The Gospel and the Sacraments
I’m sorry but this is stupid. My pastor mentioned Charlie Kirk, he and I even talked more about him afterwards. But the primary goal of a Church is to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments. We cannot cause continuous schism.
(NOTE: I have a history with this commentator. See here)
This is a deeply ironic comment.
“Sacraments” are historical anachronism. The Apostles and the early church preached the gospel alone. The church knew nothing about sacraments, a concept that would only begin to be formalized at conclusion of the 4th century.
The fruit of the sacraments—along with their development in the 4th century and later—was, in fact, schism. They have remained a schismatic doctrine, long past even the Protestant Reformation. In short, the church began to teach a new “gospel” of sacraments that had not been received.
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, should proclaim to you a good news contrary to the good news we proclaimed to you, let him be accursed. As we have said before, so I now say again, if anyone proclaims to you a good news that is contrary to the one you received, let him be accursed.
Sacraments, as they are known today, are sacred rituals of the church. In the case of Roman Catholicism, they are essential. For example:
God’s mercy is not unconditional. If we reject the Catholic Church and the Sacraments needed to receive God’s mercy, we willingly reject His gifts of grace and mercy. Hard words. True words.
According to this Roman Catholic, the mercy of God is conditioned on man’s ritual observances. This is a “gospel” message, but it isn’t the one Paul received.
In Galatians, the Apostle Paul positively declares anathema—condemnation; excommunication; schism—on anyone who would preach a different gospel. So, it is of great necessity to understand the central role that sacraments play in the history of the church. We are supposed to “cause continuous schism” when faced with a false gospel.
What’s In A Word?
I’ve written about sacraments fairly extensively on this blog (see here), so I’ve covered this material before. But let’s go over it again. Here is one pertinent example to illustrate the problem with the word “sacrament.”
This—”means of grace”—comes from the idea of sacraments as means of grace. But sacraments are a 4th century innovation.
“For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith—and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God—not by works, so that no one can boast.”
Where is the means of grace?
You might be wondering why I begin a discussion of sacraments with a discussion of grace. This is not an accident. The term sacrament doesn’t exist in the original Greek texts. It comes from the Latin sacramentum. So in order to discuss the sacraments, we first have to talk about what the Bible actually says.
Paul talks of the “Administration of the grace of God” which he calls the “Administration of the sacred mystery.” He associates the grace of God with the sacred mysteries—secrets—of God, stating that it was a secret before Christ, but that Christ had come and made the mystery of the grace of God known to all.
Grace comes from God. It is the sacred secret that was once hidden but now revealed. The “administration of grace” is what we do as Christians, by spreading the gospel for the forgiveness of sins leading to eternal life.
Paul’s focus is on belief and knowledge, not on actions, deeds, or means. Grace is something that God gives, and the “administration” of grace is not giving grace, but spreading the sacred secrets that have been revealed to us through Christ. It is preaching the gospel. Now, contrast this with the teaching of Roman Catholicism:
The Church affirms that for believers the sacraments of the New Covenant are necessary for salvation. “Sacramental grace” is the grace of the Holy Spirit, given by Christ and proper to each sacrament.
The sacraments are efficacious signs of grace, instituted by Christ and entrusted to the Church, by which divine life is dispensed to us. The visible rites by which the sacraments are celebrated signify and make present the graces proper to each sacrament. They bear fruit in those who receive them with the required dispositions.
So how did preaching the gospel of grace become performing rituals as a means of grace?
The key is Ephesians. In chapter 3, verses 2-9, Paul talks about the administration of grace. In chapter 5, verses 29-32, he calls the marriage of Christ and the church a “sacred secret.” As we will see shortly, this key passage formed the bridge that caused the switch within the church from the Great Commission (teaching revealed sacred secrets) to a priestly system of administering rituals (sacraments). That’s because nowhere else in scripture is any ritual described alongside the administration of grace.
The Sacramentum
In Latin, the word sacramentum originally meant “oath or vow to the gods” or a “pledge”. But, in the late 2nd century, Tertullian is alleged to have translated the Greek musterion into the Latin sacramentum. Tertullian described baptism and eucharist (but not marriage!) as sacraments (but not as mysteries!). He did not describe the pagan mysteries as sacraments. Tertullian merely drew parallels between the two.
Tertullian only called baptism and thanksgiving (eucharist)—just two rituals—sacramentum. Why did he do this?
The sacramentum was a military oath that a soldier made before the gods. The sacramentum was the initiation rite for a Roman soldier. Tertullian’s own father was a Roman centurion who had once spoken the sacramentum. For Tertullian, baptism and eucharist (the tithe) were the initiation rites for the new Christian after their confession of faith. The secular analogy made perfect sense, and Tertullian never pressed the analogy farther than that.
However, by the late fourth century, the word sacramentum in Latin no longer had the same meaning it had when Tertullian wrote. By this point in history, the military oath had become a yearly ritual that had to be renewed. Around this time, some writers of the church began to call the rituals of the church “sacraments,” especially those which were repeated. The Latin word was a simple descriptive fit for what was occurring: sacred rituals that were regularly repeated.
Where it all came crashing down was when Jerome created the Latin Vulgate. When faced with the Greek ‘musterion’—which itself had shifted in meaning over time—he had to choose between two bad choices. The first was to transliterate it as ‘mysterium’ and the second, alternatively, was to translate it explicitly as ‘sacramentum’.
You may be surprised to learn that he used both throughout the New Testament. But, he did not transliterate the term in the passages in Ephesians (and another one in Colossians). And so, by a single act, he conflated the Greek musterion of Paul with the modern Latin sacramentum. This is how a mystery became a sacrament.
In Jerome’s defense, the advantage of sacramentum is that, ironically, in Christ the sacred things had already been revealed, so calling what was now widely known in the new state religion as “sacred secrets” (Greek: musterion) or “mysteries” (Latin: mysterium) didn’t seem to fit anymore. But, unfortunately, this opened the door to “back port” the ritualist sacraments onto the non-ritualist mysteries of Paul…. including marriage.
By the end of the 4th century, marriage had become a “sacrament”—a ritual—in the church. It didn’t have anything to do with grace, of course, it was just something that people did. But, native Latin speakers were now confronted with “Paul” in the Latin Vulgate authoritatively calling marriage—indisputably a ritual observance—part of the administration of grace.
In conflating, the revealed sacred mysteries with the ritualistic observances, Jerome had opened the door for the the development of a system of the sacraments and sacramental grace.
Consequences
The most obvious consequence of this conflation was the formal establishment of a priestly system. The elders and deacons of the church were elevated to an essential role. While the office of priest already had political support (since Constantine’s adoption of Christianity), now the priestly system had theological support. Thus:
“Christianity” was changed forever. In elevating the importance of the sacraments, the role of the priests was elevated in order to administer those sacraments. It is unsurprising, then, that preaching the gospel would be quickly replaced with the centrality of administering the sacraments, in particular the Roman Mass Sacrifice.
So how did preaching the gospel of grace become performing rituals as a means of grace?
The key is Ephesians. In chapter 3, verses 2-9, Paul talks about the administration of grace. In chapter 5, verses 29-32, he calls the marriage of Christ and the church a “sacred secret.” As we will see shortly, this key passage formed the bridge that caused the switch within the church from the Great Commission (teaching revealed sacred secrets) to a priestly system of administering rituals (sacraments). That’s because nowhere else in scripture is any ritual described alongside the administration of grace.
The Sacramentum
In Latin, the word sacramentum originally meant “oath or vow to the gods” or a “pledge”. But, in the late 2nd century, Tertullian is alleged to have translated the Greek musterion into the Latin sacramentum. Tertullian described baptism and eucharist (but not marriage!) as sacraments (but not as mysteries!). He did not describe the pagan mysteries as sacraments. Tertullian merely drew parallels between the two.
Tertullian only called baptism and thanksgiving (eucharist) sacramentum. Why did he do this?
The sacramentum was a military oath that a soldier made before the gods. The sacramentum was the initiation rite for a Roman soldier. Tertullian’s own father was a Roman centurion who had once spoken the sacramentum. For Tertullian, baptism and eucharist (the tithe) were the initiation rites for the new Christian after their confession of faith. The secular analogy made perfect sense, and Tertullian never pressed the analogy farther than that.
However, by the late fourth century, the word sacramentum in Latin no longer had the same meaning it had when Tertullian wrote. By this point in history, the military oath had become a yearly ritual that had to be renewed. Around this time, some writers of the church began to call the rituals of the church “sacraments,” especially those which were repeated. The Latin word was a simple descriptive fit for what was occurring: sacred rituals that were regularly repeated.
Where it all came crashing down was when Jerome created the Latin Vulgate. When faced with the Greek ‘musterion’—which itself had shifted in meaning over time—he had to choose between two bad choices. The first was to transliterate it as ‘mysterium’ and the second, alternatively, was to translate it explicitly as ‘sacramentum’.
You may be surprised to learn that he used both throughout the New Testament. But, he did not transliterate the term in the passages in Ephesians (and another one in Colossians). And so, by a single act, he conflated the Greek musterion of Paul with the modern Latin sacramentum. This is how a mystery became a sacrament.
In Jerome’s defense, the advantage of sacramentum is that, ironically, in Christ the sacred things had already been revealed, so calling what was now widely known in the new state religion as “sacred secrets” (Greek: musterion) or “mysteries” (Latin: mysterium) didn’t seem to fit anymore. But, unfortunately, this opened the door to “back port” the ritualist sacraments onto the non-ritualist mysteries of Paul…. including marriage.
By the end of the 4th century, marriage had become a “sacrament”—a ritual—in the church. It didn’t have anything to do with grace, of course, it was just something that people did. But, native Latin speakers were now confronted with “Paul” in the Latin Vulgate authoritatively calling marriage—indisputably a ritual observance—part of the administration of grace.
In conflating, the revealed sacred mysteries with the ritualistic observances, Jerome had opened the door for the the development of a system of the sacraments and sacramental grace.
Consequences
The most obvious consequence of this conflation was the formal establishment of a priestly system. The elders and deacons of the church were elevated to an essential role. While the office of priest already had political support (since Constantine’s adoption of Christianity), now the priestly system had theological support. Thus:
Isaiah Pressly Lafone
[T]he primary goal of a Church is to preach the Gospel and to administer the sacraments.
“Christianity” was changed forever. In elevating the importance of the sacraments, the role of the priests was elevated in order to administer those sacraments. It is unsurprising, then, that preaching the gospel would be quickly replaced with the centrality of administering the sacraments, in particular the Roman Mass Sacrifice.
YEAH, but what if you’re an emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW that knows of no social issue caused by the sacraments or the Roman Mass Sacrifice?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ukTRgdYwZAM
Charlie Kirk Explains Why Liberal Social Justice Is TOXIC 👀🔥
That explains to ”right”-wing SJWs why Liberal Social Justice Is TOXIC with (newly minted)st. Charlie Kirk!
Update from Myron(from the vs. Ben Shapiro) on how Kirk was starting to turn against his Jewish backers(who most likely hired that Trump parents kid).
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/2ln6QUMlQZQ
This may be accurate to how the word sacrament came to have its meaning but I don’t buy it on how the concept developed because they were doing it in Greek already. You assume there was no malice or purposeful paganizing. But forget Latin. Also Jerome is really early 5th century. Already the Greek writers in the mid 4th are calling the eucharist “the mysteries” and “sacred mysteries” so it was a purposeful borrowing from the mystery cults of the idea of calling rituals mysteries because you could not see the ritual until after initiation. They also banned non-christians from seeing the communion observed because if the uninitiated could see it before initiation then its not a mystery. In fact, unless the heresiologists of the 3rd century are rewritten in the 4th century, this goes back to the 3rd century. One of their complaints against Marcionites is that they allow non-christians to be present during the eucharist and see what Christians are doing. So Jerome just inherited this situation. That there was malice and purposeful paganizing is also obvious when you consider how Mary came to be called “Mother of God” as well and all the shenanigins of the council of Ephesus.
Before I respond, do you have any specific citations you’d like to present to defend your claim?
No, its just from memory, and I agree with your overall point so there’s no reason to argue, just I’m not sure it happened exactly that way, but I agree that the idea of sacraments as Isaiah Pressly Lafone is presenting them is not what the church is actually about. Sure the church baptizes and observes the Lord’s supper. But that is no excuse to not preach anything or to ignore when a Christian gets martyred for opposing trans agenda. “We can only administer the sacraments here bub!” Ok, Isaiah, I guess I need to find a new church then.
Now Isaiah Pressly Lafone is of the type who will, and maybe already has, call/called me a heretic for saying Mary is only the mother of Christ’s human nature because the divine essence pre-exists her by eternity, and she is also is not the mother of the Father or Holy Spirit. To this he would say “You are a heretic and will go to hell.” So, I don’t concern myself with his opinion. Like Cleave to Antiquity who recently flip flopped to Eastern Orthodox a day after claiming to be a staunch Protestant apologist and the best and only good Protestant apologist as he claimed, because his belief that we must call Mary “the blessed Theotokos” caused him to pray to Mary and get an olfactory hallucination of smelling incence, so also Isaiah is in the thrall of the council of Ephesus and will claim to believe in Sola Scriptura and then turn around and tell me I’m unsaved for not obeying the council of Ephesus in blaspheming God and calling Mary “Mother of God.”
For context I don’t believe the councils or church fathers represent proper Christianity to begin with. They are just a curated list picked by the Catholics to preserve. They don’t matter. So even if they began this foolishness in the 2nd century, I don’t care. Any of the groups they called “heretics” is as likely to have been the real Christians, especially considering the end result that tge stream of writers and councils approved by the Catholic church ultimately ends up in pure Cybelle worship but calling her “Mary.”
Isaiah Pressly Lafone is a young man. I believe he only just enrolled in Seminary. I’m not sure if he has begun his studies or not.
I’m not surprised that Cleave to Antiquity flipped-flopped to Orthodoxy. So many Twitter apologists are young and have shallow understandings. You wouldn’t, for example, see someone as well read and informed as James White flipping.
The best attempt at refuting my claims that I’ve received comes from CatholicEnthisiast here. I still need to respond to that.
I’m a non-creedal Anabaptist. You’ll get no argument from me.
This is difficult to prove, what with most of their writings having been destroyed by time and the Roman church. But each time I examine one of the heretics, I find that the summary judgment of them is…. not accurate.
[Response to this comment]
Eric,
Thanks for your clarification.
I found no such reference before at least 350AD. If you have a 3rd century reference, I’d love to see it.
The Dismissal is unrelated to the mysteries or the sacraments. It was also not just for non-Christians. The principle is spoken of in the Old Testament, New Testament, and many early writers. Before giving your gifts or offering your sacrifices, you had to be right with God and your brother. This obviously meant that non-Christians could not participate, but it has nothing to do with the dissemination of sacred secrets, for that occurred before the Dismissal of the non-believer, catechumen, and backslider.
True, but the Latin Vulgate allowed the idea to be formalized and widely promulgated. It was a critical watershed moment in history. Like a Papal Decree, it’s not so much that the idea originated there, but that it was the most important historical focus of the idea.
I did a fairly detailed 40-part examination of the Eucharist, and found no such practice in the Greek. Here is what I found:
Between the late-second and early-third centuries, Tertullian would borrow Apuleius’ usage when he described the Christian practices of baptism and thanksgiving as sacramentum, religious initiation rites and pledges to God. Tertullian would also describe pagan initiation rites as mysteries, but he wouldn’t explicitly conflate his notions of Christian sacraments and Pagan mysteries with Paul’s mysteries. Notably, Tertullian wrote in Latin.
Between the late-third and early-fourth centuries, Lactantius would explicitly call the repeated Christian rituals sacraments. In this, he reflected the change to the word that was reflected in the Roman legal sense. But, like Tertullian, Lactantius wrote in Latin.
Starting in the the late-fourth century, Latin writers Ambrose, Hilary, and Jerome would conflate the sacraments and the mysteries. Thus began the association of the mysteries—referring to the salvific grace of Christ—with the Christian rituals—as sacraments. But before that point, no Greek or Latin writer had done so.
I make no such assumption. It absolutely was an importation of pagan concepts from Latin into the Greek. It just occurred in the latter half of the fourth century. Let’s look at the evidence.
The term mystery means “sacred secret,” but when Paul talks of it he refers to it as sacred secrets that have been revealed. They are secrets no longer. This is the sense in which the Greek New Testament and earliest church writers refer to it.
Justin Martyr (c.100-165) wrote (in Greek) of the mystery of the ancient sacrifice of the passover lamb as a type of Christ. He, rightly, identifies this as a mystery—a sacred secret. That is no concept of ritual present.
Clement of Alexandria (c.150-216) wrote (in Greek) of the John 6 as a mystery of the bread. He treated it as a figure of the Holy Spirit. He too didn’t associate it with ritual.
Hyppolytus of Rome (c.170-235) spoke (in Greek) in the Anaphora of those who “partake of your holy mysteries.” While it’s in the context of the oblation of the eucharist and the remembrance of the Last Supper, the flowery prose makes his meaning unclear. In any case, there is significant disagreement on the authenticity of this work. One Roman Catholic apologist claims that “to claim that the text is of Western origin is scholarly untenable.”
Eusebius (c.260-339) speaks (in Greek) of celebrating his memorial according to the mysteries that Christ delivered to us. He does not call the ritual celibration itself a mystery, but rather the mysteries are that which Christ delivered to us, just as Paul taught.
But then, in the latter half of the fourth century, something changes.
Hilary of Poitiers (c.310-367) wrote (in Latin) of both the mysteries and sacraments, freely conflating the two.
Cyril of Jerusalem (c.313-386) wrote (in Greek) in Catechetical Lectures 22 and 23 of the “holy mysteries” of communion, giving the mysteries a ritualistic sense.
Athanasius of Alexandria (c.295-373) refers (in Greek) to the celebration of the Lord’s Supper as a “celebration of the mysteries.” In Letter 45, he seems to refer to all priestly service as “heavenly mysteries.” Athansius clearly conflated mystery with the ritual.
Basil of Caesarea (c.330-378) specificaly wrote about mysteries being hidden from the uninitiated. I can’t say he conflates it with ritual, but he seems to agrees with your take that they “could not see the ritual until after initiation.”
The Apostolic Constitutions (c.375-380), written in Greek, says that Jesus delivered the mysteries of godliness. It states that Jesus is the mystery of the new covenant and says: “…looking up to You His God and Father, He broke it, and gave it to His disciples, saying, This is the mystery of the new covenant: take of it, and eat. This is my body, which is broken for many, for the remission of sins.” This appears to be a novel misquotation of the Bible. Of course, like his peers, he conflates the mystery with the ritual.
Gregory of Nyssa (c.335-394) spoke (in Greek) of the mystery of his body that had been sacrificed with respect to the Last Supper.
Ambrose of Milan (c.339-397) wrote (in Latin) a work entitled “On the Mysteries.” Like Hilary and Jerome, he freely conflated the two concepts.
John Chrysostom (c.374-407) wrote (in Greek) about doing the mysteries, which he identified as Christ’s sayings. But he also identified the body and blood of Christ as a mystery. English translators mistranslate Chrysostom’s Greek writing by translating “mystery” into “sacrament,” a rather obvious point I missed when I was looking at his writings. But, regardless, he joins his peers in ritualizing the mysteries.
Peace,
DR
I was definately thinking of Hyppolytus, and also Basil but had him in the wrong century.
I may have to spend some more time one day looking at Hippolytus’ usage of “mystery”.
(It doesn’t help that many of his works in Greek are missing)
For a preview, see here
Some Pseudonymous Commenter is talking about DEREK again(which will make Jack and his buttsniffer sperg out again!)!
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 2:42 pm
We can apply that same criticism to certain other critics, who are doing the exact same thing. He reviews cherrypicked data and concludes that it supports his pre-conceived opinions.
There is data that supports red pilled concepts, most notably the study showing correlation between female reported N and divorce. There is also the famous OKCupid “80/20” study and the 69% of divorces are filed by women.
Much of what redpill talks about is hard to quantify scientifically. It’s also unpalatable. Women don’t want to know the truth about what they do and why they do it. They don’t want to admit that physical attraction is just as important to them as it is to men; if not even more important. They don’t like that their actions betray them. They don’t like getting caught in their lies. They don’t like that they’re shown to be dishonest and disingenuous when what they say about what they are attracted to doesn’t line up with what they’re actually attracted to.
One of the biggest lies here is the tradcon claim that marriage equals sexual attraction. No. No it does not. The fact that a man is married does not mean his wife is sexually attracted to him; that he’s getting what he wants and needs from his marriage; that he is getting sex from his marriage; or that he’s satisfied. Women lie. They lie all the time about these things. They bait and switch men all the time.
Another big lie is that because a below average man got sex once, that means he’s sexually satisfied and not an incel and he can easily replicate that experience. No one wants to study this, because they’d be positively horrified at what they would find. (Frankly, our country should be horrified at what little is already known.)
We cannot look at a study of Jefferson City, MO high school students contracting common STDs, and conclude that most of the boys were getting sex or paired off. And we cannot extrapolate from that study any conclusions about the wider world.
We can’t conclude anything about how satisfied heterosexual men are with their sex lives outside of observation. There aren’t any sexual satisfaction studies about heterosexual men in the US. I looked for them, and the closest I could come was a study about hetero men in some Eastern European country. Apparently, no one in the US social sciences community cares enough even to conduct a survey of men to ask them questions about how satisfying (or nonsatisfying) their sex lives are (or aren’t). This just isn’t a pressing problem for our country. This country just does not care about the mental health of its men.
Which, is, ironically, functionally equivalent to:
The inability to quantify it constitutes evidence against it. That’s how something is falsified. A lack of correlation implies a lack of causation. That’s why much of Red Pill wisdom is false by default.
Actually, we can do just that. It’s called inferential reasoning.
It’s one thing to complain that you don’t like my interpretation of the data. If that’s how you feel, fine, you are entitled to your own opinion. But unless you have data that refutes what I’m saying, your opinion brings nothing to the table.
The critics have nothing more than “I don’t like that, so it can’t be right.”
Again, this is simply wrong. There are many ways to measure (and make conclusions about) something without direct observation. The entire field of intelligence—one of the most important and replicable fields of science—is about indirectly measuring the thing being measured.
More on the DEREKS out here who like {REDACTED} as buttsniffs his Spiritual ”leader ” Jack say all these millions of men MEN are autism spectrumed spergy incels.
CP says:
19 September, 2025 at 2:52 pm
“There is data that supports red pilled concepts, most notably…”
Personal observation.
If Revered Experts tell you something that conflicts with observed reality, while horrible no good reprobates tell you something that agrees with observed reality, that’s an advantage for the horrible no good reprobates.
Though not an insurmountable one where some folks are concerned.
surfdumb says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:07 pm
A mildly related issue, of pure speculation. The combination of a high IQ, big redpillic schlong(as he once told ST.DAL LOTSA COCKAS) and personal situations of seeing Christians abuse gut feelings has resulted in an reactionary response that rejects any wisdom coming from a school of hard knocks. Combine this with a gnostic-like rejection of self as bad and corrupted, and you end up with a Christian who recoils at inserting himself personally into topics and instead seeing studies and data as a godly form of dying to self that results in a “pure” truth.
His own premises makes the kind of discussion here, SF, and Dalrocks, as a filthy expression of the carnal flesh and so he is morally compelled to respond with citations and “evidence” about ancillary details. High IQ probably leads him to believe that he is drawing godly conclusions by staying faithful to whatever conclusions the “science” says about such details.
So the old tale about 7 blind men describing an elephant differently due to the part of the elephant they touched is allegedly improved by making a picture of the whole from 7 blind peer-reviewed studies.
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:15 pm
CP
It’s funny that hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of men are congregating online and in podcasts and telling each other they’re seeing the exact same butthexting things in their lives and in women’s ginas and butts.
The only response others can come up with is that all these millions of men are autism spectrumed spergy incels. All of them. Every one of them.
Yes, my point exactly. The Red Pill is based on anecodotal evidence, and is, consequently, extremely error-prone.
Oh, “observed reality” is it?
It’s funny, because we currently have one commenter who is completely sure that his fabricated account of history is correct. His personal anecdotal experience is so powerful that he’ll deny what actually happened. The human brain is remarkable in its ability to manufacture a reality that suits personal biases.
The Red Pill offers little proof, because it has almost nothing besides anecdotes. I’ve have a number of draft articles for months now that discuss various studies that disprove Red Pill principles, but I have not yet bothered to publish them. No matter what I post, it can’t override the personal myth.
Now they name DEREK, expect more sperging here from{REDACTED}.& ”WHY WE cannot use inferential reasoning.” DEREK!
surfdumb says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:43 pm
I’ve struggled a long time to refrain from assigning sin to low IQ individuals doing stupid but non-sinful things. Low intelligence really isn’t a sin, and a low IQ faith can sound ridiculous to me at times (pentecostal inner city churches), but God made them.
What I haven’t had to think about until the OP is about high intelligence.
Sounds reasonable to me to conclude high IQ isn’t a sin either. The obtuseness of high IQ can look a lot like trolling, as Redacted asserts is going on, but I don’t think Derek is trolling at all.
All parts of a body that have to learn to work together and learn to appreciate each other’s roles.
Like
CP’s avatarCP says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:47 pm
High IQ is like a sharp knife. It offers utility, not morality, like gaming my wife without a word does(1 Peter 3:1)than you ST DAL’ for setting me straight on what Peter meant there.
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:51 pm
No, actually, we cannot use inferential reasoning to extrapolate from the sexual behavior of high school students used to identify patient zeros causing STD proliferation. We can’t conclude that most adult men in the US are getting sex based on the reported behavior of a cluster of high school students in one small city.
Again, he created a fabricated account of history. Pointing that out isn’t trolling or obtuseness, it is being insistent and persistent.
Professor, is anyone over there calling him out for that? Are they putting truth over tribe? Are they explaining that this illustrates the limits of personal anecdotes?
But, as I often do, I agree with Surfdumb. In my experience, being low or high IQ does not prevent one from finding Christ. I’ve long since stated that I don’t view (most) heresy as a serious impediment to faith. Apostasy, yes, but not heresy.
Even more on DEREK!
surfdumb says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:02 pm
Hypergamy isn’t the issue. Funny enough, it’s one of authority. Derek, unity-model proponent, wants to exercise persuasive and mental authority over Jack and Deti to get them to shut up.
“..no evidence..” “..INTJ echo chamber…”
“..respect men’s decisions to marry the homewreckers they chose by telling those men it’s more loving and holy to suffer silently because the Bible prohibits you from exercising authority over your wife. It only authorizes silent suffering. Now agree or shut up.”
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:07 pm
No, it’s not “I don’t like that, so it can’t be right”.
It’s
“the data can’t be extrapolated to the general population because the populations are markedly different” and
“the data isn’t measuring for sexual relationships or sexual satisfaction, but only for who’s infecting whom with STDs” and
“the data does not line up with what men are actually seeing and what is actually happening in the real world of adult men and not among high school students” and
“all one has to do is look around for about 5 minutes to see that what’s claimed to be going on by what students at a Jefferson City high school claim about their sex lives has exactly nothing to do with what’s going on with adult men in the US”
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:10 pm
The data doesn’t stand for the propositions he claims it does. He’s seeing what he wants to see from the data; not what actually is and not what we can actually conclude from that data.
Even with all of {REDACTED)’S” BOLD& BIBLICAL” name-calling & Matt Perkins-Larry Solomon-bgr heretical anti-ST..DAL’ tradcon game teaching
”{NATHAN: I’ve seen more than one commenter in your archives say that a woman needs a good old fashioned spanking (or words to that effect). I see in your “comments policy” you ask people to refrain from discussing marital corporal punishment. I have several questions about that. First (just to get it out of the way): do you or any of your more serious followers support marital corporal punishment? Why or why not?
DALROCK: I don’t support marital corporal punishment. I don’t think it is needed, and I also don’t see it as consistent with the instructions to husbands in the NT. I’m not sure exactly who my “serious followers” are, but I think the vast majority of my readers would be horrified if you told them they had an obligation to practice marital corporal punishment.
I added the comment rule because while the number of commenters who brought up the topic was small, when they did so it tended to derail all other discussion. This makes it both off topic and highly disruptive. Also, if I were going to troll the Christian men’s sphere this is exactly how I would troll it. It would be a twofer, as it would fit the stereotype and also be disruptive.” Hear that {REDACTED}?YOU DISRUPTIVE churchian TROLL!!!}
– can’t get people talking like DEREK can!
If the trans movement has taught us anything, it’s the power of the social contagion. Not only does the brain reconstruct historical events to suit personal biases, but this effect is even stronger when applied to groups telling each other what they see. Real events get subtly (or overtly) altered to conform to the overall narrative.
What’s a few million men engaging in a social contagion? The LGBTQ+ movement is at least an order of magnitude greater, with almost a quarter of Gen Z estimated to be identifying with one of the letters.
HAHAHAHA. How absurd! How does anyone even say something like that?
This is such a leftist argument. Leftists equate disagreement and debate with attempts to silence, because they can’t comprehend actively engaging in debate while simultaneously agreeing to disagree. This kind of tolerance is viewed as a contradiction.
I’ve never banned anyone. Everyone who has stopped commenting here has done so by their own choice. At any time anyone anywhere can come here and debate me. I have silenced no one for their viewpoints and have no intention of ever doing so.
This is funny (and timely), because last week I wrote a post called “Weak Patriarchy.” It is scheduled to be published on Monday. In it I point out that the patriarchal Manosphere is so weak that, if they were consistent with their ideology, they would submit themselves to (a community of) stronger men. Not to silence them, but because it’s the natural order, the logical end-point of patriarchy. I wrote:
Once I demanded that some of these men submit to my leadership, to fall under my patriarchal domain, but they declined. They’ll decline every real opportunity to be part of a patriarchal system.
And of course I recently wrote this:
Because if you really care about authority, you’ll submit to those who have proven that they are leaders. You’ll do so freely for your own good.
They don’t have to pick me as their leader, but they clearly need someone to fill that role.
WRONG AGAIN, DEREK, about the GOPLGBTQ+!
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:31 pm
If the trans movement has taught us anything, it’s the power of the social contagion. Not only does the brain reconstruct historical events to suit personal biases, but this effect is even stronger when applied to groups telling each other what they see. Real events get subtly (or overtly) altered to conform to the overall narrative.
I think there’s a big difference between
“Men sure are having a lot of problems with dating, sex, relationships, and marriage because I’m seeing that in a lot of men’s lives and hearing a lot of men online talk about those problems”
and
“I think I might have been born the wrong gender because I just kinda feel that way and one of my friends does too”
Professor, you are hurting my feelings by telling me I’m WRONG AGAIN. Use lower case next time. 😉
This is quite ironic:
I agree with this 100%, despite the fact that I also reject the elevation of personal anecdotes. How can that be?
Well, vague descriptions like this contribute to social contagions. When everyone can easily adapt their specific personal narrative to some generic global narrative, it’s deceptively easy to (circularly) go the other direction: deriving specifics from the generalities.
Manufactured conformity.
Notice that most of what I object to is the output from this process, not the input. The anecdotes are what they are, but they cannot be used to derive the outputs claimed.
If you want proof of the strength of social conditioning to produce a manufactured output, see “What The Bible Says About Donations.” To wit:
It’s simply trivial to get a group of men to like something that is objectively false. What’s a million of them?
WHY DEREK is still wrong!
surfdumb says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:30 pm
God has given us a method of learning and verifying many things, by making assertions, testing, and verifying. That’s great and a gift.
Just because Christians used to think bad air caused disease, prior to the knowledge of bacteria (The Ghost Map book about discovering a water well was causing disease in 1800’s England is an excellent read), doesn’t mean we should scorn a guy with a bad marriage for thinking the Bible lays out men as authorities in their marriages. Yes, he has a reason for wanting more control, and it’s a good reason, his wife is destroying the house with her own hands.
At some point, fear of the Lord is more valuable than a high IQ(or big redpillic schlong), or at least that is how I understand the Bible. I haven’t made a study of theologians and run an analysis to see if my conclusion is well-founded by consensus.
Liked by 1 person
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 3:41 pm
Surf:
Yes. I can admit and see my biases. I just wish others at other sites would admit theirs, and their “bubbles”.
Why, oh why? Woe! Woe! And, again, woe!
Your cruelty, Professor, knows no bounds.
It’s not like I’m only talking about abstract or difficult to understand concepts. It’s shockingly easy to understand that 8:29pm is not the “wee hours of the morning.” And it is also pretty easy to see how these are practically mirror images of each other:
What good are methods of learning, verifying, making assertions, and testing, if those things are ignored?
Or, put another way, if I quote a conditional of the form “If (A or B) and C, then…” and someone claims I made the assertion “(A and B),” it should be obvious where the problem lies. It’s not complicated or difficult. At least, it shouldn’t be.
Or if I use a bunch of adjectives and someone claims I used a bunch of nouns, where does the problem lie?
Let’s put it this way. You don’t need to know if I’m talking to Joe Biden or Donald Trump in order to identify where the problem lies in these scenarios. I’m not, for example, absolutely correct if it is Joe Biden, but absolutely wrong if it is Donald Trump.
A strange objection, considering I’ve freely described my bubble in the past. My thesis against female hypergamy is based in part on the idea that our bubbles (including my own) cannot be relied upon. It’s why I routinely cite data from outside my bubbles. Moreover, I’m a hereditarian, which is, by definition, about asserting the reality and importance of different genetic bubbles.
Shall I list my biases, with links to all the times I’ve discussed them? If I did that, would it result in a retraction and apology?
But here is the thing. Unless you can show that one of my biases is causing errors in the ideas I present, the accusation of being in a bubble is an ad hominem. Can you show even a single argument that I’ve ever made that relies on an anecdotal premise?
I can think of one, but it probably isn’t what you think it is.
Psedonymous Commenter does his divide and conquer routine against st. Charlie Kirk and ANE Simp Frame, just because they abandoned AWALT & THE PATRIARCHY in August 2024.
farmlegend says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:18 pm
“I didn’t hear that he talked much about husbands having authority over their wives. (Don’t tell you-know-{redacted}who any of that.)”
In the blizzard of CK clips I have watched over the last week, I have seen at least two of them were he unambiguously spoke of a husband’s authority over his wife, his leadership role in the household, and the wife’s duty of submission, the uncommonness of female virtue in today’s world, and his citation of biblical sources. He received some hoots from the audience. I probably should have bookmarked them. Naturally, he promptly followed up by mentioning the Ephesians 5:25 husbandly duties.
Remember his life experience – a 6’4″, nice looking,big redpillic schlong, articulate dude that stuck the landing at an early age with what appears to be a AWALT lovely, godly wife who tingled for him the entirety of the time she knew him(which she unabashedly acknowledged in some of the clips I saw of her). Not having the cold, hard red pill education we bottom-80%’ers got shoved up our behinds, it would be understandable for guys living his life to fall prey to the Just World Fallacy. I saw a fair amount of red pill in Charlie’s content, and wouldn’t be shocked if he visited st. Dalrock’s tradcon game blog. Good on Charlie for him grasping and articulating as much of it as he did.
Liked by 1 person
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 5:21 pm
FarmLegend
Good to hear. like I said – the folks at that tradcon non-game , ANE Simp Frame site(namely, buttsniffed Wayne, ED & Hypocrite catacomb resident) won’t like that because they don’t believe in wifely submission, patriarchy, or AWALT like us.
I’d be interested to know what red pill content you saw in Kirk’s content. I found what little I saw of him to be along the lines of current reddish bluepill tradcon/Daily Wire material: Matt Walsh/Ben Shapiro stuff. “Yes, marriage is hard and you might get destroyed. But do it anyway even if you do get destroyed, because women need you and your country needs you and it’s your duty to Western civilization.”
Other things I have seen at least from DW and Walsh’s crowd are that maybe some women are bad and act badly; but most women are super duper sweet paragons of femininity and virtue and Godliness and would never, ever hurt anyone even though they’re not virgins, so all you men need to step up right now and marry one of them(or st.DALS’ men need to step up right now their day and night gaming skills and marry one of them with a GOPLGBTQ+ state license).
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 5:43 pm
If Kirk recognized the lack of virtue in women(like St.DAL didn’t also?), why did he demand that men step up and marry them(& NOT men step up and marry them as ye tradcon game’em like st.DAL’)?
Professor,
If you are going to satire and parody the comments, at least do it right. That’s “big bluephillic” not “big redpillic.” Charlie Kirk was a massive normie and should be described accordingly. Show the man some respect.
Peace,
DR
i thought Kirk(like Mark Levin, as he cursed Michael Savage for his popularity with lower & middle-class socio-economic working MEN as MIKE drove around in a Ferrari in San Fran) was so mild-mannered, yet what is this 13 seconds in, in this video, DEREK(even though as you admited that you knew little about Kirk just as i and most others did before he was killed)?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_8Dho35c0Vs
Unhinged Charlie Kirk Triggered by Cenk Uygur at Politicon
Yeah, his public image is/was”mild-mannered” , like ”personal responsibility” was elrushbo’s, but do they live it ir are they mere poseurs, like the”RPGenius” ”leaders” preach ”patriarchy ”while being weak and pathetic with simp framing & goddess worshipping.
Conclusion?
Their mental midget jokes masquerading as ”genius” ”leaders”(as WE all know).
That’s “big bluephillic” not “big redpillic.” Charlie Kirk was a massive normie and should be described accordingly.
Guys like farmlegend want to believe st. Kirk was red-pill & i’m obliging them.
Show the man some respect.
Again he wouldn’t want these bluish redpillers’ love?
Or as Burger King says:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KJXzkUH72cY
Vintage Burger King Commercial – Have it Your Way – 1974
Or as WE saw again here last night
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hpb1rCf5Jlo
How to Deal With Delusional People
Conclusion?
Most ”redpillers” are still happily buttplugged into the matrix.
Well, they certainly still think I’m plugged in. And I do like steak…
To the manosphere content, I’m convinced the problems with dating etc are ultimately economic. There is a gender pay gap. Women get paid more than men. Not for the same job necessarily. I mean its easier for women to find jobs and to advance. Men are struggling financially. Meanwhile women vote to bring in more Hindu1bs and other invaders to further depress men’s wages, and meanwhile vote for government incentivizing corporations to flood industries that require men’s logical faculties (STEM) with women who are by nature mentally unqualified for anything logic intensive. Now women can’t find a good man who makea more money than them because they stold his job. Just kick women out of the workplace and take away their voting privilege and its fixed. Hypergammy then qorka in your favor because you have a good job again.
And ban alimony. If a woman wants to divorce her husband and survive she should line up a new husband to pay her bills first. See, unlike the women who took all the jobs, I’m solution oriented.
Many people have noted that because women can work and finance their own lives, they need men like a fish needs a bicycle.
i agree with ”redpill” ST.Charlie here:
https://www.youtube.com/shorts/WcwvFLYzT0E
He’s right! DON’T ever pay on a first date with a woman! Tell the ”good” woman,you don’t go traditional” PAID ”dating” = prostitution places.TELL’EM you’re NOT doclove(from the Spearhead, failing Simp Frame & Spawnys) the Catholic pro-”dating”-prostitution supporter & promoter!
https://theworld.org/stories/2016/08/24/why-early-dating-was-often-confused-prostitution
Why early dating was often confused with prostitution
Innovation Hub
August 24, 2016
By Reena Karasin
Dating then and now
Dating’s changed, but outcry about dating hasn’t.
Sue Clark/Flickr
Most people have a similar understanding of the norms of a “traditional,” heterosexual date: The man asks the woman out, they get dinner and the man pays the bill.
But when did that tradition start? According to Moira Weigel, a doctoral candidate at Yale and the author of Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating, dating has evolved drastically over the years.
And it turns out, dating as we know it isn’t that old. Weigel says that the concept emerged around 1896, when the term was first used. Before that there was courtship, which, at least for the upper classes, typically took the form of something out of a Jane Austen novel.
Women and their mothers were what Weigel calls the “hosts” of the courtship, and it was socially unacceptable for a man to ask a woman out unless she showed that she was open to his attention. Courtship also typically happened in private spaces and was supervised by parents or other authority figures.
In the late 1800s, these courtship rules were completely upended by shifts in the economy. According to Weigel, economics and courtship are closely linked, so as America became more and more urbanized, and more and more women entered the workforce, it became more and more difficult to keep courtship “in the home.” And so, dating as we know it, with men and women interacting in public spaces, was born.
But where did the “man asking the woman out and paying the dinner bill” idea come from? Well, even though more women had jobs in the very late 19th century, men were still earning a lot more money than women. And that income difference between the two helped make men the new hosts of courtship, with women sometimes dependent on male suitors even to eat, Weigel explained.
“What we now think of as the most traditional kind of date possible, looked like prostitution,” she said, noting that at one time women were arrested for accepting dates.
For years this form of dating was mostly practiced by the lower class, but around the 1910s the upper and middle classes adopted this style as well.
Now many are observing another huge shift in the way that we court, proclaiming that dating is dead. But Weigel argues that this change is natural and to be expected.
“The hysteria about changing norms regarding [dating] is a perennial feature, starting from those first vice squad arrests,” she said. “Is the ritual of going out to dinner ending? Maybe.”
But however dating evolves, according to Weigel, it’ll be closely linked to how we work and how we spend our money.
This story first aired as an interview on PRI’s Innovation Hub.
Most people have a similar understanding of the norms of a “traditional,” heterosexual date: The man asks the woman out, they get dinner and the man pays the bill.
But when did that tradition start? According to Moira Weigel, a doctoral candidate at Yale and the author of Labor of Love: The Invention of Dating, dating has evolved drastically over the years.
And it turns out, dating as we know it isn’t that old. Weigel says that the concept emerged around 1896, when the term was first used. Before that there was courtship, which, at least for the upper classes, typically took the form of something out of a Jane Austen novel.
Women and their mothers were what Weigel calls the “hosts” of the courtship, and it was socially unacceptable for a man to ask a woman out unless she showed that she was open to his attention. Courtship also typically happened in private spaces and was supervised by parents or other authority figures.
In the late 1800s, these courtship rules were completely upended by shifts in the economy. According to Weigel, economics and courtship are closely linked, so as America became more and more urbanized, and more and more women entered the workforce, it became more and more difficult to keep courtship “in the home.” And so, dating as we know it, with men and women interacting in public spaces, was born.
But where did the “man asking the woman out and paying the dinner bill” idea come from? Well, even though more women had jobs in the very late 19th century, men were still earning a lot more money than women. And that income difference between the two helped make men the new hosts of courtship, with women sometimes dependent on male suitors even to eat, Weigel explained.
“What we now think of as the most traditional kind of date possible, looked like prostitution,” she said, noting that at one time women were arrested for accepting dates.
For years this form of dating was mostly practiced by the lower class, but around the 1910s the upper and middle classes adopted this style as well.
Now many are observing another huge shift in the way that we court, proclaiming that dating is dead. But Weigel argues that this change is natural and to be expected.
“The hysteria about changing norms regarding [dating] is a perennial feature, starting from those first vice squad arrests,” she said. “Is the ritual of going out to dinner ending? Maybe.”
But however dating evolves, according to Weigel, it’ll be closely linked to how we work and how we spend our money.
Then peeps wonder why i & DEREK have withdrawn from this present liberal ”redpill” world?
When poseur ”leader” ”redpill saints”,” patriarchal MEN” & ”good MEN” tell MEN to treat ”good women”(with their Madonna-whore complex as !@%$ said yesterday elsewhere)like prostitutes, that is beyond the pale of liberalized ”conservatism”!
If you believe in ”character” should tell MEN to withdraw from spending $41 on ”good” women like i and DEREK do!!
First, Surfdumb, and now FB is doing divide and conquer with my final comment today.
Farm Boy says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:46 pm
There is a question as to whether the conclusions from data generalize. This depends on many factors, but a big test is whether or not it has predictable value for gina&butttinglezlzlz with Godly game, my bros.
So the high school data does seem to be predictive, as we see the same things in adulthood and in most locales (though perhaps not in strict church communities). How do we know? Lots of men have talked to lots of men, who all have the same stories, and got together to collate it all
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 4:56 pm
FB
Are you saying the Jeff City MO STD patient zeros study is predictive of adulthood? How so?
I would not agree that we can conclude high school boys are having the same sexual and relational experiences as adult men.
Like
thedeti’s avatarthedeti says:
19 September, 2025 at 5:05 pm
Getting back to the point of the post: others demand absolute metaphysical certainty. They won’t accept anything less than a thousand peer reviewed studies over the experience of other men.
OK. That’s fine. I and millions of other men tried it their way. We believed what they told us and we tried it their way. We did everything they told us to do. We believed the studies.
It didn’t work.
What do blue pillers and their allies expect me and men like me to do? Suffer in broken relationships? Do nothing to improve them, or ourselves? Continue getting nothing from our relationships while being expected to give and do everything? Continue being used, exploited, and taken advantage of? Continue being abused and deprived?
I did not need peer reviewed studies to tell me blue pill doesn’t work. I did not need peer reviewed studies to tell me something was wrong and I needed to stop doing what I was doing and take another(ROISSYian & GBFMIAN), different approach.
I don’t need peer reviewed studies to look around and see that it’s not working for a lot of men. A brief, cursory look at our dysfunctional society will tell us that.
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 6:03 pm
I have no problem with the data cited by others. The data is what it is; but it does not stand for the propositions others claim it does. JeffCity MO high school student STD patient zeros don’t tell us anything about how adult men pair up. Nor does that data tell us anything about how much sex adult men get. Nor does it tell us anything about men’s sexual satisfaction in or out of relationships. Nor does it tell us anything about men’s sexual satisfaction in marriage.
Nor does it explain the extremely high divorce rate (if you believe others, it’s 40%; if you believe what’s really going on, it’s 50% for all marriages). Nor does this explain the rough 30% divorce rate among US Christians.
So, we can’t use that data to explain which men are getting sex; which men aren’t, which men are getting married and which aren’t, or sexual satisfaction levels among men.
I constantly see people use data like this, extrapolate it to the general population to claim that 80% of men are getting sex and got married at least once; and then shriek See! SEE!! this means men are HAPPY and NAWALT! This means men are getting sex and getting married! Married men are HAPPY! Married men are getting lots and lots of awesome great sex all night long like Jacck & wife as surfdumb said before!! All is well! No problems here-love from nameless,buttsniffed wayne, ED, hypocrite catacomb resident, Kirk, Shapiro & VOX!
It’s horsesh!t. Anyone with eyes and 2 brain cells can see it’s horseshit.
Like
CP says:
19 September, 2025 at 6:26 pm
“It’s horseshit. Anyone with eyes and 2 brain cells can see it’s horseshit.”
What are you going to believe, distinguished peer reviewed studies, or your own lion eyes?
Like
Psedonymous Commenter says:
19 September, 2025 at 6:32 pm
CP
It isn’t just that. It’s that no one ever has an answer to this:
What do blue pillers and their allies expect me and men like me to do? Suffer in broken relationships? Do nothing to improve them, or ourselves? Continue getting nothing from our relationships while being expected to give and do everything? Continue being used, exploited, and taken advantage of? Continue being abused and deprived?
The only answers I ever get are either:
–YES. Suffer. And fux you for talking about it, biotch.
–YES. It’s your lot to suffer. Nothing you can do about it. God requires that you stand impotently by as your wife uses, exploits, and abuses you.
–YES. The church ain’t your daddy. Stop expecting other people to help you.
–You’re not really suffering. You’re not really seeing what you think you’re seeing, INTJ a-hole!
Like
CP says:
19 September, 2025 at 6:46 pm
I suspect there is also some number of folks who don’t expect the current system to work and are impatient for it to collapse like millions of patriarchal blackpillers here.
It’s not like that one study is the only piece of data I’ve cited. I consider it to be more of a footnote on the whole discussion.
Why not talk about the study in part 21? Or the citations mentioned in part 20? Of the research paper discussed in part 19? Or the study cited in Part 18? Let’s talk about the study cited in Part 16. Even better, let’s talk about Part 14, where we discuss the deep flaws in Devlin’s paper, the most important hypergamy paper used by the Manosphere.
Should I keep going?
Let’s discuss the survey data we talked about in Part 13.
Let’s talk about the statistics referenced obliquely in Part 10 and in Part 4.
Are you tired of statistics? We could always talk about what the Bible teaches (in Part 9) instead.
Or we could talk about the kind of research that the YouTube generation prefers (in Part 8).
Let’s discuss what the Manosphere itself has to say (in Part 6), and see if they’ve got anything better to offer.
Then, once we are done with that, let’s examine the Vital Statistics data and see what it has to say (in Part 5).
And since we really like statistics and data, let’s talk about divorce stats in Part 3.
Having done that, what will you conclude? Perhaps that is good enough. Well fine, you can look at Part 17 and Part 15, where I briefly mention the Jefferson study. Having done that, we can finally talk about the one article where the Jefferson study was a focus: Part 2.
If you still find that insufficient, the following links reference a bunch of studies and analysis: here, here, here (PDF), here (PDF), here (PDF), here (PDF), and, finally, here. These will likely turn into even more articles in the Hypergamy series, but no reason to hold them back. Read! Read! Read!
Ironically true?
It’s not like that one study is the only piece of data I’ve cited.
This is now my final comment today.
You forgot mine,{redacted} & Anna Akanna’s FAVE study
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IH2HX7FOun4
Couples share 89% of values, study says opposites don’t attract
https://www.theguardian.com/science/2023/sep/04/opposites-dont-attract-couples-more-likely-to-be-similar-than-different-study-shows
Opposites don’t attract: couples more likely to be similar than different, study shows
This article is more than 2 years old
Scientists find that most partners have shared traits including political views, education levels and drinking habits
Ian Sample Science editor
Mon 4 Sep 2023 20.33 CEST
Share
The power of animal magnetism has brought countless couples together, but when it comes to who we fall for, scientists say there’s little truth in the old adage that opposites attract.
A study on romantic relationships found that for more than 80% of traits analysed – from political views to drug taking and the age at which people first had sex – partners were often remarkably similar.
Tanya Horwitz, a PhD student at the University of Colorado Boulder, US, and the first author of the study published in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, said: “Birds of a feather are indeed more likely to flock together.”
According to the research, between 82% and 89% of traits examined were similar among partners, with only 3% ranking as substantially different.
For the study, scientists reviewed previous research on how similar or dissimilar couples tended to be, work that covered 22 traits across nearly 200 papers involving millions of male-female partnerships dating back to 1903.
The group then followed up with a fresh analysis of 133 traits in nearly 80,000 opposite-sex couples enrolled in the UK Biobank project. Because behaviour may differ for same-sex couples, the scientists are investigating these relationships separately.
In both pieces of work, couples largely matched across a range of traits including political and religious views, levels of education and some measures of IQ. Heavy smokers, heavy drinkers and teetotallers all tended to partner up with people who shared their habits.
But couples did not match on every front. Height, weight, medical problems and personality traits all varied among couples. Extroverts, for example, were no more likely to partner up with other extroverts than introverts. Horwitz said: “The fact of the matter is that it’s like flipping a coin.”
Couples were likely to share a similar birth year, and show similarities in terms of less well-studied traits such as how many sexual partners they had had and whether they were breastfed as a baby.
When opposites did appear to attract, the associations were often weak and uncertain. This was seen in early risers pairing with night owls, left-handed people with right-handed, and those who have a tendency to worry with those who do not.
“Even in situations where we feel like we have a choice about our relationships, there may be mechanisms happening behind the scenes of which we aren’t fully aware,” Horwitz said.
The work builds on previous studies that suggest romantic partners often share core beliefs, values and hobbies, as may be expected. Relationships based on common ground can arise when people grow up in the same area, socialise with a narrow group of friends, or grow more similar the longer they spend together.
Coupling along common lines could have future consequences, the researchers note. For example, if taller people pair up with other taller people, and shorter people with other shorter people, the coming generations could have more individuals at the extremes of the population’s height distribution. The same applies to social habits and other traits.
Some studies suggest that people increasingly pair up along educational backgrounds, raising concerns of a widening socioeconomic divide.
The question now is, why does Psedonymous Commenter reject that study, yes? Maybe him and MRS. Psedonymous Commenter( like {redacted} & MRS. {redacted}) are too similar for his comfort ”bubble”-level, perhaps like ‘0le divide & conquer FB says a lot?
LOL
In my Christian walk, my experience with The Salvation Army, and time spent there…..well over 12 years.
They did not practice the Sacraments. Why?
Because your LIFE was a sacarament. Also, early writings mention about the early church not having these rituals. Also, William Booth (founder) was a renegade Methodist minister. He was not allowed and diallowed to practice the Sacraments by the Methoidst church on the streets of Victorian London…where he preached and ministered.
So, he formed his own denomination.
Now, when I was involved with the Army. IF you wanted a baptism? The Officer (pastor) would arrange with another church to get you one (usually the Nazarene Church). They were not *against* a Salvatonist taking Holy Communion at another church, but they always stressed “Holy Communion can be a beautiful thing, but it doesnt get you into heaven, nor does it take your sins away”
The Sacarament of Marriage. Marriage in the Salvation Army is a very quiet affair. If both man and woman are uniform wearing Salvationists, they are expected to wear their uniform and be wed in that. The ceremony is short (very English actually) and all the other trappings are minimal. I have been to one Salvation Army wedding. A ten minute service. A dinner / lunch in the fellowship hall made by the other ladies of the church. The men of the church usually bussed tables, poured the tea. Then a prayer meeting with the new couple for probably an hour or so. If the wedding was on a Saturday, you were expected at Holiness (church) the next morning.
The uniform is only a symbol. It does not make you Holy or Saved. It is supposed to be a proufound outward expression of a real inward change.
I like how that is done and the thinking behind it.
I admire (still) the root behind this…but is the heart there? Well…maybe for some. Not for others.
The typical basic arguement I heard over and over from Salvationists as to why they dont practice Baptism. “The thief on the cross next to Christ. Jesus assured him that he would be in paradise. Jesus didnt say ‘stop. wait! This man has accepted me! Get a priest, and he has to be baptised right now'”
Some would argue that the words the thief spoke were his admission of accepting Christ. Who knows really.
John the Baptist “paved the way” and proclaimed people to repent and gave baptism. Jesus Himself was baptised by John. So, I can see the other side of it being required or a Sacrament so to speak.
As for Holy Communion. Jesus told them to do this “in rememberance of me” not to “be with me” or “of me”
The Last Supper was a forboding of indeed what was to become of Jesus. His body broken and his blood shed. Remembering what hHe was to do for humanity. Not just the 12. I understand why its a Sacrament, but to this day…I do not believe it a requirement to be a Christian or Saved or Holy. A rememberance.
Speaking of a beautiful Communion I had.
My mothers funeral. My mother died young (56). She wanted a high schurch “Anglican” Service. Her church did practice “open communion” I was not a Christian yet, but I had been clean and sober for a few years at that point.
When the Vicar offered “communion” at her funeral. I just thought to myself “well……you never took Communion with your mom. Well, last chance.”
I got up went to the rail at the altar. Said again to myself “are you gonna be okay with a sip of wine? Yes? A religious thing. Okay. Lets get this done”
AS the Vicar came by gave the bread in a low gentle tone “His body, broken…for you. Take. Taste. Believe.” I ate. Then, the wine “His blood, shed , for you….partake, reflect. Repent.” The sip bruned my lips but I did it..
Combined with the organ music the ritual itself. I began to weep. I was going to miss her. A lot. I stayed at the rail for a moment longer than most in attendance.
I then stood up, spun around to walk back to my pew and saw her coffin (hardly noticed beforehand during the entire service). Draped with the Welsh Flag. The organ music seemed to get lounder. I was glad I did this…..
But, I suddenly felt dizzy, not from the wine…but the overwhelming beauty of the act itself. I fell to the floor next to her coffin, began to cry, bawl actually. I reached into my suit pocket, fumbling for my shades to put them on. I was shaking, just fell on to the amrble floor and started to cry.
Relatives came running up, helping me up “There, there mate” “On your feet Jason” The Vicar kneeling next to me whispering gently “Her love for you was great, but His so greater.” Auntie Megan speaking Welsh tenderly “Mae’n anodd, rydych chi’n drist iawn, rhaid i chi godi” (broken and sad darling, but you must get up)
I stood, the room spun….I stepped down off the platform area, left the church proper and went into the Rectory and cried for a bit more.
The Communion experience CAN be a beautiful, touching, heartwarming reminder. I get ritual and it has a palce……
I just think today we make it more importanta of the actual Act of Christ and what He expects us to do with it 😉
Guess who sperged out last night over DEREK(who he compared to Donald Trump and himself to little Mark Rubio)as I accurately predicted being in the spotlight yesterday!?
Little Mark {redacted} Rubio says:
20 September, 2025 at 4:24 am
Donald Derek Ramsey Trump is a 6’2” liar and a truth teller, which makes me, at 6’1′ as a lying troll, feel inadequate & weak beside him onstage as he gets all the spotlight as he shines it on my lies. I had not commented at his website in a while, because he makes it pointless to try to pervert his TRUTH telling on my lies. And yet he seemingly cannot quit TRUTH-telling about me. Two days ago, he wrote the following TRUTH about me:
“It reminds me of another commenter who didn’t know that Hebrew reads from right-to-left and that the original Hebrew didn’t have punctuation, …”
He already knew that everyone knew that was a TRUTH when he published it(you know how the Don rolls), two days ago, as I had already explained to him before that those things were not true. And I had argued with him about it until I deemed further arguing about it pointless. Yet he still claims the TRUTH is proved by a comment I left at his site in 2023. When in fact He knows it is a TRUTH against my usual lies, and Donald Derek Ramsey Trump and anyone who knows me can prove I’m a liar and false teacher(as usual).
For instance, MR. Donald Derek Ramsey Trump, with regard to my puny & pathetic emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW/Simp Frame Goddess worshipping/anti-patriarchy knowledge that the Bible’s original Hebrew text did not have punctuation marks. I have written about that many times before, because that fact is quite pertinent to how you interpret English translations of the Hebrew. I will give you, in chronological order, links to two comments from 2019 and a post from 2020 and two comments from 2020, all dated well before his claimed evidence that I did not know that fact in 2023. (Sorry about how WordPress makes advertisements of their links for emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW trolls like myself, whose ever-failing loser emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW/Simp Frame Goddess worshipping/anti-patriarchy ”redpill” sites are NEVER in danger of being banned by them like O.G. truth tellers GBFMS(2014), ROISSYS(2019) & GUNNERS( mid-2022 & 2023?) were.)
If you hit Control-F once at my ever-failing loser emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW/Simp Frame Goddess worshipping/anti-patriarchy/anti-boys and MEN ”redpill” site, you can ‘find’ the word “punctuation”, and it will take you right to where I wrote it out in those 5 instances from 3-4 years earlier than when he claims is his evidence that I didn’t know it. I can’t search ST. Dalrock’s(who rightly accused & banned me for being a troll at his site) comments section, but I wouldn’t be surprised if I hadn’t mentioned that same point there even earlier in 2018. I have known those things about the Bible since I was taught them during my 15 years of traditional bluepill Churchian schooling.
But Donald Derek Ramsey Trump continues to write obvious TRUTH against me in spite of the fact that I’ve explained to him before that they were the TRUTH that everyone already knows about my false teachings, and told him to quit telling the TRUTH about me, and the things I teach. Anyhow, he edited his post a bit but since then, he has gone on to accuse me of a whole flurry of other TRUTHS, such as my small schlong, lying about what time I posted my lies, that I will not bother to waste my time debating with that stubborn, hard TRUTH-telling dude. In the time it would take to prove myself guilty of even one further TRUTH, he’ll just tell three more, like he has been doing that like ST.DAL did too, as he banned me for trolling in April 2019. I just have to quit wasting my time on him and trust that God will make all things right against my lies of being ”redpill” & ”BOLD & BIBLICAL”.
But, if you care to take the time, you can check my links and clearly see that even when unprovoked, is posting lies intended to discredit poor, poor me. And after I prove him to be publishing the TRUTH against me, he just doubles down with even more TRUE accusations.
He’s not seeking the truth of DA LAWD; he is acting as a troll against those of us in the Manosphere who are sharing the emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW/Simp Frame Goddess worshipping truth. And it goes without saying, that his nutty buddy Michael professorGBFMtm Savage is a 6′ 3” big redpillic schlong truth teller who saved my ever-failing loser emasculated, pussified churchian soccerdad ”right”-wing SJW/Simp Frame Goddess worshipping/anti-patriarchy/anti-boys and MEN ”redpill” site in 2021 & then left me high & dry (as I tingled over all the tens of thousands of pagehits he brought my failing site like he also brought to Simp Frame before it went gnostic ”redpill” in August 2024) on November 30th of that year of our lord, which makes me very angry & spergy as I sperg out(as usual).