resist the idea that the government is blatently blankslatist, but the evidence is staggeringly obvious. To wit: this tweet.
As one commenter noted:
It didn’t “infiltrate” the FBI. It has been there for decades and still is.
It didn’t “infiltrate” the FBI. It has been there for decades and still is.
i know it’s been going on in much subtler forms, before even ”I like IKE” D. Eisenhower
The 34th U.S. President was in the white house in 1953.
But it makes most people’s fee-fees feel better, thinking it has only been going on recently(I.E. when they first started noticing anything ”wrong”).
They won’t accept it’s both parties and most ”elites”(yeah even Trump and Musk as even brother GUNNERQ points out) are in on it.
i don’t like believing it any more than anyone else, hence why i don’t like even thinking of politics as it just brings up how messed up the world really is.
[NOTE: This is a reply to this comment]
Years ago, I didn’t understand why Jesus would be intentionally evasive in his answers. Jesus routinely said things that people misunderstood, and he didn’t correct them. Moreover, he intentionally said things that he knew they would misunderstand, drawing false conclusions, and he still said them anyway. It seemed like he was a deceiving liar.
See, back in 2023, Gunner Q called me “a “deceiving piece of witch ****.” He since apologized, so this is an illustration, not a statement about him. The important point is that I wrote “Lying to Combat Lying” as a result. There I went over Christianity’s teaching on what constitutes a lie and deception. In that piece, I pointed out that the second dictionary definition of “lie”—the one used above—would make Jesus a liar. Yup that’s right. So if I’m a liar, then so is Jesus.
Jesus spoke in a way that confused his listeners and he sometimes withheld his explanations. Even Jesus’ disciples often did not understand and were confused. But, unlike Rahab, Jesus never lied. Jesus was not obligated to provide the full set of information or explanation to them, nor was he responsible for their lack of understanding nor their confusion. In some cases, they did not even possess the capacity to understand.
Last year the Original Pseudonymous Commenter made an objectively false statement about me (which I described here), where just like Commenter Kansas, he called me a liar. But here is the thing: he did not have access to the information that would have informed him why he was critically wrong. The information he needed was private and inaccessible. Thus, he only had my word that he was wrong in his accusation. But unlike Gunner Q, he chose not to apologize for his error, rather he doubled down on his ignorance and slander. To this day he stubbornly embraces his error while thinking that he was completely, 100% correct in his moral judgment of a member of the body of Christ.
As the aggressor engaging in foul behavior, I had no moral, ethical, or common sense duty to explain to the Pseudonymous Commenter why he was wrong. I owed him nothing. His own ignorance led him to leap towards a moral judgment on a topic for which he knew nothing about. I owed him nothing, and so gave him nothing. See, Jesus explained why he did what he did:
Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas is trampling the pearls of truth underfoot and, with his words of hatred, tearing me to metaphorical pieces as thanks. So, no, I don’t owe him anything. If you act in bad faith, you are owed no pearls.
The Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas has made a routine habit of calling me a liar. He’s wrong, of course, but I owe him precisely nothing. He’s the ignorant aggressor here and he has—by his own attestation—explicitly removed us from any possible Christian fellowship with him. He has rejected us utterly. So, I’m absolutely not going to clearly explain his error, because it reveals his wanton arrogance for what it is. He needs correction, not coddling.
Commenter Kansas has made a habit of playing God and bearing false witness while taking on the roles reserved to the body of Christ as a body. So yeah, he isn’t owed a single word of explanation. I will say exactly what I wish to say and no more. If he wishes more than that, he can clean up his act by determining to stick to the ideas.
First, I didn’t even use his name, so how would anyone who hadn’t read the original comment make any conclusions at all about his views? They wouldn’t, because they wouldn’t even know who he was or what I was even talking about.
Second, I linked to the comment. They could, you know, just go read what was written for themselves to see that what I said and compare it to what was written there to see that they were obviously not the same. Then they could have assumed good faith and applied the Principle of Charity to draw the only possible conclusion remaining.
But you didn’t assume good faith, nor did you apply the Principle of Charity. That indicates the the problem is with you, not with what I wrote. Now, are you too stubborn to accept this correction?
Third, my comment wasn’t addressed to you. Satire is extremely contextual. Maybe the fact that you didn’t get the satire is because the comment was not intended for you. You were not the target audience. The comment was replying to the Professor. And guess what? He understood exactly what I meant. Notice how he isn’t complaining about what I said or asking me to clarify?
Fourth, nobody asked you or anyone else to leap to judgment. You could have asked if I was attacking Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas or even whether or not I was intentionally misrepresenting him. Based on our history, you know I would have answered you openly and honestly. But you didn’t do that, did you?
That’s your full and complete response to my multiple articles on the subject that directly substantiated my claims in full detail? So stunning and brave!
I knew you had trouble substantiating your claims, but this is setting a new milestone! Have you actually read my articles? Here they are:
“Is Matthew 5 Hyperbole?“
“Jesus and Hyperbole, Part 1“
“Jesus and Hyperbole, Part 2“
Feel free to actually meaningfully engage with the arguments rather than this drivel you are producing instead.
It’s not false praise. It is based on everything I’ve read that you’ve publicly stated in the past year. I stand by what I said about your beliefs on that subject. If you change your mind later, I’ll reserve the right to withdraw my praise if you deviate from scripture. But for now it is genuine praise. Take that how you will.
Your eyes are blind if that is your reckoning.
I don’t believe I’ve ever committed a single lie against you. Not a single one. On a number of occasions you’ve made unsubstantiated claims about my supposed lies and I asked you to provide a link to prove it. You never have, because you’ve never had a case. You run to other blogs to complain about how much of a liar I am because you are unwillling to evaluate those claims face-to-face. I’m not afraid of your accusations, because they are utterly vacuous. When shown to the light of truth, they crumble to pieces.
On a few rare occasions you have found an error in something I’ve written, but then you foolishly concluding that errors are lies. And you’ve projected that onto me, thinking that because I’ve pointed out your errors that somehow I’ve attacked you.
You seem to see the world in black and white where there is truth and lie and no room for error in between. It must be very challenging for you to live in that kind of world, since perfection is a human impossibility. Everything must be a lie for you, including your self-delusions where you think you are right about everything. I genuinely feel bad for you.
You know that it’s your view that is derived from feminism, right? This whole time you have been serving the feminist frame without even knowing it. You’ve been sold a bill of goods.
Strong’s lexicon entry here does not even list “against” as one of the possible definitions. Here, examine it for yourself:
On Blue Letter Bible here, I went through all 1,667 matches that they highlighted for the word “against” in 1,390 verses in the KJV. They noted exactly one reference to Strong’s H413 being translated as “against” and it was in Genesis 4:8, precisely where we would expect it to be.
That right, pay attention. The concordance links the word “against” in Genesis 4:8 to an entry in the lexicon (see above) that doesn’t include “against” as one of the possible definitions. You have to go to Strong’s Definitions here to even find it mentioned:
Of course it does. The problem is that you don’t know what lexicons and concordances are and what they mean. If you did, you wouldn’t have said what you said. It reveals your ignorance of the subject matter. Perhaps this link will reveal it to you. Be sure to click the “Strong” definition and see under what category “against” is listed.
Here is a snippet from tomorrow’s post:
“Typically, the Hebrew preposition ’el means ‘to’ or ‘toward.’ All the major Hebrew lexicons agree on this. The adversative sense of the Hebrew preposition ’el does occur in some instances. However, even in those instances, the direction of action is still to or toward. So, for instance, ‘Cain rose up ’el Abel’ (Gen 4:8). Cain’s action of rising up is obviously toward Abel, but the translation ‘against’ makes sense because of the hostile nature of his movement toward his brother. In other words, the preposition ’el in Gen 4:8 does not determine the contrariness of Cain’s action. Instead, it’s his hostile action that permits the translation ‘against’ for the sake of clarity in translation.”
Neither the Hebrew word tshuwqah nor the Hebrew preposition el actually have an adversarial sense. They are just used in an adversarial context in Genesis 4:7-8. It is a lexical misuse of a lexicon to import the lexical context of Genesis 4:8 into Genesis 3:16 in order to make the lexical value adversarial. It’s a category error.
Or put, rather plainly, the preposition el never has an antagonistic denotation. Never. Not once. Not even in Genesis 4:8.
Let’s see if you know enough to understand what all that means.
Do you remember when you quoted an interlinear at me and didn’t even know that Hebrew was read from right to left? Remember when you didn’t realize that the original Hebrew didn’t have punctuation? It took you weeks (or maybe it was months) to admit your error! Now you show—again—that you know almost nothing about how a lexicon and concordance actually work and what they mean.
You should probably not weigh in on topics that you know almost nothing about.
You clearly don’t understand why that is irrelevant.
Yet, your ignorance truly knows know bounds. The preposition el is found ~5,504 times in its various forms in the Old Testament. By my calculation, the 162 times you say the NASB uses the translation “against” for el represents a mere 3% of total uses. Just like Strong’s did above, the NAS concordance doesn’t even list “against” as one of the possible definitions:
Considering that treating el as antagonistic is a modern invention, you may want to reconsider making this argument. While the NASB was written in 1971, it had major revisions in 1977, 1995, and 2020. The 1977 edition is the original version. The NAS Exhaustive Concordance has a copyright date of 1981 and 1988…
…which means it is based on the 1977 NASB.
But even more hilarious is the fact that you forgot to check how the NASB translates Genesis 3:16, despite the NASB supposedly using “against” more often than any other option for el. And, guess what? It doesn’t translate ‘el as against:
And he shall rule over you.”
And of course the KJV (corresponding to Strong’s Concordance, Lexicon, and Dictionary) is the same:
So even if the NAS and Strong’s concordances had asserted that ‘el could mean against, it still wasn’t used that way in Genesis 3:16. So what point exactly are you trying to make? Honestly, you appear to be dead set on destroying your own argument.
Yeah, yeah, I probably am a reality denying simp. I probably eat baby seals too.
Look, I experienced bullies in high school. Your type is all the same. But I’m all grown up now and your tactics don’t work on me anymore. It’s time to grow up and accept that you can’t bully people into accepting your… umm… unique perspective.
Have you now? How many dozens of times have you “come to see” that that I was a liar (and so forth)? Do you think one more vacuous personal attack will help some more?
Maybe one day you will come to realize how much you have been deceived by placing the Manosphere above the Word of God. And, for that matter, realizing that you’ve made obviously incorrect arguments out of sheer ignorance and hubris, like those above.
Oh yes, my soul is hardened against… checks notes… misinterpreting lexicons and concordances and promoting a modern feminist-inspired doctrine. Yes, what a terrible person I am for my… checks notes… defense of the truth.
Look, if it wasn’t for my so-called “hardened soul,” I might be following you down the path of error. I might be joining you in embracing those feminist-inspired doctrines or misinterpreting lexicons and concordances. Or, worse, others might be deceived by your errors.
You know that it’s your view that is derived from feminism, right? This whole time you have been serving the feminist frame without even knowing it. You’ve been sold a bill of goods.
Strong’s lexicon entry here does not even list “against” as one of the possible definitions. Here, examine it for yourself:
On Blue Letter Bible here, I went through all 1,667 matches that they highlighted for the word “against” in 1,390 verses in the KJV. They noted exactly one reference to Strong’s H413 being translated as “against” and it was in Genesis 4:8, precisely where we would expect it to be.
That right, pay attention. The concordance links the word “against” in Genesis 4:8 to an entry in the lexicon (see above) that doesn’t include “against” as one of the possible definitions. You have to go to Strong’s Definitions here to even find it mentioned:
Of course it does. The problem is that you don’t know what lexicons and concordances are and what they mean. If you did, you wouldn’t have said what you said. It reveals your ignorance of the subject matter. Perhaps this link will reveal it to you. Be sure to click the “Strong” definition and see under what category “against” is listed.
Here is a snippet from tomorrow’s post:
“Typically, the Hebrew preposition ’el means ‘to’ or ‘toward.’ All the major Hebrew lexicons agree on this. The adversative sense of the Hebrew preposition ’el does occur in some instances. However, even in those instances, the direction of action is still to or toward. So, for instance, ‘Cain rose up ’el Abel’ (Gen 4:8). Cain’s action of rising up is obviously toward Abel, but the translation ‘against’ makes sense because of the hostile nature of his movement toward his brother. In other words, the preposition ’el in Gen 4:8 does not determine the contrariness of Cain’s action. Instead, it’s his hostile action that permits the translation ‘against’ for the sake of clarity in translation.”
Neither the Hebrew word tshuwqah nor the Hebrew preposition el actually have an adversarial sense. They are just used in an adversarial context in Genesis 4:7-8. It is a lexical misuse of a lexicon to import the lexical context of Genesis 4:8 into Genesis 3:16 in order to make the lexical value adversarial. It’s a category error.
Or put, rather plainly, the preposition el never has an antagonistic denotation. Never. Not once. Not even in Genesis 4:8.
Let’s see if you know enough to understand what all that means.
Do you remember when you quoted an interlinear at me and didn’t even know that Hebrew was read from right to left? Remember when you didn’t realize that the original Hebrew didn’t have punctuation? It took you weeks (or maybe it was months) to admit your error! Now you show—again—that you know almost nothing about how a lexicon and concordance actually work and what they mean.
You should probably not weigh in on topics that you know almost nothing about.
You clearly don’t understand why that is irrelevant.
Yet, your ignorance truly knows know bounds. The preposition el is found ~5,504 times in its various forms in the Old Testament. By my calculation, the 162 times you say the NASB uses the translation “against” for el represents a mere 3% of total uses. Just like Strong’s did above, the NAS concordance doesn’t even list “against” as one of the possible definitions:
Considering that treating el as antagonistic is a modern invention, you may want to reconsider making this argument. While the NASB was written in 1971, it had major revisions in 1977, 1995, and 2020. The 1977 edition is the original version. The NAS Exhaustive Concordance has a copyright date of 1981 and 1988…
…which means it is based on the 1977 NASB.
But even more hilarious is the fact that you forgot to check how the NASB translates Genesis 3:16, despite the NASB supposedly using “against” more often than any other option for el. And, guess what? It doesn’t translate ‘el as against:
And he shall rule over you.”
And of course the KJV (corresponding to Strong’s Concordance, Lexicon, and Dictionary) is the same:
So even if the NAS and Strong’s concordances had asserted that ‘el could mean against, it still wasn’t used that way in Genesis 3:16. So what point exactly are you trying to make? Honestly, you appear to be dead set on destroying your own argument.
Pingback: Genesis 3:16 Revisted - Derek L. Ramsey