I’ve written a lot about the non-Greek Hebrew way of thinking. In this post from last year, I evaluated one mystic’s claim…
The whole point is the purpose of the thing made, not some abstract idea regarding its form. Boman takes us back to the disagreement between Greek and Hebrew thinking on this issue. To the Greeks, a cooking pot is the basic idea, the material is a separate matter. To the Hebrew, the material defines how the cooking pot can be used, so that each pot of different materials is a different idea. There is no abstract concept of cooking pot; they need to know what the material was or it has no useful meaning.
…and determined that this was completely inverted from reality. The fact of the matter is that the Hebrews were very good at abstract thinking and often preferred to think in terms of general categories rather than only dealing with discrete ideas. This preference for abstract, categorical thinking is the hallmark of a higher IQ population.
Contrary to the claims made by Radix Fidem mystics, the Hebrews were quite capable of thinking abstractly in categories. They did so regularly. Abstract thinking is not a unique hallmark of “Western thought” or “Aristotelian philosophy.” In fact, a great many doctrinal errors of the later church were produced because later writers were unable to conceive of the Hebrew abstractions. For example, the canonization of scripture:
The Jews viewed the canon categorically and qualitatively as well. There were three categories of scripture. They were viewed as a kind, not a count.
If you’ve ever engaged in a debate with Roman Catholics over the inclusion or exclusion of the Deuterocanonicals/Apocrypha, you’ll know why this is relevant. When discussing the New Testament quotations of the Old Testament, we rightly note that each category of scripture was quoted from as scripture even though not every individual book was quoted. To the abstract categorical Hebrew thinker, the unquoted books are included with the quoted books by nature of being in the same abstract category. Furthermore, the Deuterocanonicals—as a category—were never identified as scripture, and so are rightly excluded.
The Hebrew language is full of colorful figures-of-speech, including a language that lends itself to making puns. These are linguistic abstractions. One example I’ve cited on a number of occasions is how the Hebrew (and Aramaic) word for ‘flesh’ is identical to the word for ‘good news’ if you remove the vowels (as in the original Old Testament texts). Multiple different forms of the word may be legitimately intended by a single written instance of the word in the text. This, of course, makes translation really difficult! But, ultimately, the point is to convey the idiomatic meaning of declaring the good news of the birth of a child. Thus, when a Hebrew (or Aramaic) speaker hearing about Jesus coming in the “flesh” and preaching the “good news,” they could immediately grasp the pun and understand the common idiom.
A while back, Timothy Kauffman was discussing the “Ten and Three Horns” of Daniel 7 with some Roman Catholics on Twitter. I weighed in:
When the Greek-speaking Gentile read about the 10 and 3 horns in Daniel 7 they would have approached it differently than a native Hebrew. There is a major cultural issue at play.
The Western Greek-style discrete, quantitative thinker will pick up his calculator and read it like this:
“10 minus 3 equals 7,” he says to himself.
But the Hebrew-style thinker will consider this categorically and qualitatively, reading it like this:
That is, there are 10 of a kind of horn and three of the same kind of horn (or 13 in total).
If you fail to appreciate that the Hebrews thought categorically, you’ll do as most Christians have done over the centuries and you won’t understand Daniel’s prophecy. Using only your calculator, you’ll look for when in history the Roman Empire split into ten segments and you won’t find it. Ultimately you’ll be forced to conclude that the prophecy was wrong or that it must still be in the future. You’ll never look for when the Roman Empire split into thirteen segments—which occurred in the 4th century—because you don’t even recognize your methodological error.
Around that same time, I was listening to a James White video on atonement, where he said (at the 13:00 mark):
Yes!
Contrary to the claims made by Radix Fidem mystics, the Hebrews were quite capable of thinking abstractly in categories. They did so regularly. Abstract thinking is not a unique hallmark of “Western thought” or “Aristotelian philosophy.”
YEAH,
Why didn’t these mystics and ”RP Genius””leaders” understand female nature going feral on boys and MEN from when the police(supposedly their heroes)told them about this ”bribing trap” from a Game Boy mom?
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/9dA_IB1Jya4
Or the first ”mainstream” female predatory teacher, Mary Kay Letourneau, forced herself on an underage boy in Washington state when it was announced in feburary ’97?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7mowKsGWuW4
Yet did the big brave mystics and ”RP Genius””leaders” who are Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons nod their head in agreement with Dalrock but what did they say about poor, poor natural defiler Mary Kay Letourneau most likely her evilz husband wasn’t providing the
”Your wife is craving your leadership, especially when she is in rebellion. Sometimes your leadership will be active, but other times all that she really needs is for you to remain immovable, her rock. ?”
YES!DAL’ did say that here(but shh.. secret) https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/headship-game.7904
”Headship Game.
Dalrock
February 3, 2014
With our recent discussion on the appropriate use of Game for Christian men, I thought it would be helpful to offer some detail on how this can be done. I’ve titled this Headship Game, and as the title suggests this isn’t for unmarried men looking to attract a wife, but focused on how a married Christian man can use Game with respect to his role as a husband.
Frame
Your frame is essential, and in Headship Game your frame must be a biblical frame*. To attain this you must first study, pray, and be humbly prepared to bend your beliefs and opinions to Christianity, not the other way around. As a Christian husband you are called to wash your wife in the water of the word, and you must take this extremely seriously. Your frame as a Christian husband must be one of unshakable righteousness, neither turning to the right hand nor the left. Know in advance that what the Bible teaches us is extremely unpopular in our modern age, and if parts of it don’t initially make you uncomfortable, chances are you aren’t studying closely enough.
Part of this will require a careful study of the commands to husbands and wives in the New Testament. If you want a place to start, you can start with the Scripture referenced in the table at the bottom of my post Reframing Christian marriage. That post is the beginning of a series of posts outlining how feminist Christians have reframed biblical marriage into something new and unChristian; understanding how the original is frequently reframed will make it easier for you to maintain your footing as you are tempted by the culture to turn to the right hand or the left. Other posts which should help you identify and resist common tactics to reframe away from a biblical frame of marriage are Rebuilding the mound and Don’t be tricked into responding to a reframe with an intellectual argument.
Fitness Tests
Your wife is craving your leadership, especially when she is in rebellion. Sometimes your leadership will be active, but other times all that she really needs is for you to remain immovable, her rock. When she storms over you with her emotions, what she is craving is the reassurance that you won’t be overwhelmed by the very thing which is overwhelming her at the moment. Be kind and loving in how you do this, but be the immovable anchor she can cling to and don’t allow her emotions to sweep you both away. This is a profound gift you can offer your wife.
At times this will mean your wife will make unreasonable demands or do outrageous things to see how you will respond. Your response to these must be ruled by your role as a loving Christian husband, but this doesn’t mean you should cave in to unreasonable demands or encourage bad behavior. Elspeth recounts the good advice her husband offered another man here which gives an excellent example of how to respond to a fitness test. Other times the best response is to simply say “no”, with the firmness which comes from the confidence a righteous man displays when being obedient to the Lord. Sometimes your best response to a wife who is being overwhelmed by her emotions is to simply pull her into you in a strong embrace, letting her feel your gentle firmness as she makes a show of trying to push you away**.”
Yet Derek was accused of ”blaming everything on MEN!!”
These big brave mystics and ”RP Genius””leaders” who are Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons really are hypocrites, like one said recently below:
”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.”
Then these big, brave mystics and ”RP Genius””leaders” who are Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons need to call each other out for accussing others of ”blaming everything on MEN!!”
”Your wife is craving your leadership, especially when she is in rebellion. ”
See? It wasn’t just Sunshine Mary=SSM saying it, Derek?
Or did Dalrock and other ”RP Genius””leaders” who are Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons just invert how women were blamed for MENS sins than came ”chivalry” between 710 and 100A.D.?https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwheLIkK2HE
”The 10 Most Common Ways Women Were Blamed for Male “Sin” in 710 AD”
IOW?
They inverted that like they did ”alpha” and ”beta”!
Please note that neither Dr. Helen Smith nor Michelle Malkin ever, ever, ever quote nor acknowledge THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN. Next time you see them, ask them why they never salute our EXALTED FATHERS and our NOBLE HERITAGE and the FOUNDATION OF NATURAL RIGHTS, THE FAMILY, FATHERHOOD, and NATURAL LAW.
For instance, in her book http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/1594036756
Men on Strike: Why Men Are Boycotting Marriage, Fatherhood, and the American Dream – and Why It Matters
why does Helen Smith never quote Moses nor Genesis nor Jesus who DEFINE MARRIAGE? Why does Helen Smith never quote Genesis?
13: And the LORD God said unto the woman, What is this that thou hast done? And the woman said, The serpent beguiled me, and I did eat.
14: And the LORD God said unto the serpent, Because thou hast done this, thou art cursed above all cattle, and above every beast of the field; upon thy belly shalt thou go, and dust shalt thou eat all the days of thy life:
15: And I will put enmity between thee and the woman, and between thy seed and her seed; it shall bruise thy head, and thou shalt bruise his heel.
16: Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
DOES HELEN SMITH NOT REALIZE WHY MEN HAVE BOYCOTTED MARRIAGE? It is because it has been desouled, debauched, and bernankified, robbed of its exalted spirit, and transformed into yet another beenrnekified fraud to transfer assets from men to da beenrkeiified statez zlolzozoz.
Why does HELEN SMITH never quote Moses? Did not Moses know a thing or two about BEING A MAN, even though he never negged, nor peacocked nor wore furry hatsz to get some pre-berbebenkiifed butthozlzizol buttcockinzg (which da noeocnths sectreletly tape zlzzoz):
6 “I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of Egypt, out of the land of slavery.
7 “You shall have no other gods before[b] me.
8 “You shall not make for yourself an image in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousandgenerations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
11 “You shall not misuse the name of the Lord your God, for the Lord will not hold anyone guiltless who misuses his name.
12 “Observe the Sabbath day by keeping it holy, as the Lord your God has commanded you. 13 Six days you shall labor and do all your work, 14 but the seventh day is a sabbath to the Lord your God. On it you shall not do any work, neither you, nor your son or daughter, nor your male or female servant,nor your ox, your donkey or any of your animals, nor any foreigner residing in your towns, so that your male and female servants may rest, as you do.15 Remember that you were slaves in Egypt and that the Lord your God brought you out of there with a mighty hand and an outstretched arm.Therefore the Lord your God has commanded you to observe the Sabbath day.
16 “Honor your father and your mother, as the Lord your God has commanded you, so that you may live long and that it may go well with you in the land theLord your God is giving you.
17 “You shall not murder.
18 “You shall not commit adultery.
19 “You shall not steal.
20 “You shall not give false testimony against your neighbor.
21 “You shall not covet your neighbor’s wife. You shall not set your desire on your neighbor’s house or land, his male or female servant, his ox or donkey, or anything that belongs to your neighbor.”
RIGHT THERE WE SEE THAT “THOU SHALT NOT COVET THY NEIGHBOR’S WIVES @SS & THOU SHALT NOT COMMITT ADULTERY” meaning dat it is worng so very worng to buttcock someoenes future potential wife and tape it in sectrievz zlzzlzloozoz
Why does DR. HELEN SMITH never quote JEsus? 3Some Pharisees came to Jesus, testing Him and asking, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any reason at all?”4And He answered and said, “Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning MADE THEM MALE AND FEMALE,5and said, ‘FOR THIS REASON A MAN SHALL LEAVE HIS FATHER AND MOTHER AND BE JOINED TO HIS WIFE, AND THE TWO SHALL BECOME ONE FLESH’?6“So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.”7They said to Him, “Why then did Moses command to GIVE HER A CERTIFICATE OF DIVORCE AND SEND her AWAY?”8He said to them, “Because of your hardness of heart Moses permitted you to divorce your wives; but from the beginning it has not been this way.9“And I say to you, whoever divorces his wife, except for immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.
So one can see that MOSES JESUS and GENESIS all agree dat der is to be no sectirve tapings of butthxte nor any transfer of a man’s welath to da beernnake state nor shall any other man be allwedz allowedz to buttcock nor ginacock your wifez. WHY DOES HELEN SMITH NOT QUOTE MOSES, NOR JESUS, NOR GENESIS? lzozoz DOES SHE NOT SEE THAT RETURNING TO THE EXALTED PRINCIPLES SET FORTH IN THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN WOULD RESURRECT MARRIAGE?
Ask the neocons next time you see them–what do they have against the exalted wisdom of MOSES, JESUS, HOMER, and the GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN?
And as men are reading the Great Books for Men, they must start enacting their principles in the living world, so as to exalt our legal system and universities, for it is not enough to think and read, but virtue is ultimately defined by *action*.
One of the remarkable things you will learn by READING THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN is the contemporary inversion of Alpha and Beta.
In THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN, the Alphas were ACHILLES, JESUS, ODYSSEUS, AENEAS (THE PIUS AENEAS), JEFFERSON, WASHINGTON, ADAMS, MADISON, HAMILTON.
In all too much of pop manosphere and neoconthz culture, the Alphas are teh secrtetive tapers of buttehxt and the negging wearers of furry hatsz. While Odysseus and Christ and Aeneas resisted womanly and worldly temptations, the modern peacockingz neoconcth gamerz buttehxtesz them. Note how while Charlotte Allen of the Weekly Standard refrains from ever speaking of Odysseus or Achilles or Aeneas, she dutifully repeats the lies of sectrieve taperz of buttehxt whose films lost $10,000,000+ on $12,000,000 budgets, thusly fitting the neocons’ definition of “Art” scucucctetehe” and “”manliness” by creating more debt than wealth while butthetxingz.
MAny churchian commenters at Dalrock’s blog preach that “Women crave exalted, manly, alpha leadership,” and what they mean by “exalted, manly, alpha leadership” is secrteive tapers of buttehxt buttehxting themz, instead of, say, the wisdom of MOSES, JESUS, ODYSSEUS, PAUL, ACHILLES, MISES, AENEAS, HOMER, VIRGIL, AND DANTE. One of the remarkable aspects of Dalrcok’s Christian/Churchian blog is how THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN and Jesus and Moses are constantly under attack as his commenters oft teach that 1) Jesus came not to fulfill the law, but to abolish it so as to sanctify their lust for buttcockingz, 2) The gospel of Jesus is “noise,” 3) High-value men are those who stick their cockasz in other men’s potential wives the most, 4) Homer’s Nobility is Satanic, and 4) Women crave exalted leadership and it is men’s fault that they do not get it: (BREAKING CHURCHIAN NEWS: All evil ever perpetuated by women is a man’s fault. For women naturally crave manly, exalted leadership. Sometimes it appears otherwise, but really, this is just a woman’s way of testing a man to see if he is strong enough to make her butt and gina tingellzlzo simultaneously. For instance, when a woman checks herself into an abortion clinic, by her choice, and has the baby vacuumed out of her womb, by her choice, it is no cause for alarm, as it is just a “sh!t-test” of the men in her life. Manly men will rise to the occasion, whence her butt and gina will tingle, and they can conceive another b@stard out of wedlock, so she can sh!t-test him again by murdering her baby.)
One commenterzz at dalrockz blogz claimes but but but WOMENZ CRAVE MALE LEADERSHIZP (meaning of course not the exlated form of male leadership fournd in THE GRETA BOOKSF FOR MENZ but the domiznziece of peacockingz buttccoekrz). lzozoozozo
but, it is simply not true dat womenz crave exalted male leadership. read tehir cosmo and you will see dat womenz crave tipz on buttehxt and anal lubez, as opposed to, say, MOSES, MISES, HOMER, SHAKESPEARE, VIRGIL. any time a woman is given a leadership pososition, it is for teh puroppoees of debauching and destorying the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ and NATURAL RIGHTS and FAMILY, GOD, and FAITH.
for afterall, Dear SSM,
If women are really craving male leadership,
Why do they not repeal
All the misandric, anti-male laws
which penalize and persecute men for leading?
As women are the vast majority of law students
why do they not form men’s rights legal groups
to defend the leadership of men?
SSM, as you state women crave male leadership,
why are not women acting in a way
to return male leadership to the center and circumference
of society?
SSM–are you going to blame this on men too
are you going to state that even though women
are the vast majority of law students
they need a man to found the men’s rights group
and lead women into it?
Is that what women are waiting for on all the college campuses?
Men to found men’s rights groups
and Corral/herd women into them?
SSM–you really do have quite a low opinion of women
and yet, you blame men for their inadequacies
and you see your low opinion of woman
as being a man’s fault.
To the neoconthz churchiansz Alpha= fornicating forinicating teahcing Jesus came t9 o abolish the law of Moses, now and then reaidng PJMedis, butteockcingz, creating debt, and never, ever, ever talking about THE GRETA BOOKS FOR MENZ nor the CLASSIXCXZ, except to teach that Homer, Virgil, and Dante are Satanic, while their own peakciingz and buttoccking and sectriev tapingz of butthetx is good, true, virtuous.
Beta traits to the PUA neocncths churchiansz= Honor, Integrity, Restraint, Purity, Valor, Piety, Refusal of Temptations, Duty, Courage
But in the GREAT BOOKS FOR MENZ, one finds the exact OPPOSITEZ.
AND HAVE FIATH DAT LONG AFTER DA MISLED, DEBASED, DEBAUCHED RAMBLINGZ OF TH EBUTTCOCKERZ AND NEONCOTH BUTTCOCKERZ HAVE DFDAED TO NAUGHT, CHRIST, MOSES, HOMER AND THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN WILL
BUT worry NOT! As the THE GREAT BOOKS FOR MEN WILL RIDE AGAIN! Even though the ”RP Genius””leaders” who are Blue Pill Soccer Dad, yet ”redpill” simping goddess worshipper blogger/persons fall back into being rebuttplugged into the butthex-globalhomo , the blackpillers and whitepillers from 2013/’14
{” earl says:January 28, 2014 at 9:41 am
A lot of Christians think they are holier than thou but don’t recognize, deflect, or sweep under the rug human nature (especially their own)…they are blind.
A lot of PUAs and most women only recognize human nature and it eventually corrodes their soul. They lose all hope and are blind.
I like the idea of combining the red pill…which is knowing all about human nature warts and all, with the white pill which is not losing hope when human nature attacks you, continuing to help people, and keeping yourself pure through the constant chaos you get into.
Christians need more red pill, seculars need more white.”}
-don’t easily fall for the same Game Boy mom or poor, poor natural defilers like Mary Kay Letourneau traps of witchcr@ft traps.
That’s all Chivalry, A.K.A. Courtly love, is just an inversion of Blaming Women For Men’s Sin.
As seen here: https://sojo.net/articles/opinion/blaming-women-mens-sin-old-bible
& the inversion blaming MEN for women’s sin:https://medium.com/@alexgadd83/why-is-it-always-mens-fault-61b018a52e0
With modern day feminism, it seems that all the wrongs and ills of society are to be blamed on men. For example I recently saw a video which stated how research has shown that the majority of women would rather work for a male instead of a female.
Yet at the end of the video, the narrator proceeded to blame men for women thinking like this. And this is just one example of many where men are ultimately to be blamed.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NEXVQiN49V0
Why Women Prefer Male Bosses
SEE?Just like Derek said ”society sees MEN as full agentic agents to blame for wimminz & rich aholes like Bill Clinton, W.Bush, Obummer, Biden & Trump alike sins and awful behavior”
And the Manosphere blindly believes that it can do something about this. Perhaps it can, in individual marriages or local congregations, but it is utterly impossible to do so on the full scale of culture or society. It has never been done.
“The Jews [i.e. Catholics] viewed the canon categorically and qualitatively as well. There were three categories of scripture. They were viewed as a kind, not a count.”
Scripture in Catholicism and modern Judaism is everything a Catholic or Jew has ever written. Neither Carholics nor modern Jews have a closed canon. Maybe the Sedes do because they freeze their canon before Vatican II, but the rest keep producing “scripture.”
Pingback: Hebrew Abstractions - Derek L. Ramsey