Article Summary: In the greatest commandment, Jesus singled out and emphasized the explicit use of the mind and critical thinking as an act of loving God. He did not emphasize emotions and mentioned nothing of ethics, mysticism, metaphysics, philosophy, or epistemology.
Aristotelian Philosophy
In the past (and still continuing to a lesser degree), typical tactics of deception deployed a poignant emotional appeal (a heavy emphasis on Pathos) in which facts (Logos*) and moral considerations (Ethos) were supplanted in order to allow the subject to be swept away by emotions and thereby convince him/her to believe the false narrative.
Nowadays, we see a heavy emphasis on Logos* that is frequently used to obfuscate a deceptive Pathos, often by displacing or redefining Ethos (e.g. ressentimentalized values). Superficially, this twisted Logos appears factually accurate, but is in fact, cherry picked, statistically manipulated, and heavily biased in order to support a predetermined narrative.
This is how Logic can be misconstrued to support nearly any viewpoint, right or wrong, provided it is sufficiently cherry picked, compartmentalized, and isolated from conflicting information.
* Logos (not to be confused with LOGOS, the Biblical pseudonym for Jesus) is one of the four elements of persuasion, the other three being Ethics (Ethos), Emotional Conviction (Pathos), and the overriding meaning, purpose, and significance of the story (Mythos).
Three of the “elements of persuasion”—Logos, Ethos, and Pathos—are Aristotelian. The so-called fourth category—Mythos—is just repackaged mysticism:
There is a fourth expression, not from Aristotle, but certainly present among humanity since long before his time. Mythos is the unfolding narrative built around individual identities, purposes, beliefs, hopes, and expectations.
Mythos relies mainly on the “ancient brain”. It appeals to something deep within the human soul. It cannot be rationally defined, but nevertheless, it is strongly felt.
Aristotle was a Greek philosopher.
The Greek word muthos (mythos) is the Greek word for myths, fables, and tales. The Bible always refers to them as false tales or myths.[1] It is related to the Greek word musterion (mystery)—which refers to sacred secrets of mysteries—and the word mueó—which refers to learning the secrets or being initiated into the sacred mysteries. In its historical use, mythos does indeed refer to the collective narrative mythology of a society or culture, incorporating their (usually false) assumptions about reality (i.e. metaphysics). It is also closely related to mysticism.
However, clever readers will note that something that “is strongly felt” is just pathos, the emotional conviction. The persuasive power of mysticism is fundamentally about the elevation of feelings—emotional appeals—over reason and ethics. Mystics will often use emotional language to describe mysticism and will also explicitly contrast (superior) mysticism against the (inferior) faculties of reason.[2] The latter is explicitly minimized (or even outright rejected[3]). When one suppresses reason, there is no longer a way to distinguish between mysticism and pathos. It is pathos, not logos, that is used to validate mystical experiences.[4]
Mysticism, at least the non-metaphysical version described here which treats mysticism as a “way of knowing,” is fundamentally irrational and so inherently at odds with it. Rejecting reason—in full or in part—for mysticism leads to “an arrogant assumption [that] you do understand.”[5] This kind of mysticism cannot truly coexist with rationality, and you’ll ultimately be forced to choose one (the emotional version) or the other (the intellectual version).
If there is an overriding principle that goes beyond the three elements of persuasion it is metaphysics, not pathos-driven mysticism. Even the dictionary agrees that mythos is about metaphysical assumptions, not persuasion:
mythos — noun — a set of beliefs or assumptions about something.
The beliefs or assumptions about what is—or isn’t—is strongly dependent on the metaphysical assumptions from which one approaches reality. Assumptions, being assumptions or assertions about what is true, stand in opposition to persuasion.
Aristotle did not accidentally miss one of the modes of persuasion. Mythos, as metaphysics, is not a fourth mode. It is a different category altogether. And mythos, as mysticism, is mostly just pathos with anti-logos overtones:
mysticism — noun — a set of deceptive beliefs or tactics deploying poignant emotional appeals (a heavy emphasis on pathos) in which facts (logos) and moral considerations (ethos) are supplanted in order to allow the subject to be swept away by emotions and thereby convincing him/her to believe a false narrative.
See also: mythos.
What a great definition of mysticism![6] It is a perfect description of what mythos mytisicsm entails. The only thing I substantially changed in this definition from the Sigma Frame original is removing the part about the tactics being mostly in the past. The tactics of mysticism are alive, well, and unchanging. Mysticism has never been more popular in the West and it remains, as it always has been, a tactic of deception.
Where mysticism has changed from the past is that it now hides behind a thin veneer of intellectualism:
It takes very little effort to show that the vast majority of modern people have no interest in rationality, except, by paying lip service to it, as a utilitarian political tool.
To summarize, if something cannot be rationally defined, but is nevertheless “strongly felt” to be true, there are only two possible reasons:
The first possibility is that we may lack the knowledge or ability to define it rationally. The problem is with the inadequacy of the human experience, not a statement about that which we desire to understand. The state of inability to rationally define it is temporary or incidental. It is possible that with the further acquisition of knowledge or the increased application of logic and reason, this impediment can be rationally resolved.
The second possibility is that we can’t rationally define it because it is irrational (i.e. objectively false) and should be rejected. The state of inability to rationally define it is permanent or essential.
In both cases, there is no reason why logos and ethos should be set aside in favor of pathos or mythos. Personal inadequacies (the first possibility) do not mean we abandon reason, nor must we must accept the metaphysically incoherent (the second possibility).
But ultimately, Aristotelian philosophy does not replace the teachings of Jesus, which settle the issue for us.
The Teachings of Jesus
As Jesus said,
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Thereby incorporating all four elements of persuasion within a sociospiritual context.
Jesus did NOT emphasize Logos to say,
Like “science groupies” who try to incorporate meaning into scientific knowledge, loving the Truth with all one’s mind (Logos) is insufficient.
Neither did he require Ethos to say,
Like humanism and progressivism assigns as the chief of virtues.
Nor did He stress Pathos to say,
Where to begin?
First, why can’t science answer questions of meaning? This is a modern metaphysical assumption, but there is no rational reason to conclude that it is necessarily true. I’m not suggesting that science—as a discipline—can answer all questions to everyone’s satisfaction (a personal problem!),[7] but science has raised and answered many questions regarding various fundamental realities of existence. This is why, for example, Paul testified to the witness of nature. It is why philosophers can speak of “natural law.” It is why the science of Semiotics leads to the conclusion that God exists. To wit:
Semiotics is the systematic study of interpretation, meaning-making, semiosis (sign process) and the communication of meaning.
…
Contemporary semiotics is a branch of science that generally studies meaning-making (whether communicated or not) and various types of knowledge.
That’s right. Not only is it false that science cannot answer questions of meaning, but there is an entire branch of science dedicated to the study of meaning. This is possible because, as the ancient Hebrews believed, all of nature is alive and reflects its creator. Science can and does reveal meaning and the divine. It is also absurd to think that God cannot use his own creation to convey meaning to us.
Second, consider this statement:
Jesus did NOT emphasize Logos to say,
Like “science groupies” who try to incorporate meaning into scientific knowledge, loving the Truth with all one’s mind (Logos) is insufficient.
Jesus was explicitly asked “Teacher, what must I do to inherit life in the age to come?” and after the teacher quoted the greatest commandment in the Law in Luke 10:25-28, Jesus responded by saying “You have answered rightly. Do this and you will live.” You cannot be saved if you refuse to love God with your whole mind and your whole being.
Jesus did not say that the use of the mind was in any way philosophically insufficient. As we’ll see below, Jesus went out of his way to emphasize the use of the mind, as if the biggest problem of the time was the misuse of the rational faculties. It’s absurd to try to minimize the role of the mind when Jesus was trying to highlight it! Finding the purest truth involves the use of the mind. Truthseeking is an inherently loving act.
Third, in quoting the Shema, Jesus was not talking about epistemology or about ways of knowing or persuading. He was talking about ways of loving and worshiping God. While there are certainly overlaps between the two, Jesus was not engaging in Greek-style philosophical analysis in the Aristotelian mode. In fact, as I noted in “Heart and Mind, Redux,” the ancient Hebrews often made no distinction between what we call the “heart” (pathos? mythos?) and what we call the “mind” (logos? ethos?). The Aristotelian philosophical distinctions being made above were somewhat alien to the ancient Hebrews. I’ve written more about how Hellenist philosophy has infected Christianity here.
Fourth, Jesus did not incorporate “all four” of the so-called ‘elements of persuasion’ in his recitation of the Shema. Heart, soul, mind, and strength are by no means equivalent to the three (or four) elements of persuasion. Only two of the copies of the Shema (found in Luke and Mark) even mention four things. The others (in Hebrew OT, Septuagint OT, and Matthew) only mention three things. As we’ll see below, the one in Matthew arguably only includes two. To wit:
Let’s summarize what we’ve found:
Heart: Greek kardia = Hebrew lebab
Soul: Greek psuché = Hebrew nephesh
Strength: Greek dynamai and ischus = Hebrew meod
Mind: Greek diánoia
We’ll discuss this in more detail below, but I’ve already written extensively on this topic in “Heart and Mind,” “Emotion and Intellect,” and “Reason Is A Tool.”
The Mind
In English the term “heart” refers to the so-called “seat of emotions.” But, when the Bible speaks of the “seat of emotions” it references the kidneys or intestines (i.e. one’s “gut feelings”). When the Bible does reference the heart, it is with respect to the so-called “seat of intellect.”
In a number of verses (given above), the English heart and mind (Hebrew and Greek kidneys and heart, respectively) are used together, so switching them around in the English has no possible impact on the meaning of the translation. But the Bible often uses the word ‘heart’—which means mind—by itself. Except, in the English translation, this is typically simply translated as-is as ‘heart’—which means the seat of emotion [in English]. This effectively changes a verse from talking about the mind and the intellect to talking about wordless non-intellectual emotion.
Here is one prime example:
Matthew 22:36-38
“Teacher, which commandment is the greatest one in the law?” And he said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your heart [Greek: kardia; heart], and with all your soul, and with all your mind [Greek: dianoia; mind]. This is the greatest and most important commandment.”
Translators take the Greek and Hebrew words for “kidney” or “intestine” and translate it as the English ‘heart.’ They also take the Greek and Hebrew words for “heart” and translate it as the English ‘mind.’[8]
So, when Jesus quotes the Shema with the word “heart” (Greek kardia = Hebrew lebab), he isn’t referring to pathos as such. If he were referring to anything in particular (rather than about the conscious, thinking self or being in general) he may well have been talking about logos, of understanding, intellect, and the rational mind.[9][10][11]
In the Bible, translators treat the “heart” and the “mind” as if they are synonyms. If translators translated in a consistent way, you could translate the Shema this way:
Matthew 22:36-38
“Teacher, which commandment is the greatest one in the law?” And he said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your mind, and with all your soul, and with all your critical thinking. This is the greatest and most important commandment.”
But that’s not how it is translated in English, where to the modern reader it sounds more like this:
Matthew 22:36-38
“Teacher, which commandment is the greatest one in the law?” And he said to him, “Love the Lord your God with all your feelings, and with all your soul, and with all your mind. This is the greatest and most important commandment.”
What a difference in emphasis!
But, by contrast, the New Testament never once uses the Greek word for feelings or emotions (or pathos) with respect to what a person should say or do, how they should act (or lead, or be led), how they should discern what is right, how they should understand what is the will of God, or how they should be saved.
Now, let’s review this quote again:
As Jesus said,
“You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, with all your soul, with all your strength, and with all your mind, and you shall love your neighbor as yourself.”
Deuteronomy 6:5; Matthew 22:37; Mark 12:30; Luke 10:27
There is great irony here. Let’s unpack it.
The Shema is the most quoted and most important scripture in the entire Old Testament, and perhaps the New Testament as well. Jesus’ quotation of it is of critical importance and we would do pay to pay close attention to what he said.
The original Shema had three components: heart, soul, and strength. Of these, none refer explicitly to the concepts of ethos or mythos. The heart clearly and specifically includes logos, but only includes pathos by general implication of being part of the whole being.
The heart is the seat of one’s intellect,[8][9][10][11] but it also represents the entirety of one’s mental faculties (including feelings). The soul is one’s breath of life, that which makes you living and not dead. As with heart representing the entirety of one’s mental being, the soul represents the entirety of one’s living (as opposed to dead) being. And of course strength is a physical attribute that stands figuratively as representative of the entirety of one’s physical being.
But Jesus did something extremely curious. He changed the Shema. He removed the word “strength” (in one gospel) and added a fourth word in all three gospel accounts. That word is diánoia, which means mind:
diánoia (from 1223 /diá, “thoroughly, from side-to-side,” which intensifies 3539 /noiéō, “to use the mind,” from 3563 /noús, “mind”) – properly, movement from one side (of an issue) to the other to reach balanced-conclusions; full-orbed reasoning (= critical thinking), i.e. dialectical thinking that literally reaches “across to the other side” (of a matter). 1271 /diánoia (“critical thinking”), literally “thorough reasoning,” incorporates both sides of a matter to reach a meaningful (personal) conclusion. Such “full-breadth reasoning” is essential to loving (25 /agapáō) the Lord and our neighbor (see Mk 12:30). It is also the instrument of self-destruction when exercised without God’s light and power (Lk 1:51; Eph 2:3, 4:18; Col 1:21). Why would Jesus add a second word for the mind? Well, the language Jesus added makes it clear that this isn’t just any kind of using the mind, as might be implied by the already included ‘heart’ (which many translators already translate as ‘mind’ elsewhere). This “mind” refers to thinking about both sides of an issue and weighing—or reasoning—through it. It is critical thinking. It is dialectical, of rational debate. This reflects an extremely important shift. Jesus wanted to emphasize the role of the mind beyond that of the faculties of the mind already implied in the word ‘heart.’ Far from trying to assert the inherent weaknesses in critical thinking, Jesus went the opposite direction. If anything, he was pointing out that critical thinking had been lacking. This should not be understated. Jesus went out of his way to tell his listeners to use critical thinking within the greatest of all commandments. There are many lesser commandments in scripture, but if you could only choose one of them, it would have to be the one where Jesus went out of his way to tell us to use our rational minds to show our love to God. Paul confirmed Jesus’ teachings when he wrote that we are to renew our mind in order to test and approve what the will of God is! This is an astounding claim: And it is why Paul applauded the intellectual approach of the Bereans. It is why the New Testament writers told us to test what is true: If you find yourself veering into pathos and mythos while minimizing logos and ethos, then you’ve gone the wrong way. Minimizing the rational mind will inevitably lead to the inability to distinguish between what is and isn’t the will of God. The minimization or abandonment of the mind leads to mysticism (and pathos). Thus, without the tools to test the spirits, one will fall away from Christ and towards the spirits of antichrist. Nowadays, we see a heavy emphasis on Logos* that is frequently used to obfuscate a deceptive Pathos, often by displacing or redefining Ethos (e.g. ressentimentalized values). Superficially, this twisted Logos appears factually accurate, but is in fact, cherry picked, statistically manipulated, and heavily biased in order to support a predetermined narrative. Notice the problem of moderns. Many have misused of the rational mind—failing to love the Lord your God with all your mind—and exchanged the rational for pathological pathos (i.e. emotions). But the solution to this is not to double down on pathos and “mythos” mysticism, but to make more ethical use of the mind. The solution to the heavy misuse of “reason” is by engaging in proper reasoning itself. Of course it is simply not true that “we see a heavy emphasis on Logos.” Modern society is not typified by rationality, and rational views are most often attacked by those who heavily value emotion and mysticism (the latter of which make up the majority of society). Our churches do not refuse to condemn and eliminate sin because they are rational, they do so because of emotion: confrontations and division are mean. While the West may have (arguably) been built on reason, it has been a very long time since the West has been ruled by reason. If you think otherwise, try reading “The Protestation of Dr Hugh Latimer” and then try comparing that form of debate with the ones that take place on social media. Many of the differences are like night and day. [1] The Bible never describes true teachings or traditions as mythos. Only those false things that should be rejected are deemed as mythos: As I urged you when I was going into Macedonia, remain in Ephesus so that you can instruct certain people not to teach any different doctrine, nor to pay attention to myths and endless genealogies, which lead to useless speculations, rather than teaching God’s administration of grace, which has to do with trust. But avoid worldly myths and old wives’ tales;b rather, train yourself in godliness. For the time will come when they will not tolerate sound doctrine; but having itching ears, they will pile up teachers for themselves to suit their own desires and will turn away from listening to the truth and turn aside to myths. For we did not follow cunningly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, instead we were eyewitnesses of his majesty, for he received honor and glory from God the Father when a voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son with whom I am well pleased.” One of them, one of their own prophets, said, “Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, lazy gluttons.” This testimony is true. For this reason, reprove them sharply so that they come to be sound in the faith instead of paying attention to Jewish myths or the commandments of people who turn away from the truth. [2] One mystic stated this bluntly: “God will scarcely bother with addressing Himself to human intellect.” [3] Here is what one mystic told me: You seem to be talking about what it means to ‘walk in the Spirit,’ as the New Testament would call it, from an epistemological perspective. I could not go beyond the limits of my mind in the Spirit until I was brought to a crisis where I had to deny that mind in order to move forward with the Lord. I would have intellectually assented to everything you are saying here before that, but I was unable to actually live this way, which is the only way to actually know what you are talking about in a subjective sense. To “walk in the spirit” is to ‘walk in the new life.” This involves body, mind, and all of one’s life. Another mystic wrote: God gave us reason for the sole purpose of organizing and implementing His Word in our lives. Reason is not capable of discerning the depths of divine truth; it cannot be put into human words. Reason must wait on the heart to communicate convictions to the mind within a context. … The intellect is flesh. The human brain remains fallen and mortal, entirely unreliable in its native pride against humility before the Lord and His revelation. It can be somewhat redeemed when it bows the knee to the heart. As with the rest of the fleshly nature, it will rebel constantly, and requires keeping the hammer and nails close at hand. You cannot trust your intellect to give you a good answer on anything, until it is clearly on the Cross. This (false) distinction between “heart” and “mind” is not Hebrew in origin. Jesus never taught such a thing. In fact, the claim “reason must wait on the heart” is nonsensical because according to the Hebrew the “heart” is the mind. Saying “reason must wait on the mind” is a tautology. As John Lennox points out, treating the mind (and consciousness) as equivalent to a physical fleshly brain is an atheistic evolutionary assumption, not a matter of biblical teaching. In Hebrew and Christian thought, the brain is not the mind. [4] I have never seen a mystic advocate testing the spirits using the instructions found in scripture or instituting rational examination as the final word on prophecy: 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. Two or three prophets should speak, and the others should weigh carefully what is said. Now the Berean Jews were of more noble character than those in Thessalonica, for they received the message with great eagerness and examined the Scriptures every day to see if what Paul said was true. [5] Mystics assert the exact opposite: [6] NOTE: I once called Christian revelation “mysticism,” but I do no longer. I’ve since concluded that it is best to keep a clear line of separation between divine revelation (which is good and true) and spiritual mysticism (which is deceptive falsehood). Similarly, Christians are not mystics who find secrets that only the initiated can know, rather they are revealers of revelation that has already long since been revealed. [7] As I discussed here, just because something isn’t perfectly clear does not make it useless. The same is true of the faculties of reason. Just because they fail to explain everything for everyone does not invalidate their role in explaining. [8] “The heart is the seat of understanding in biblical physiology, but it is also associated with feelings.” — Robert Alter, “The Hebrew Bible: The Five Books of Moses”, p. 641. [9] In Job 12:3, the NASB and NAB translate ‘heart’ as ‘intelligence.’ [10] James Hastings’ commentary on the heart (from “The Great Texts of the Bible”) states “… But in Hebrew it also represented the seat of intelligence, …” [11] Abarim Publications, “The Hebrew Heart” calls the heart “The seat of intelligence and determination”Footnotes
Nowadays, we see a heavy emphasis on Logos* that is frequently used to obfuscate a deceptive Pathos, often by displacing or redefining Ethos (e.g. ressentimentalized values). Superficially, this twisted Logos appears factually accurate, but is in fact, cherry picked, statistically manipulated, and heavily biased in order to support a predetermined narrative.
Notice the problem of moderns. Many have misused of the rational mind—failing to love the Lord your God with all your mind—and exchanged the rational for pathological pathos (i.e. emotions). But the solution to this is not to double down on pathos and “mythos” mysticism, but to make more ethical use of the mind. The solution to the heavy misuse of “reason” is by engaging in proper reasoning itself.
Of course it is simply not true that “we see a heavy emphasis on Logos.” Modern society is not typified by rationality, and rational views are most often attacked by those who heavily value emotion and mysticism (the latter of which make up the majority of society). Our churches do not refuse to condemn and eliminate sin because they are rational, they do so because of emotion: confrontations and division are mean. While the West may have (arguably) been built on reason, it has been a very long time since the West has been ruled by reason.
i’ve noticed these anti-West mystics rarely speak on if they agree with ANE divorce?
As stated here:
These transfers greatly stabilised marriage.
When a marriage was agreed, the groom or his family gave a large marriage present to the bride’s family, typically 10 – 30 shekels, equivalent to several years’ pay. Remember Jacob, without parental backing had to find the money himself, by working 7 years for each of his 2 wives. But this was not the only payment on marriage. The bride’s father gave her on her wedding a large present of clothing, furniture, and cash. This was called the dowry. Leah and Rachel’s dowries each included a slave girl.
Total fidelity was demanded of the wife in marriage. If she was caught with another man, both could be put to death. But note the husband was not so tightly bound: if he had an affair with a single woman, that was not adultery, though it could prove expensive. This double standard on adultery went along with a tolerance of polygamy but not polyandry.
Divorce would be another possibility, especially where the evidence was not clear cut. In this case the woman would forfeit her dowry and probably return in disgrace to her parental home. But in other situations divorce would cost the husband dear. If for example he divorced his wife because she was childless, he would have to give her the dowry and a divorce settlement equal to the marriage present (10 to 30 shekels).
In cases of misbehaviour short of adultery no divorce settlement was payable but the woman still took her dowry with her. This in itself was a huge disincentive to divorce. A survey of Palestinian villagers in 1930s showed a very low divorce rate (< 5%), because although it is technically very easy to divorce under Islamic law, the divorced wife took the dowry with her. And that deterred most husbands from resorting to divorce.
These practices probably lie behind the only law on divorce in the OT. Deut. 24:1-4 (ESV)
According to Raymond Westbrook there are two kinds of divorce here. The first case involves sexual misbehaviour, short of adultery, which entitles the first husband to divorce her and keep the dowry. She then remarries, bringing with her a second dowry. Her second husband then takes a dislike to her, ‘hates’ her, in other word has no justification for divorcing her. So if he divorces her, she keeps her dowry. The same would be true if the second husband dies: she retains her dowry. The law’s real point comes in verse 4. Her first husband, with his eye on the second dowry, cannot take her back. That we might say would add insult to injury. Having made a probably false accusation to obtain her first dowry and cast her out, he cannot pretend to exonerate her by taking her back, when his real motive is to acquire money from her.
So back in the time of Deuteronomy divorce was possible on grounds of immoral behaviour and also because the husband decided he did not like his wife. The same ground is mentioned in Malachi 2: 16 apparently. Hugenberger translates it ‘If one hates and divorces [that is, if one divorces merely on the ground of aversion]…. he covers his garment with violence. Therefore, take heed to yourselves and do not be faithless [against your wife].'
Brewer argues that divorce for any cause was an innovation of first-century Hillelites. The evidence of the ancient Near East and the Old Testament on the other hand shows it was a very ancient practice. This is also the implication of the first-century Jewish writers Philo and Josephus: the latter says a man may divorce his wife ‘for whatever cause.’ Amram in The Jewish Law of Divorce says ‘This ancient right of the husband, to divorce his wife at his pleasure, is the central thought in the entire system of Jewish divorce law.’ Illustrations of this from the Hillelite school include ‘He may divorce her even if she spoiled a dish for him… R. Akiba says: Even if he found another fairer than she, for it is written, “And it shall be if she find no favour in his eyes”’
By the first century there had been some changes to the system of marriage and divorce payments, which may have made divorce easier. The initial marriage present was reduced to a token amount plus a promise to pay 200 dinars (a year’s pay), if the wedding was cancelled or later her husband divorced his wife. This was a considerable deterrent to divorce, but quite a modest payment compared with the arrangements in the old Babylonian period. Furthermore this payment could be waived for fairly minor offences.
These are they that are put away without their ketubbah (divorce payment); a wife that transgresses the Law of Moses and Jewish custom.
i know Sigma Simp Frame, John Providence,Catacomb Resident and Ed Hurst would NEVER agree with the following non-ANE video though:
United Methodist Church impastor Ryan Scott arguing in favor of divorce.
Here's some commentary on that video and the non-ANE protestants from Pseudonymous Commenter says:
Early Protestantism (Luther, Calvin): Divorce is not permitted unless an unbelieving spouse leaves and will not return or live with the believer in peace; or abandonment; or a refusal or inability to consummate the marriage; or threats of violent physical abuse to the point of one of them is getting killed if the marriage is not ended. Remarriage is not permitted while the other spouse is alive.
Protestantism, 1970s: Divorce is bad and we should not ever do it; but sometimes people just can’t get along. Remarriage is frowned on, but we’d rather people went through the motions and remarried, because that lends an air of legitimacy to the sex we know they’ll be having one way or the other. We’d rather divorced people got remarried so they can have legitimate sex.
Protestantism, 2000s: Divorce is unfortunate and should never be undertaken lightly, but sometimes necessary. Remarriage is OK.
Protestantism, 2020s: The individual is to be celebrated and worshiped. Divorce is encouraged if it will help someone self-actualize. There are no theological impediments whatsoever to remarriage after divorce.
Why NOT protestants be redpill or ANE & only allow divorce in cases of husband saying'' NO you will NOT control me, NO you will NOT take my soul, NO you will NOT win this game =redpill and oh its a game=redpill like back in high school with big buxom Mary Jane and respect the cox and tame the c@nt!I'am the one in charge!I'm the one that says YES, NO, NOW!HERE!It's universal, DUDE!IT'S BIOLOGICAL!, IT'S ANTHROBIOLOGICAL!WE ARE MEN!''
3 And Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for just any reason?” 4 He replied, “Have you never read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.” 7 The Pharisees said to Him, “Why then did Moses command us to give her a certificate of divorce and send her away?” 8 He said to them, “Because your hearts were hard and stubborn Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way. 9 I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery[a].”
10 The disciples said to Jesus, “If the relationship of a man with his wife is like this, it is better not to marry.” 11 But He said to them, “Not all men can accept this statement, but only those to whom [the capacity to receive] it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who have been born that way from their mother’s womb [making them incapable of consummating a marriage]; and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by men [for royal service]; and there are eunuchs who have [b]made themselves so for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. He who is able to accept this, let him accept it.”-
Matthew 19
Amplified Bible (AMP)''
See how Pseudonymous Commenter presents all sides of the argument?The logical,the mysticism,themetaphysics and then the owner of the soul-he presents all sides!
The Hillelite perspective:
Know what i still don’t understand about Dalrock? When he said ”I’m not an expert on game=redpill, so I generally avoid dispensing game=redpill advice.” on this post ”Gaming your wife. ”https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/gaming-your-wife.12383
One of the concerns which I hear with some regularity is why a man would marry only to need to “work” to game his wife. I’m not an expert on game=redpill, so I generally avoid dispensing game=redpill advice. There are plenty of other bloggers who are already filling this space, and I don’t feel the need to jump into that arena. I would rather point you to those who really know what they are talking about. With that in mind, I’ll take a shot at answering the basic question. I’m not answering it as a game expert, but as a (greater) beta husband who has been married for 15 years and has only recently started formally learning anything about game=redpill.
Unless you have an arranged marriage or she is a conniving massive b!tch, she fell in love with you and is attracted to the real you. You don’t need to morph into a super alpha, you just need to avoid morphing into a sniveling beta and maybe dial up your natural alpha just a bit. Unless being a sniveling beta is your natural and preferred state, avoiding that really shouldn’t be something that feels like work. Guys don’t become sniveling betas because they want to or because it is who they are, they do it because they don’t understand and mistakenly listen to all of the messages of our feminized culture.
The foundation for her commitment to your marriage shouldn’t be your game. If she is only one, or a few, or even 50 failed shit tests away from walking away from her sacred vow and/or whoring around, then she isn’t a wife, she is a whore. Don’t marry a whore*. Game should be about making you and your wife happier with your marriage, not about putting the sole onus for the success of the marriage on you.
Being a man is fun. Enjoy it. Then she can enjoy you being a man too.
Part of game=redpill is about understanding what makes you an attractive man. Appreciate yourself (without getting a big head). Being able to appreciate yourself will also allow you to appreciate what is great about your wife without becoming a sniveling beta.
Chances are a lot of game already comes naturally to you. Even as a beta I realize that I have been doing much of what game would teach without really thinking about it. As she has learned more about game, my wife has commented on this multiple times: Wait, you have always done that. and So that is why I like it when you do that. and Hey, you just did it (used game) didn’t you? [Yeah, I guess I did.]
Hawaiian Libertarian/Keoni Galt/Dave from Hawaii describes game=redpill as being cocky funny. You call that work? Seriously? I was born a smart @ss(like current ”RP genius” ”leaders” in the 2020s ”that cover up their failures like democrats”. ) Bring it on.
Sh!t happens, and sh!t tests happen. It isn’t as if you are free from sh!t tests until you get married and then all of a sudden have to deal with them. The only way you can avoid them is to avoid women and girls. And even then maybe not with our feminized culture. As with every other unavoidable aspect of life, you may as well learn how to handle them.
Her sh!t tests are her problem, not yours. As a loving goddess worshipping husband you want to help her with her problems, but don’t assign yourself responsibility for them.
Sh!t tests are an opportunity. Pass them(by NOT challenging your wife’s rebellion like Pseudonymous Commenter will do next year) and good things are coming your way. And even if they don’t come immediately, passing them is still more pleasant (for both of you) than failing them.
As you get better at handling sh!t tests, you should get fewer and fewer of them.
*If either of you struggle with the idea of judging men or women who cheat or walk away from their marriage=divorce without a legitimate cause, don’t marry.
ST.DAL’S NOT telling his wife to woman up/girl game up like Pseudonymous Commenter told his wife in 2011 led to one of his by then(2014) former commenters, rmaxgenactivepua, to say this about Dalrock”How Social Justice Warriors Such As Paul Elam & Blue Pill Soccer Dads ie. W.F Price & Dalrock Ruined The Manosphere Part Two-This is basically a summarised, easier to read version of part one, as the original was an unedited rant …
Anyway …
Christians, soccerdads, stayathomemoms, & leftists are basically petty, vindictive, & will stab you in the back, for refusing to kow tow to their emasculated, pussified world view
A masculine man, isn’t welcome in their community, as most masculine men stand at odds with christianity & the community of emasculated married men …
Unfortunately alot of these emasculated married men, have invaded the manosphere, turning it into what it is today …
Basically the manosphere went from mgtow, game & pua, to being overrun by soccerdads, blue pillers & married men, all claiming to be red pill & practising game on their wives …
While never posting anything about actually standing upto their wives, or any evidence or advice on actually holding wives responsible for their actions
Basically nothing proving they are in fact red pill … What we have now is essentially ”Christians” & soccerdads ie. Dalrock, using the red pill & game to
white knight for women, instead of calling women out on their irrational behaviour
ie Dalrock’s infamous anecdote of using game to win over his wife,who falls out of love with him,
instead of calling her out on her lack of commitment to him after 10 years of wedded bliss …
When are these men going to realise, after years of being devoted to a single person …
Bullshit excuses used by women to cover up their aging, erectile dysfunction causing
menopausal, hit the wall looks, should never be tolerated
Chrisitains validating her need for thugs & aholes …
Whats even worse, what they dont realise by gaming their wives, all theyre doing is validating herneed for thugs & aholes
Instead of validating his need for her to stop comparing him to the thugs & aholes she rode the carousel with, & stop forcing him to jump through hoops like a trained monkey
Of course its alot easier to say she needs to be gamed & you need to be more masculine, then it
is to call her out on her shit, & demand your wife actually changes into a regular rational humanbeingInstead of the typical ”christian”, pedestalised moron most” christian” wives turn into, In short the manosphere is still here, we just refuse to be associated with the soccerdads, christians & married men, as we know dedicating your life to a vagina, is the ultimate blue pill”
SEE? He had nothing but love for guys who stood up to their wives like Pseudonymous Commenter while casually gaming=redpilling them at the same time
Let Pseudonymous Commenter himself back then tell ya from the ”she felt unloved” ST.DAL post!
Pseudonymous Commenter says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:15 pm
Men can’t game=redpill all the time, every day. Nor are men expected to game all the time. Only the very worst women have to be gamed=redpilled hard all the time, it seems to me. Everyone has an off day. And women have to bring their game too.
Guy game: aloof, cocky-funny, straightforward, makes firm decisions, pursues what he wants without apology, claims what is his,keepin’it relz
Girl game: physically appealing, kind, pleasant, nondemanding, compliant, submits to her man’s decisions, nurturing
Doug1 says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:25 pm
ruddyturnstone–
that one can never, or almost never, come right out and admit love or insecurity, does sound like a fiendish instruction manual to me.
Who in the game community says you can’t ever tell a woman you love that you do?
It is a good idea though to get her to chase, her to say it first, and for her to say it more often. Just is. That will make her happier in fact. After awhile it will probably make you happier – it certainly does me. Well having chase a bit is what does. But you have to calibrate and give her comfort and enough security as well to keep a good LTR humming along.
Pseudonymous Commenter says:
November 21, 2011 at 5:32 pm
“It’s not work, it’s fun and satisfying as hell. It’s a very rewarding way of interacting with attractive women – or other women you want something from.”
Exactly, Doug1 lad. And I’d add this: women manipulate, connive and scheme without even knowing they do it. Women use game just as much as men do. Women use sex, bat their eyelashes, tease, pitch their voices higher, and all other sorts of behaviors designed to attract men, or extract things they want from men. Women have been running game=redpill for hundreds, nay, thousands of years. So I see no problem with men learning and incorporating game=redpill to level that playing field. Game=redpill helps men get more of what they want from women, increase female attraction and attractive behaviors, and ease their lives.
Game=redpill is useful. It increases attractiion. It helps me get what I want from my relationship with my wife. It helps improve work relationships. It helps me extract things from women that I want — help on a work project, information about people, things and situations, a break on a deal I’m trying to make. It’s lots of fun, and useful, to game the middle aged office workers who shriek “Oh, how you DO go on!” Those lovely ladies haven’t had that kind of male attention in years. They will do anything for me at work(such as female keepin’ it relz)— and in return, they know if the chips are down I’ve got their back,even though I don’t work at Costco.
Two comments from that ”How Social Justice Warriors Such As Paul Elam & Blue Pill Soccer Dads ie. W.F Price & Dalrock Ruined The Manosphere Part Two ”on how simping goddess worshippers like ST.DAL & ”RP GENIUS””LEADERS” FAIL WITH ”The Manosphere men, young demonized men, and secular folks like Trump ”
Marlon April 29, 2014 at 6:20 am
“While never posting anything about actually standing up to their wives, or any evidence or advice on actually holding wives responsible for their actions”
Very telling is the lack of the above.
rmaxgenactivepua’s avatar rmaxgenactivepua April 29, 2014 at 12:00 pm
Yea, there seems to be a complete blackout on husbands actually standing up to their wives, on all these so called married men red pill blogs
Don’t worry ”RP GENIUS””LEADERS” , ST.DAL didn’t listen and quit nearly 6 years after that post and comments above, and he was way more savvy and intelligent than you, so keep up the simping and goddess worship and your recycled Boomer loser bullsh!t with you. But you can’t, can you? LOL You worthless trolls have to follow us around to stay relevant, since the men of society are also following us and have turned from your failed “ game=redpill ahole bullying ” stupidity, and your “Simp frame goddess worship” sexual inversion. The age of the simp is gradually ending.
As Derek has already said here”It has been and always will be the case that men are on their own, because they are full agents who keep it maximally real as they ignore“ game=redpill ahole bullying ” & “Simp frame goddess worship” sexual inversion. ”
As Derek has already said here:
“It has been and always will be the case that men are on their own, because they are full agents who keep it maximally real as they ignore “game=redpill ahole bullying” and “Simp frame goddess worship” sexual inversion.”
Oh, I’m sure I’d say it in exactly those same words. LOL.
Here’s ERIC(before ST.DAL’ banned him for going against his simp frame goddess worshipping) from the first GBFM blog on that ”she felt unloved” post
Eric says:
November 23, 2011 at 3:59 pm
Dalrock:
I think the most obvious criticism against ‘Game’=redpill is the fact that it doesn’t work and is based on pseudoscience.
This whole nonsense about ‘archetypes’ was discredited years ago. If one believes in Creationism, then Man was created in the image of God; God being a Unity; He couldn’t be both ‘alpha’ and ‘beta’. If one holds the Evolutionary Theory, the same applies. There’s no evoultionary purpose for a so-called ‘beta’ and they would have been extinct long ago.
The second obvious problem is by simple observation: women in our culture DO NOT pursue the strong, confident, masculine, so-called ‘Alpha’ male. They pursue the weakest and most dysfunctional males possible. The reason for this is sociological; not genetic. Women in our culture are taught to despise ALL males as inferiors; and consequently don’t seek men unless they (the women) can be the dominant party in a relationship.
Game=redpill is just a rationalization. Men have to have some motive for continuing to pursue American women—and none exist in reality. But by convincing oneself that women really want—sexually or otherwise— a strong, confident male, men can delude themselves into thinking the relationship is successful and that she really cares about him &c. Wrong. Women in our culture care for nobody but themselves; and see men as expendable appendages. This is why Roissyism is so dangerous for men; it’s setting more men up for disaster and encouraging them to pursue what they should actively flee.
7man says:
November 23, 2011 at 4:08 pm
Eric,
Now I am in quite a quandary. I can continue to use what I think I learned from Game=redpill in becoming a better man, which I think is working very well. I think being more dominant and confident has developed my alpha side and I think it is working because she says she likes it and me. We never argue and I think it is going well. But based upon your statement that this does not work and women don’t respond to it, I better become more wussy(David Deangelo’s/Eben Pagan’s Fave insult) so the relationship really works even if I then think it doesn’t.
Eric says:
November 23, 2011 at 4:17 pm
7Man;
My point is that women hate us either way. If we act like so-called ‘Alphas’ they resent us because our culture teaches them to compete with and be superior to men. If we are so-called ‘betas’ women despise us as inferiors. It’s a lose-lose situation. Your best option is get out of relationships with American women altogether.
& how the ”original” blackpill was basically patriarchy as in ”that there are no personal solutions systemic problems” IOW?”redpillers” who claim patriarchy are anti-gamers/redpillers that does explain things somewhat yes?
As rmaxgenactivepua said here:
Paragon says:
November 24, 2011 at 3:21 pm
@ Rmaxd
“If your alternative is the MRA, the mra movement has ZERO applications for relationships with women”
We need to talk about taking the ‘black pill’, meaning to reconcile that there are no personal solutions to systemic problems – which can only resolve over evolutionary time.
And any solution will very much entail steep trade-offs, in that males can’t have their cake and eat it too – a prosperous population of deferred ecological pressures(like we currently enjoy), without an expectation that this prosperity will increase the mating latitude of females(dramatically perturbing the breeding population, to the point of near evolutionary instability).
One will always follow the other, as male consensus on these matters is practically impossible in terms of inter-sexual competition(as opposed to the broad accord females enjoy through an abundant wealth of sexual opportunities, courtesy of their reproductively limiting function).
Rmaxd says:
December 19, 2011 at 5:29 pm
Guys I think i figured out paragon ..
Who wants a bet, Paragon is a Novy sock puppet …
ie., “We need to talk about taking the ‘black pill’, meaning to reconcile that there are no personal solutions to systemic problems – which can only resolve over evolutionary time.”
Classic Novy bullshit
You get these fanatical armchair evolutionary fundamentalist fanatics all the time, especially on science blogs
Novy is pretty easy to spot, as he’s one of them … chck out his blog for word-to-word similar writing … lol
YEAH maybe all the ”patriarchy” anti-gamer/”redpillers”are (Alex)Novy sockpuppets, as he was supposed to be semi-rich.https://aaronsleazy.blogspot.com/2012/12/guest-post-what-game-is-and-isnt-by.html
”Saturday, December 15, 2012
Guest Post: What “game” is and isn’t (by Alek Novy)
In the following guest post, Alek Novy dismantles “game” once again. In particular, he is responding to the claim that you can become more attractive by changing a few minor things. For instance, Mystery and Love Systems want to tell you that you have to approach from a 45 degree angle. Others tell you to pepper your language with “NLP anchors”, and whatnot. The number of bullshit ideas in the community is endless.
The concept of “creating attraction” is fraudulent as demonstrated by science. I’ve argued and proven this over in length, I won’t have time to argue now (I have a life, so no time). But basically, you can become more attractive in general by
Adding muscle, removing fat
Getting plastic surgery
Getting status in a given circle/community
Making lots of friends and raising your social status
Money
Money
Money
Fame
However, becoming more attractive to one specific chick doesn’t work since it involves:
Personal compatibility (you could try to fake it, but you don’t read thoughts, so you don’t even know what to fake)
Being her type (genetic matching displayed through facial shape, skin type, body ratios, unique smell signature of your individual body etc)
You can become a more attractive person (scientifically validated to making a significant difference, go lose 50 pounds and tell me how many more dates you get, same with getting an expensive car).
You cannot, however however merely speak or stand or ask for the date in a “different way” and suddenly get drastically different results. You will still get roughly the same amount of yes responses per 100 chicks. No game believer has ever shown to get a yes per 100 chicks asked more often than a control subject (the control would be average beta-guy game by your terminology).
You can learn how to get laid more often, but that doesn’t have anything to do with “creating attraction through walking, talking and acting differently” (the fradulent concept that all game is based on).
So I said that it is possible to learn how to get laid more, right? What is it that you “learn” when you learn how to get laid more? Oh, just how to
meet more hot women
ask for sex more often
As for improving your ratio? (how to get more yes-es per 100 attempts)? That’s simple too… It boils down to
identifying which chicks are likely to say yes to you
asking in a way that doesn’t scare women away.
That’s pretty much it.
For example I’ve quadrupled the amount of lays I get during this past year. All it involved was simply building a life where I meet and am friends/acquintances with more super-hot women than you could ever even “open” doing cold-approaching. I literally am friends with hundreds of hot women (models, tv personalities, etc etc)… But that all falls under how to be rich and influental and well-connected and “how to network and build social status”, not “game”. Though I’m sure a game guru is about to claim to have invented networking skills any day now (I’m sure Dale Carnegie stole his ideas from a game blogger).
Asking for sex requires either balls or social intelligence. You could either ask every woman if she’s down to fux outright (experiencing a ton of rejection) or you could learn how to test and tell which chicks are likely to say yes, and only ask the hottest leads to come over to your place (pretty much what I do).
That’s it. A PUAtard might chime in and go “Durr, my favorite PUA teaches us about IOIs too, and he also talks about how to network!” or “A guru once told me to join the gym!” But that’s not the point! Game is not defined by what it shares with other disciplines, what defines game is its unique claims. Yes, one of the 52,456 PUA methods might also teach you to for example make lots of female friends – but that’s not game, that’s common sense. The game part is where he the guru claims that by standing differently or constructing sentences differently or communicating differently you will cause the woman to desire your cock more than otherwise. This is the fraudulent part. Get it?
The unique claim of game is that you can “create attraction” by merely displaying or acting out certain traits (not possessing them, merely acting them out). But this claim is without basis.”
What it doesn’t explain is their massive failures with”The Manosphere men, young demonized men, and secular folks like Trump ” .
Maybe this exchange explains it?As the ”patriarchy” anti-gamer/”redpillers” make more anti-patriarch MEN with their simping and goddess worship.
” DeathToThePatriarchy July 3, 2013 at 4:58 pm
What most men don’t realize is that the end of the patriarchy is good for them. Now, women can do it all on their own. They can go to school, go to work, raise their own babies, fight wars, do their own housework and mow their own lawns – all with minimal or no support of men (i.e., me). Thankfully, my ‘mistakes’ were aborted, so I’m 100% behind women’s abortion rights.
I have a high paying job, great education, own my own home and have zero responsibilities to anyone except myself. Feminism gave me all that. In days past, because of patriarchal societal beliefs, I would have had no choice but to become a father in support of a family (living with constant shaming would be the alternative in those days). That doesn’t sound like a great life to me at all. Now, thankfully, there’s no pressure to become a husband or father. I don’t even have to worry about marriage with regard to sex. Guys – it doesn’t get any better than this! Think about it!
I wouldn’t exactly call myself a feminist, but come on! If women want all that BS for themselves, let them have it! They’re right with regard to ending the patriarchy. It not only means freedom from oppression for them – it also means freedom from oppression for us dudes. Think! Think! Think!
As a man, I’m grateful for feminism. You’ve made my life painfully simple. Thank you feminists! Thank you! Thank you! Thank you!
Reply
rmaxgenactivepua’s avatar rmaxgenactivepua July 3, 2013 at 6:16 pm
Brilliant comment
A patriarchy which oppresses men, is no patriarchy, if it benefits women & children only
…
Contrary to belief women were never oppressed, they might’ve been labelled property of men in some parts of the world , but even in most primitive tribes, women have always had more privilege & rights then most men
Men have always marched off to war, to protect women & children
You dont get more privileged then that
Even with the advent of gunpowder & ballistics, women still refuse to goto war to protect men …
Reply
DeathToThePatriarchy’s avatar DeathToThePatriarchy July 3, 2013 at 6:25 pm
Yeah! And then they come back with that ‘peter pan’, ‘man up’, ‘where’s them goooood men’ guff! I see how the world works. I’m not naïve. I see all the dead bodies strewn about the relationship minefield. I’m not getting into the relationship meat grinder for anyone. My philosophy is simple: Avoid any and all relationships with women (outside of easy sex), give unto myself, and let the other’s dig their own graves. You know what they say – give an idiot enough rope and they’ll hang themselves. In the meantime, I’ll just sit back and reap the rewards of other’s self-flagellation.
rmaxgenactivepua’s avatar rmaxgenactivepua July 3, 2013 at 6:50 pm
Great advice
Tom Leykis has some great advice, on how to handle women, his philosophy & your excellent philosophy are probably some of the best ways to handle feminist infected women
Avoid LTR’s like the plague, they’ll try & get you to impregnate them & rake in the welfare
Keep rotating the chicks, theyre all carousel riders
Plus theres the fact, women have std’s out of their backside …
I like to keep 3 or 4 women in rotation, to ensure they dont get std’s
Seriously thats what you need to do to avoid std’s, its a b!tch
The days you could walk down the street & pickup a none std infected chick, are over, sh!ts fuxed up … lol
Reply
DeathToThePatriarchy’s avatar DeathToThePatriarchy July 3, 2013 at 8:39 pm
I know! And welfare is still paid almost entirely by men! You see the latest stories touting “40% of women are now the breadwinners”? Yeah – pull my middle leg and it plays jingle bells! They leave out the part where most of those women are living on poverty level wages, are collecting big bucks in welfare, and/or are the the sole source of income in their ‘household’ (i.e, no male financial support). Breadwinners? Stop with the BS, BEECHES!
Yeah – those STDs right? They’re just business as usual now days, which is why I always try to remember my raincoat and never eat out! HA!
Very much enjoy Mr. Leykis’s work. He’s all about enlightening the naive and preventing any further male slaughter. Good man he is.”
Yeah, Tom Leykis is like most ”RPGenius” ”leaders” who think they are invincible in ”marriage” which if a woman can blow up then it is NOT a Christian marriage as was told to past ”RPGenius” ”leaders” like Donal Graeme((who wanted to ban and censor Moses and Jesus words as they ipposed him), here’s TomLeykis success in marriage, He has been married and divorced four times, which he unabashedly proclaims on-air regularly.
Derek,
Do you know this ”RP GENIUS”” LEADER” THAT FAILS WITH ”The Manosphere men, young demonized men, and secular folks like Trump ”simping goddess worshipping blogger/person? Who wrote the following on ”Jewish Christianity”* worshipping Artisanal Toad? No, why did i write that” ”Jewish Christianity”* worshipping” part? Because he, like the blogger/person below, was/is a Blue Pill Soccer Dad(which is NOT an insult but a mere statement of fact-as they’re still in the butthext matrix(which they will defend to their dying breath until their unbuttpluggedlolzlzlzlz from it) instead of JESUS’s full Truth) that doesn’t accept JESUS’s authority to say & make NT law :
”5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19:5-Amplified Bible (AMP)
Yet the Blue Pill supposedly ”redpill” authority” ”Patriarchal”Soccer Dads in the sphere still think they can” separate what God has joined together.”
Here’s the preface of the Blue Pill Soccer Dad yet ”redpill” blogger/person’s write-up on how another Blue Pill Soccer Dad yet ”redpill” blogger/person supposedly Trumps JESUS’s authoritah over
”5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
”Artisanal Toad on Women’s Agency and my bluepill soccer dad authoritah
Posted on 2022/11/14 by a Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipping blogger/person !a#$(know this blogger/person Derek?)
Virgins DO NOT have moral agency. Non-virgins DO, under conditions.
Targeted Readership: Men
Theme: Female Agency and Accountability
Author’s Note: This post pieces together several excerpts of posts and images that once appeared on Artisanal Toad’s Hall, hereby resuscitated after a few hours combing through The Wayback Machine.
Reader’s Note: This post was requested by Derek L. Ramsey, AKA ramman3000(so if you don’t like it, blame him).
Length: 3,700 words
Reading Time: 20 minutes
Introduction
First of all, I’ll say a few words about Artisanal Toad for those readers who are unfamiliar with him. Artisanal Toad is believed to be a polygynous Mormon. He boasted of having two “Ninja” wives, but it could not be ascertained how serious he was about this claim. He was a frequent commenter in the Classic Christian Manosphere and started his own blog in August 2013. He posted long essays quite regularly up until he stopped posting altogether in December 2017. Then in early 2019, he vanished from WordPress without any farewell.
Toad held controversial stances on sex, marriage, adultery, divorce, lesb!an h0m0sexuality, polygyny, and prost!tut!on. The most interesting thing about his contribution to the Christian Red Pill Lore is his unique interpretation of sex and marriage that was based entirely on scripture and stood completely on its own merit.
Introduction
First of all, I’ll say a few words about Artisanal Toad for those readers who are unfamiliar with him. Artisanal Toad is believed to be a polygynous Mormon. He boasted of having two “Ninja” wives, but it could not be ascertained how serious he was about this claim. He was a frequent commenter in the Classic Christian Manosphere and started his own blog in August 2013. He posted long essays quite regularly up until he stopped posting altogether in December 2017. Then in early 2019, he vanished from WordPress without any farewell.
Toad held controversial stances on sex, marriage, adultery, divorce, lesb!an h0m0sexuality, polygyny, and prost!tut!on. The most interesting thing about his contribution to the Christian Red Pill Lore is his unique interpretation of sex and marriage that was based entirely on scripture and stood completely on its own merit. He used this interpretation to support all his arguments, and no one could definitively prove that his interpretation was wrong (going on a point-by-point basis). Over the course of his 4 years of blogging, in addition to the basic explanations of his stances, he addressed a number of larger arguments that concerned many of the controversial implications that would result if his views were widely accepted as Biblical Truth. After a time, it became evident that the majority of his readers just couldn’t stomach it — even if it were true — mainly because of the implications. Apparently, this is why he stopped blogging.
Read on and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Links are provided for those readers who wish to further investigate Toadistry. Toad preferred the NASB, so that is what I’ve linked to here.
Male Authority is Preeminent
“The man was authorized by God to begin marriage because marriage begins the family and family is the container in which children are to be brought into this world. That is truth. Children need both their biological mother and father working together to raise them. Children need both their parents to work together to raise them. So, how does this begin?
First is the change in status as the man leaves and goes out from under the authority of his father and mother to be the head of his own house. The man has sexual intercourse with the eligible virgin and she becomes his wife. When this occurs, according to Jesus (Matthew 19:4-6), it is God who makes the two “one flesh” in a spiritual joining that the Apostle Paul said was the same as the spiritual joining that makes the Christian a member of the body of Christ (Ephesians 5:28-32). It is a great mystery. Thus, the “one flesh” portion of Genesis 2:24 is the spiritual joining that is the act of God and cannot be the act of man. This act of God occurs when the man penetrates his wife and they have sexual intercourse…”
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
Sexual intercourse is an act of man that produces marriage and pair bonding (under certain conditions). The “becoming one flesh” is an act of God that happens during sex. Thus, Toad notes that “becoming one flesh” is concomitant with coitus, but sexual intercourse and “becoming one flesh” are NOT the same thing. “One flesh” refers to the spiritual pair bonding that occurs as a result of virginal coitus. Therefore, sex can produce “one flesh”, but the pair bonding aspect of sex / marriage requires virginal sex and/or the power of God. A sexual relationship that is lacking any of these aspects is debased.
To support this argument, Toad observes that the Hebrew word, “dabaq”, used in Genesis 2:24 (where man and wife become one flesh) means the exact same thing as the Greek word “kollao” in 1st Corinthians 6:16 (where a man and a prost!tute become one flesh). In Matthew 19:5 (written in Greek), Jesus quotes Genesis 2:24, and the word used here is “kollao”, thereby establishing the equivalent meaning of dabaq and kollao.
Virgin Sex constitutes a Natural Marriage*
This is one of Toad’s primary claims that underpins all his other arguments.
“As we’ve just seen in both Exodus 22:16 and Deuteronomy 22:28-29, sex is what makes the two married, which is exactly what Genesis 2:24 said. In 1st Corinthians 6:16 we discover that the Hebrew word “dabaq” that gets translated into English as “cleave” or “joined” in Genesis 2:24 actually means sex. There is no ceremony and nobody has to preside over anything or solemnize anything, all that’s required is sex…”
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: The Lie That Caused The Adultery Epidemic (2016/6/3)
So essentially, Virginal Sex = Marriage.
“A man begins a marriage to a virgin with the act of penetration (sexual intercourse) and with that act he gives his consent and commitment to the marriage. The virgin is automatically married by that act, provided the man was eligible to marry her, because she has no agency as a virgin. Unlike a virgin, a widow or a legitimately divorced woman has agency. She must agree to be married before the act of intercourse will make her married.”
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
The first part carries the implications that (1) every non-virgin woman is married in the eyes of God to the first guy with whom she had sexual intercourse, and that (2) she commits adultery with every other guy she may sleep with — including a man she may be currently formally married to (if he wasn’t her first). (3) If a man formally marries a woman who is not a virgin, and her first partner is still living, then the marriage is essentially institutionalized adultery. Under these assumptions, Toad estimated that 80% of marriages among Church-goers is adulterous!
In the same essay, Toad gives further evidence that virginal sex constitutes a natural marriage.
“All women are virgins when they marry. The act of penetrative sexual intercourse with the virgin is what begins a marriage and Scripture does not require any other act, which is why the woman who was sold by her father to be a concubine (Exodus 21:7-10), the woman who was captured in battle (Deuteronomy 21:10-14), and even the woman who was r@ped (Deuteronomy 22:28-29) were all married with that act. News Flash: The virgin’s consent is not required. This means whether she knew she was being married or not, whether she wanted to be married or not, with that act she is married. And the Churchians will screech over this, but Scripture is clear what the words of the text mean because the Apostle Paul showed us.”
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Theology For Men of the West: Biblical Marriage (2017/3/11)
Another very controversial point here is that virgins who have sex become married by that act, whether she knows it or not. Every non-virgin woman is married to her first partner!
* I’ve added the adjective “natural marriage” for clarity. I believe this would also be considered a covenant marriage as well.
The upcoming part is where the Blue Pill Soccer Dad yet ”redpill” blogger/person above makes other believers in ”Jewish Christianity”* feel better knowing that Matthew 19:5 doesn’t apply to them:
”Virgins DO NOT have Agency
“In Genesis 3:16 God issued his first judgment on mankind, saying “he shall rule over you.” I have written about this before and effectively God declared women to be incompetent and appointed their [father or] husband as their guardian. While it might be argued that prior to Christ the husband-wife relationship was primarily a master-servant relationship, it cannot be argued that the father-daughter relationship is anything but a guardian-ward relationship.”
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
This further supports the presumption that male authority is preeminent. This agrees with Sharkly’s stance. Male authority is also present in the act of sex / marriage.
“The act of coitus is the man’s consent, agreement and commitment to marriage. It is automatic if he engages in the act but he has a choice in whether to engage in that activity.
Artisanal Toad’s Hall: Ho, ho, ho. (2016/12/14)
IOW, Sex is an act of commitment from the man. This transfers the woman from her father’s authority to the man’s. If the sexual intercourse happened without the father’s knowledge, he can annul the union if he disagrees (Exodus 22:17).good thing (Matthew 19:5) doesn’t apply to us ”Jewish Christianity”* ”Christians” huh?”
Conclusions
As you can see, Toad’s views align with what we’ve covered in the past about female submission, masculine authority, and the integrity of marriage.
Toad’s Biblical interpretation of sex and marriage brings together many of the topics about female agency and consent that we’ve covered so far, and it also accounts for many of the confusing issues surrounding agency that have come up.
To wit…
Toad’s stances on agency and consent of virgins and women in general agrees with Donal Graeme’s and Rollo Tomassi’s views, respectively. Furthermore, Toad gives a Biblical explanation of how it works.
Toad’s views agree with Dalrock’s observations that everyone is in denial about the moral agency of women (i.e. non-virgins).
Toad explains why even married women lack agency, as Deep Strength described.
Toad’s views align with Catacomb Resident’s assertion that Covenant Life must come first, and he explains from a Biblical standpoint how the issues of authority, the transfer of authority, the duties of authority should work within the Covenant.
Toad agrees with (redacted)’s stance that Male authority is (or should be) preeminent, and his interpretation of scripture explains how that authority is transferred from father to husband through the act of sex / marriage.
Toad’s explanations ties together the important necessity of managing and teaching women through operant conditioning, as pseudonymous commenter explained.
Toad says all responsibility is (or should be-I speak as a tradcon as pseudonymous commenter says about Derek) on men, and this supports the obligations that Headship imposes on Men, which I observed in tradcon Headship Authority Takes Work ,so MAN-UP dudes(2022/8/12).*
We’ve already determined that sexual promiscuity debases marriage. Toad’s account fully explains how this works, and why so many modern women are unhaaappy in marriage (because they’re living in adultery).
Toad’s discussion of consent can be extrapolated to explain why many women have latched on to the idea of consent as being an important issue to them (because they’re sexually liberated).
* Readers will note that the current condition of society has undermined male authority so much that implementing this paradigm of Headship is extremely hard or even impossible.
The only thing that readers might find objectionable is Toad’s definition of natural marriage, and only because of all the messy consequences that would result from admitting all this as God’s truth.Readers should take strength from knowing that under our ”Jewish Christianity”* WE are not bound to what that JESUS fellow said in Matthew 19:5
”5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and shall be joined inseparably to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.”
Matthew 19:5-Amplified Bible (AMP)
On a personal note, I can see how Toad’s vision of marriage aligns with Jesus’ statements in Matthew 5:27-32, and His description of marriage in Matthew 19:3-9. I can also see the overall wisdom of regarding virginal sex as the primary act that establishes a marriage, and I will put this idea across to my daughters. But yet, I also believe Western society is far too corrupted in both body and mind for this to be applicable in the present day and age. We are living in an age of harlotry and consent.
* ”Jewish Christianity” is what many said about GBFM at ST.DAL’S blog, quoting JESUS here
Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the Prophets. I have not come to abolish, but to fulfill.-Matthew 5:17-Berean literal bible
IOW?JESUS brings us back to GOD’S original intent for marriage and humanity, e.g.
For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.-Genesis 2:24-Berean Standard Bible
Which agrees with the below from the bible NOT from Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons.
For when the priesthood is changed, the law must be changed as well.-Hebrews 7:12-Berean Standard Bible
I also believe such Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons in like above are suffering from acute envy, although they remain ignorant of the associated sufferings that accompany the things envied.
IOW? Derek, can you do a post on why most Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ”jewish Christianity” instead of JESUS Christianity by denying that JESUS is the CHRIST? As https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_Judaism says ”Christianity recognizes the Hebrew Bible (referred to as the Old Testament by Christians) as part of its scriptural canon; Judaism does not recognize the Christian New Testament as scripture. Judaism is also heavily informed by the Talmud, which, though not scripture, is still considered foundational to normative Judaism.”
Maybe Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ”jewish Christianity” should start recognizing the Gospel of JESUS and the associated writings of it as Scripture instead of just the OT & ST.DAL’s & Toads’ non-divine Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” father worshipping blog writings as ”The Authority of Scripture”
As that same Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/person above states here:
”3. The Authority of Scripture
Christians, especially Western Evangelical Protestants, often cite the Bible as an authority and will usually combine this with an appeal to logic.
For example, here’s one comment that seeks to establish a common authority of scripture and logic.
“…first I need to know if you accept the Bible as the inerrant and sole word of God? Because I will cite scripture, and if you hold a different axiom, then there is no point in my doing so.”
A mutually recognized authority must be in place for any further dialogue to commence, whether it is scripture, or an ecclesiastical authority, or the word of an expert, or a scientific research article, or something else. Without first establishing a mutually recognized authority (the Bible in the above case), we cannot have an argument in good Faith. This is another example of how Faith and Authority go hand in hand.”
That”Without first establishing a mutually recognized authority (the Bible in the above case), we cannot have an argument in good Faith. This is another example of how Faith and Authority go hand in hand. ”
Goes back to what i said further above”
Maybe Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ”jewish Christianity” should start recognizing the Gospel of JESUS and the associated writings of it as Scripture instead of just the OT & ST.DAL’s & Toads’ non-divine Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” father worshipping blog writings as ”The Authority of Scripture” ”
More for that anonymous Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/person who believes in ” Jewish Christianity” BUT NOT JESUS’s authority!(Even their Sabbath day is JESUS’ owner of as he stated here):
Sabbath Questions
12 At that particular time Jesus went through the grainfields on the [a]Sabbath, and His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what [b]is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read [in the Scriptures] what David did when he was hungry, he and those who accompanied him— 4 how he went into the house of God, and they ate the [c]consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break [the sanctity of] the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had only known what this statement means, ‘I desire compassion [for those in distress], [d]and not [animal] sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Lord of the Sabbath
8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
& his authoritah in fuller context:
Matthew 12
Amplified Bible
Sabbath Questions
12 At that particular time Jesus went through the grainfields on the [a]Sabbath, and His disciples were hungry and began to pick the heads of grain and eat them. 2 But when the Pharisees saw this, they said to Him, “Look! Your disciples are doing what [b]is unlawful on the Sabbath.” 3 He said to them, “Have you not read [in the Scriptures] what David did when he was hungry, he and those who accompanied him— 4 how he went into the house of God, and they ate the [c]consecrated bread, which was not lawful for him to eat nor for those with him, but for the priests only? 5 Or have you not read in the Law, that on the Sabbath the priests in the temple break [the sanctity of] the Sabbath and yet are innocent? 6 But I tell you that something greater than the temple is here. 7 And if you had only known what this statement means, ‘I desire compassion [for those in distress], [d]and not [animal] sacrifice,’ you would not have condemned the innocent.
Lord of the Sabbath
8 For the Son of Man is Lord of the Sabbath.”
9 Leaving there, He went into their synagogue. 10 A man was there whose hand was withered. And they asked Jesus, “Is it lawful and permissible to heal on the Sabbath?”—they asked this so that they might accuse Him and bring charges into court. 11 But He said to them, “What man is there among you who, if he has only one sheep and it falls into a pit on the Sabbath, will not take hold of it and lift it out? 12 How much more valuable then is a man than a sheep! So it is lawful and permissible to do good on the Sabbath.” 13 Then He said to the man, “Reach out your hand!” The man reached out and it was restored, as normal and healthy as the other. 14 But the Pharisees went out and conspired against Him, discussing how they could destroy Him.
15 Being aware of this, Jesus left there. Many followed Him, and He healed all of them [who were sick], 16 and warned them not to tell [publicly] who He was. 17 This was to fulfill what was spoken by the prophet Isaiah:
18
“Behold, My Servant whom I have chosen;
My Beloved in whom My soul is well-pleased;
I will put My Spirit upon Him,
And He will proclaim justice to the nations.
19
“He will not quarrel, nor cry out loudly;
Nor will anyone hear His voice in the streets.
20
“A battered reed He will not break,
And a smoldering wick He will not extinguish,
Until He leads justice to victory.
21
“And in His name the Gentiles (all the nations of the world) will hope [with confidence].”
The Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/person Pharisees Rebuked
22 Then a demon-possessed man who was blind and mute was brought to Jesus, and He healed him, so that the mute man both spoke and saw. 23 All the people wondered in amazement, and said, “Could this be the Son of David (the Messiah)?” 24 But the Pharisees heard it and said, “This man [e]casts out demons only by [the help of] Beelzebul (Satan) the prince of the demons.”
25 Knowing their thoughts Jesus said to them, “Any kingdom that is divided against itself is being laid waste; and no city or house divided against itself will [continue to] stand. 26 If Satan casts out Satan [that is, his demons], he has become divided against himself and disunited; how then will his kingdom stand? 27 If I cast out the demons by [the help of] Beelzebul (Satan), by whom do your sons drive them out? For this reason they will be your judges. 28 But if it is by the Spirit of God that I cast out the demons, then the kingdom of God has come upon you [before you expected it]. 29 Or how can anyone go into a strong man’s house and steal his property unless he first overpowers and ties up the strong man? Then he will ransack and rob his house.
The Unpardonable Sin
30 He who is not with Me [once and for all on My side] is against Me; and he who does not [unequivocally] gather with Me scatters.
31 “Therefore I say to you, every sin and blasphemy [every evil, abusive, injurious speaking, or indignity against sacred things] will be forgiven people, but [f]blasphemy against the [Holy] Spirit will not be forgiven. 32 Whoever speaks a word against the Son of Man will be forgiven; but whoever speaks against the Holy Spirit [by attributing the miracles done by Me to Satan] will not be forgiven, either in this age or in the age to come.
Words Reveal Character
33 “Either make the tree good and its fruit good, or make the tree bad and its fruit bad; for the tree is recognized and judged by its fruit. 34 You brood of vipers, how can you speak good things when you are evil? For the mouth speaks out of that which fills the heart. 35 The good man, from his [inner] good treasure, brings out good things; and the evil man, from his [inner] evil treasure, brings out evil things. 36 But I tell you, on the day of judgment people will have to give an accounting for every careless or useless word they speak. 37 For by your words [reflecting your spiritual condition] you will be justified and acquitted of the guilt of sin; and by your words [rejecting Me] you will be condemned and sentenced.”
The Desire for Signs
38 Then some of the scribes and Pharisees said to Him, “Teacher, we want to see a sign (attesting miracle) from You [proving that You are what You claim to be].” 39 But He replied and said to them, “An evil and adulterous generation [that is morally unfaithful to God] craves and demands a [miraculous] sign; but no sign will be given to it except the sign of the prophet Jonah; 40 for just as Jonah was three days and three nights in the belly of the sea monster, so will the Son of Man be three days and three nights in the heart of the earth. 41 The men of Nineveh will stand up [as witnesses] at the judgment against this generation, and will condemn it because they repented at the preaching of Jonah; and now, something greater than Jonah is here. 42 The Queen of the South (Sheba) will stand up [as a witness] at the judgment against this generation, and will condemn it because she came from the ends of the earth to listen to the wisdom of Solomon; and now, something greater than Solomon is here.
43 “Now when the unclean spirit has gone out of a man, it roams through waterless (dry, arid) places in search of rest, but it does not find it. 44 Then it says, ‘I will return to my house from which I came.’ And when it arrives, it finds the place unoccupied, swept, and put in order. 45 Then it goes and brings with it seven other spirits more wicked than itself, and they go in and make their home there. And the last condition of that man becomes worse than the first. So will it also be with this wicked generation.”
Changed Relationships
46 While He was still talking to the crowds, it happened that His mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Look! Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus replied to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples [and all His other followers], He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For [g]whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven [by believing in Me, and following Me] is My brother and sister and mother.”
Footnotes
Matthew 12:1 The seventh day of the week, the day of worship.
Matthew 12:2 Picking grain to eat was not forbidden on the Sabbath. It was ridiculous for the Pharisees to try to equate gleaning for food with reaping a harvest (which was forbidden on the Sabbath).
Matthew 12:4 The bread of the Presence, the twelve fresh loaves presented each Sabbath to the Lord in the Holy Place.
Matthew 12:7 I.e. more than.
Matthew 12:24 A statement of blasphemy against the Holy Spirit. See vv 31, 32.
Matthew 12:31 Blasphemy of the Holy Spirit is denying all the work of the Holy Spirit. This leads ultimately to rejecting the deity of Christ.
Matthew 12:50 A universal offer without restriction.”
In regards to Mathew 12:46-50”46 While He was still talking to the crowds, it happened that His mother and brothers stood outside, asking to speak to Him. 47 Someone said to Him, “Look! Your mother and Your brothers are standing outside asking to speak to You.” 48 But Jesus replied to the one who told Him, “Who is My mother and who are My brothers?” 49 And stretching out His hand toward His disciples [and all His other followers], He said, “Here are My mother and My brothers! 50 For [g]whoever does the will of My Father who is in heaven [by believing in Me, and following Me] is My brother and sister and mother.””
Why is that Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/person believe in ” Jewish Christianity” blogger/person !a#$ starting up strife again in the manosphere with the following?:
”Going back to the issue of why men choose to avoid suffering, and why other men chastize them for their decision in this, let’s ask ourselves a few revealing questions.
What man has the authority to ask another man to willingly suffer?
By what authority does one speak or claim to have when exhorting others to suffer in a particular manner?
Is this exhortation done under the Lord’s authority, or is it an appeal to false guilt — which is a form of w!tchcr@ft?
Is the man who is encouraging another man to suffer acting in the capacity of a responsible and trustworthy mentor to that man?
Will the man who advises another man to suffer stand by that man when suffering comes?
I believe only those men who have already suffered, who have carried the Cross of this Age, and have paid the cost, truly possess the prerequisite authority for exhorting other men to suffer in a similar manner (2 Corinthians 1). Having suffered and died on the cross, Christ has this authority (Matthew 28:18), and also certain men to a lesser extent in proportion to their own sufferings.
IME, men who have suffered for righteousness are NOT in the habit of idly asking other men to do the same, but rather support those who are already suffering. Stating that Christian men are to share in Christ’s sufferings is theologically correct, but asking or expecting other men to willingly suffer in ways that one has not done himself is hypocrisy.
Let us recall Lexet’s Axiom, AKA Σ Frame Axiom 41: “People who are obsessed about anonymous writers online want to silence them.” I also believe such men are suffering from acute envy, although they remain ignorant of the associated sufferings that accompany the things envied.”
Why does NOT the Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ” Jewish Christianity” see Tom Ball as their suffering saint?
https://www.bayareadivorcelawyerblog.com/divorce-and-custody-battle-cau/
”August 24, 2011
Divorce and Custody Battle Causes Man to Set Himself on Fire
by Lorna Jaynes
Tweet this PostShare on FacebookShare on LinkedIn
In an incident that received little attention in the mainstream press, a man named Tom Ball, 58, committed suicide in front of the Keene, New Hampshire County Courthouse on June 15, 2011 by dousing himself with gasoline and lighting a match. His 15 page suicide note explained that he was angry at the state child protection bureaucracy and the courts after his ten year battle over child abuse charges. He was angry at the US court system, the federal government, police, child protective services, in general, a system that in his opinion no longer works and no longer serves our interests.
Ball’s troubles began when he slapped his then four-year-old daughter, giving her a cut on the lip, when she refused to obey him after three verbal warnings.
His wife called the child’s mental health provider who apparently told her that if she did not call the police, both she and Ball would be arrested.
So she called the police and Ball was arrested. After six months, the wife filed for divorce. Clearly, no one should strike children. But a cut lip under some circumstances, if a clearly isolated instance and without more, probably should not constitute child abuse, and certainly not domestic violence. This family probably needed help and what they got was an inflexible system that was not, by its very nature and structure, able to help the family in the ways they needed it. What if instead of dealing with the bureaucratic and inflexible family and criminal court systems, the family had been provided with therapy and counseling, what if they had been able to learn effective and compassionate communication skills, what if they had been able to learn how to resolve conflicts and better discipline skills? Perhaps the couple would still have divorced, but they probably would have learned to co-parent effectively despite the divorce. Perhaps Mr. Ball would have learned more effective methods of discipline and conflict resolution, and the child would probably have had a father and close and loving relationship with him. A far better outcome in my opinion, than a broken family and a dead father.
One interesting part of his suicide note was his observation that the United States is no longer a nation of laws; Ball described what he calls the ‘second set of books,’ which is essentially the collection of policies, procedures, and protocols that courts and executive agencies rely upon. According to Ball this includes police departments and other ‘enforcers’ across the country who use standardized responses to take judgment out of the equation. Even the guys who drove the trains to the concentration camps were just following procedures claims Ball.
Tom Ball owed about $3,000 in child support, and in his suicide letter noted that he could have borrowed the money. However, Ball had not worked in two years and faced jail time for failure to pay child support. Wouldn’t the court and his ex-wife know about his financial status? If he did not have the money before, how would he get the money after spending a year in jail?
In his lengthy note, Ball expressed his frustration with domestic violence charges and lengthy divorce proceedings, and wrote of a conspiracy of feminists and governments that disenfranchise men. I don’t agree with the claims of Ball and others that this was due to feminism and a bias in favor of women and against men in family court. But I do believe it lends credence to the view that in so many cases, the court system simply does not work and that most of us are better off learning conflict resolution skills to solve our own problems, and if necessary working with professionals to assist in that effort, rather than relying on the court system and other bureaucracies.”
i guess Tom Ball NOT fussing over s*x & profane(as both Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons DonalGraeme and !a#$ called the foundation of manosphere game =redpill A.K.A. ”The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon” from the most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:” so it’s little surprise they don’t believe in the authority of JESUS either, who of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity )”game”.:
BUT i don’t really fault these latter-day Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ”jewish Christianity” as they are of their fathers Dalrock, Vox, GiantleapfrogDonalGreame and others of the “Married Game=redpill Manosphere”:
giantmoonfrog 4.12.14 / 12am
”“Sound and fury signifying nothing.” A whole lot of thunder and lightening here but not a drop of rain! You claim that Vox and Dalrock teach that Jesus came to destroy the law of Moses but with all this cutting and pasting you provide not a single link to support your claim. Naked assertion might pass for argument in your own twisted mind but those of us living in the real world need some evidence.
Both Vox and Dalrock have long spoken against the feminization of the Christian church while providing evidence to back up their claims against the likes of Mark Driscoll and other Churchian preachers. Where is your evidence that Vox and Dalrock have opposed Christ or Moses?
I think you’re just angry at the fact that breeding age females (even Christian ones) have sexual urges. I think you hate them for it and want players like Heartiste to spoil as many as possible before they can become good Christian wives. You don’t want Christians to learn the players’ games in order to beat them and win the interest and lifelong commitment of the best girls. You want Christians to remain completely unarmed and easily defeated by the Cathedral’s war against us instead of letting Vox, Dalrock and other Christian Warriors teach us how to steal the enemy’s weapons and use them to fight back.
I don’t know what kind of fantasy world you live in where fault matters. (The world of philosophy, perhaps?) Does it matter whose fault it is when a man’s ten year old daughter gets fingered by Mommy’s new boyfriend? Or when that same creep gives his son alcohol at home because “He’s gonna do it somewhere so he might as well do it right here” thereby damaging not only the son’s life but also that of other kids in the neighborhood?
No sir. Fault is irrelevant in the real world. It’s up to each and every man whether he’s a Christian or not to use whatever means are necessary to succeed with his wife and children in order to guide them and protect them as much as he can for as long as he can. The laws are against us. The culture is against us. Dalrock, Vox and others in the “Married Game Manosphere” are putting up a good fight. The last thing we need is trolls hiding in the shadows of great men flinging poop at us while we do the hard work of (re-) building civilization.”
Reply
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) 4.12.14 / 1am
wot?
so as the leading Christian light in the “Married Game Manosphere,” which of the following Game techniques work best on your wife and daughter and the minister’s wife and daughter?
https://heartiste.org/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon
I. Never say ‘I Love You’ first
Women want to feel like they have to overcome obstacles to win a man’s heart. They crave the challenge of capturing the interest of a man who has other women competing for his attention, and eventually prevailing over his grudging reluctance to award his committed exclusivity. The man who gives his emotional world away too easily robs women of the satisfaction of earning his love. Though you may be in love with her, don’t say it before she has said it. Show compassionate restraint for her need to struggle toward yin fulfillment. Inspire her to take the leap for you, and she’ll return the favor a thousandfold.
II. Make her jealous
Flirt with other women in front of her. Do not dissuade other women from flirting with you. Women will never admit this but jealousy excites them. The thought of you turning on another woman will arouse her sexually. No girl wants a man that no other woman wants. The partner who harnesses the gale storm of jealousy controls the direction of the relationship.
III. You shall make your mission, not your woman, your priority
Forget all those romantic cliches of the leading man proclaiming his undying love for the woman who completes him. Despite whatever protestations to the contrary, women do not want to be “The One” or the center of a man’s existence. They in fact want to subordinate themselves to a worthy man’s life purpose, to help him achieve that purpose with their feminine support, and to follow the path he lays out. You must respect a woman’s integrity and not lie to her that she is “your everything”. She is not your everything, and if she is, she will soon not be anymore.
IV. Don’t play by her rules
If you allow a woman to make the rules she will resent you with a seething contempt even a rapist cannot inspire. The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakeable and immovable.
V. Adhere to the golden ratio
Give your woman 2/3 of everything she gives you. For every three calls or texts, give her two back. Three declarations of love earn two in return. Three gifts; two nights out. Give her two displays of affection and stop until she has answered with three more. When she speaks, you reply with fewer words. When she emotes, you emote less. The idea behind the golden ratio is twofold — it establishes your greater value by making her chase you, and it demonstrates that you have the self-restraint to avoid getting swept up in her personal dramas. Refraining from reciprocating everything she does for you in equal measure instills in her the proper attitude of belief in your higher status. In her deepest loins it is what she truly wants.
VI. Keep her guessing
True to their inscrutable natures, women ask questions they don’t really want direct answers to. Woe be the man who plays it straight — his fate is the suffering of the beta. Evade, tease, obfuscate. She thrives when she has to imagine what you’re thinking about her, and withers when she knows exactly how you feel. A woman may want financial and family security, but she does not want passion security. In the same manner, when she has displeased you, punish swiftly, but when she has done you right, reward slowly. Reward her good behavior intermittently and unpredictably and she will never tire of working hard to please you.
VII. Always keep two in the kitty
Never allow yourself to be a “kept man”. A man with options is a man without need. It builds confidence and encourages boldness with women if there is another woman, a safety net, to catch you in case you slip and risk a breakup, divorce, or a lost prospect, leading to loneliness and a grinding dry spell. A woman knows once she has slept with a man she has abdicated a measure of her power; when she has fallen in love with him she has surrendered nearly all of it. But love is ephemeral and with time she may rediscover her power and threaten to leave you. It is her final trump card. Withdrawing all her love and all her body in an instant will rend your soul if you are faced with contemplating the empty abyss alone. Knowing there is another you can turn to for affection will fortify your will and satisfy your manhood.
VIII. Say you’re sorry only when absolutely necessary
Do not say you’re sorry for every wrong thing you do. It is a posture of submission that no man should reflexively adopt, no matter how alpha he is. Apologizing increases the demand for more apologies. She will come to expect your contrition, like a cat expects its meal at a set time each day. And then your value will lower in her eyes. Instead, if you have done something wrong, you should acknowledge your guilt in a glancing way without resorting to the actual words “I’m sorry.” Pull the Bill Clinton maneuver and say “Mistakes were made” or tell her you “feel bad” about what you did. You are granted two freebie “I’m sorry”s for the life of your relationship; use them wisely.
IX. Connect with her emotions
Set yourself apart from other men and connect with a woman’s emotional landscape. Her mind is an alien world that requires deft navigation to reach your rendevous. Frolic in the surf of emotions rather than the arid desert of logic. Be playful. Employ all your senses. Describe in lush detail scenarios to set her heart afire. Give your feelings freedom to roam. ROAM. Yes, that is a good word. You’re not on a linear path with her. You are ROAMING all over, taking her on an adventure. In this world, there is no need to finish thoughts or draw conclusions. There is only need to EXPERIENCE. You’re grabbing her hand and running with her down an infinite, labyrinthine alleyway with no end, laughing and letting your fingers glide on the cobblestone walls along the way.
X. Ignore her beauty
The man who trains his mind to subdue the reward centers of his brain when reflecting upon a beautiful female face will magically transform his interactions with women. His apprehension and self-consciousness will melt away, paving the path for more honest and self-possessed interactions with the objects of his desire. This is one reason why the greatest lotharios drown in more love than they can handle — through positive experiences with so many beautiful women they lose their awe of beauty and, in turn, their powerlessness under its spell. It will help you acquire the right frame of mind to stop using the words hot, cute, gorgeous, or beautiful to describe girls who turn you on. Instead, say to yourself “she’s interesting” or “she might be worth getting to know”. Never compliment a girl on her looks, especially not a girl you aren’t fucking. Turn off that part of your brain that wants to put them on pedestals. Further advanced training to reach this state of unawed Zen transcendence is to sleep with many MANY attractive women (try to avoid sleeping with a lot of ugly women if you don’t want to regress). Soon, a Jedi lover you will be.
XI. Be irrationally self-confident
No matter what your station in life, stride through the world without apology or excuse. It does not matter if objectively you are not the best man a woman can get; what matters is that you think and act like you are. Women have a dog’s instinct for uncovering weakness in men; don’t make it easy for them. Self-confidence, warranted or not, triggers submissive emotional responses in women. Irrational self-confidence will get you more p@ssy than rational defeatism.
XII. Maximize your strengths, minimize your weaknesses
In the betterment of ourselves as men we attract women into our orbit. To accomplish this gravitational pull as painlessly and efficiently as possible, you must identify your natural talents and shortcomings and parcel your efforts accordingly. If you are a gifted jokester, don’t waste time and energy trying to raise your status in philosophical debate. If you write well but dance poorly, don’t kill yourself trying to expand your manly influence on the dancefloor. Your goal should be to attract women effortlessly, so play to your strengths no matter what they are; there is a groupie for every male endeavor. Except World of Warcraft.
XIII. Err on the side of too much boldness, rather than too little
Touching a woman inappropriately on the first date will get you further with her than not touching her at all. Don’t let a woman’s faux indignation at your boldness sway you; they secretly love it when a man aggressively pursues what he wants and makes his sexual intentions known. You don’t have to be an asshole, but if you have no choice, being an inconsiderate asshole beats being a polite beta, every time.
XIV. Fuck her good
Fuck her like it’s your last fux. And hers. Fux her so good, so hard, so wantonly, so profligately that she is left a quivering, sparking mass of shaking flesh and sex fluids. Drain her of everything, then drain her some more. Kiss her all over, make love to her all night, and hold her close in the morning. Own her body, own her gratitude, own her love. If you don’t know how, learn to give her squirting orgasms.
XV. Maintain your state control
You are an oak tree. You will not be manipulated by crying, yelling, lying, head games, sexual withdrawal, jealousy ploys, pity plays, shit tests, hot/cold/hot/cold, disappearing acts, or guilt trips. She will rain and thunder all around you and you will shelter her until her storm passes. She will not drag you into her chaos or uproot you. When you have mastery over yourself, you will have mastery over her.
XVI. Never be afraid to lose her
You must not fear. Fear is the love-killer. Fear is the ego-triumph that brings abject loneliness. You will face your fear. You will permit it to pass over and through you. And when your ego-fear is gone you will turn and face your lover, and only your heart will remain. You will walk away from her when she has violated your integrity, and you will let her walk when her heart is closed to you. She who can destroy you, controls you. Don’t give her that power over yourself. Love yourself before you love her.
***
The closer you follow the letter of these commandments, the easier you will find and keep real, true unconditional love and happiness in your life.
Best,
Your Lord and King (see why so many Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons believe in ” Jewish Christianity” deny JESUS’ lordship now?)
from: https://heartiste.org/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
lzolozozozzozo
MORE on how Roissy=Heartiste, the supposed agnostic, was more Christian than ”CHRISTians”
True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ
A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:
16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis
Indeed women no longer follow God, Jesus, and Moses, but their butt and gina tinglez. And the hilarious thing is that rather than trying to resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women, the “Christian men” such as Dalrock & Vox suggest that we all become slave to butt and gina tingelzozozizlzo and learn how to serve them first and foremost, over the teachings of Christ and Moses, as serving butt and gina tinzgzzlzlozolzoz over Christ and Moses is the heart and soul of game.
Dalrock & Vox’s “Christianity” is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ
A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:
16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Posted this at Dalrock’s blog, who placed my comments in limbo, as the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount are considered to be “too disruptive” on a Christian blog. lzozlzozozlzo. & dat is why like d da heartsites as heartises never cesors da words of jesus christ as heartsites does not fear them zlzolzoozzlzoz for his soul is pure
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/losing-control-of-thenarrative.8075
Interesting that this post should be titled “losing the narrative.”
Dalrock states that Christians need “Game,” and Vox writes, “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”
Vox states that Game is Truth and that it is a subset of Christianity. The most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:
https://heartiste.org/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Heartiste makes no claims of being a Christian, but he may well be, as there are those who say they are not going, who go, just as there are those who say they are going, who do not go.
Dalrock and Vox are stating that the teachings of Heartiste are the same as those of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity. Dalrock and Vox are thus submitting that the Sermon on the Mount actually goes something like this:
The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
1 And seeing the multitudes, Dalrock went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciple Vox came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
The Beatitudes
Lk. 6.20-23
3 ¶ Blessed are those who fux her good: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ¶ Blessed are they that ignore her beauty: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
5 ¶ Blessed are the irrationally self-confident: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after two women in the kitty: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
7 ¶ Blessed are the ones who never say “i love you” first: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ¶ Blessed are they that keep her guessing and never marry her: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
9 ¶ Blessed are they that make her jealous: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for too much boldness: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for Game’s=redpill’s sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets of p@on 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.
Folks–if we are to regain Christianity, will it come from men acting less Christian and perverting the teachings of Christ, or will it come from men following the true teachings of Christ over Game=redpill?
I leave you with the true teachings of Christ, and I fully understand that I may be censored/banned/persecuted for doing so:
The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
The Beatitudes
Lk. 6.20-23
3 ¶ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ¶ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
5 ¶ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
7 ¶ Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ¶ Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
9 ¶ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.
The Salt of the Earth
13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Mk. 9.50 · Lk. 14.34, 35
& here’s what Vox should have said instead of ” “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game=redpill: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game=redpill is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”
” Retrenched 4.13.14 / 11pm
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter: Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man. — Ecclesiastes 12:13 KJV
Dude left out the part about the ‘gina tingles man… this must be a corrupt translation or something”
Why didn’t Vox quote Ecclesiastes 12:13 any version of it instead of The Sixteen Commandments Of Poon of Roissy=Heartiste?Is this the clue?” I also believe such men are suffering from acute envy, although they remain ignorant of the associated sufferings that accompany the things envied.” Dalrock, Vox, DonalGreame,Roosh, Rollo, and all latter-day ”RPGenius” ”leader” Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons seem to suffer from ” acute envy, although they remain ignorant of the associated sufferings that accompany the things envied.” as they wish they had an entire sphere named after the like Roissy=Heartiste had when Ferdinand Bardimu A.K.A. Matt Forney https://web.archive.org/web/20090822144518/http://fbardamu.wordpress.com/2009/08/13/the-roissysphere-and-its-moral-and-intellectual-objectives-a-proposed-manifesto first declared all the copycat ROISSYinD.C. game blogs- the ROISSYosphere in a post in August ’09-which is where Anakin Niceguy first heard the term in his post here:https://biblicalmanhood.blogspot.com/2009/09/roissysphere-mgtow-perspective.html
Pingback: The Age Old Question of Authority | Σ Frame
Pingback: Hellenization - Derek L. Ramsey