A while back, a certain commenter to this blog was saying that women must veil because men are made in the image of God:
For a man indeed has an obligation not to have his head covered, since he is the image and glory of God, but the woman is the glory of the man.
The commenter claimed that this means that only men must, by necessity, be the image of God.
I pointed out that this makes no logical sense if the image (and glory) of God is a transitive (or, to use a less technical word, inherited) property. If a man is the Image of God through Christ, then women must also be the image of God (i.e. A→B and B→C, then A→C).
But that was just debate rhetoric. What we want is a practical example from scripture that is clear and undeniable. And we have that. When a Christian puts on his new self (Colossians 3:11)—without respect to our cultural and religious heritage—he is remade according to the image of Christ (Colossians 3:10) who is the image of God (Colossians 1:15; 2 Corinthians 4:4). This is why Paul can say that man is the image of God (1 Corinthians 11:7).
Jesus is the Image of God (A→B), Man is the Image of Christ (B→C), so man and woman are the Image of God (A→C). Imaging the image is the same as the original. That’s the “transitive property of the Image of God,” as it were. We can see how Paul uses the “Image of” language to conclude that all who believe—both men and women—are remade into the image of God through Christ.
Since wives are the Image of Christ, they are, therefore, the Image of God. Indeed, Paul is quite clear that all Christians are Imagers of Christ, and so must be Imagers of God.
Long ago, I remember on a Simpsons episode and Lisa Simpson made a comment to Rev Lovejoy about a quote in the Bible……..Rev Lovejoy made a flippant explanation trying to just “explain away” the comment Lisa made.
Lisa Simpson then says “where does it say that?”
Rev Lovejoy just rolls his eyes “Lisa, you can probably find a scripture that says that you are not allowed to go to the bathroom somewhere or it could be interpreted that way. Dont get stuck on the small details, focus on the bigger picture of why we believe”
The big picture is that we are all remade in the image of Christ. That’s good enough for me.
The commenter claimed that this means that only men must, by necessity, be the image of God.
I pointed out that this makes no logical sense if the image (and glory) of God is a transitive (or, to use a less technical word, inherited) property. If a man is the Image of God through Christ, then women must also be the image of God (i.e. A→B and B→C, then A→C).
That commenter is a non serious troll who is trying to win a war with his ex-wife & her evil church(really his evil church that he can’t admit to) in his mind.
IOW?
He failed his GOD,family & nation( & matt perkins MKUltra troll commander) for many years as well as now and now trolls the manosphere as a beloved R agitator stirring up ”redpiller” against ”blackpiller”,site against site & CHRISTian vs CHRISTian.
Why do you think he promoted matt perkins =bgr=biblicalgenderoles like jackIQ142 does?
Did I tell you that I had a lengthy response to BGR a few months ago?
i now know what all of this Image of God debates remind me of!:This debate between
tteclod(a DAL’ disciple),HM=Harvest Moon(a female GBFM assembley & fellowship member) & ERIC(one of the first to get banned @ dalrock in late 2011) from here:
https://web.archive.org/web/20141005001736/http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2014/09/14/whyhow-did-feminism-succeed-because-dalrock-vox-and-their-flock-of-frankfartian-fanboysz-want-it-to/
why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to.
why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to.
why is the family collapsing while out-of-wedlock births are soaring?
because instead of exalting the churches, schools, and courts with the Law of Moses and the Spirit of Jesus, Dalrock and Vox are telling men they need game–they need to serve butt and gingaa tinzgzlzozozozlzozozo over moses and jesus, over homer and virgil.
many of you witnessed the violent attacks against da GBFM on dalrock’s blog from atheist frankfartiansz such as Boxer et al. did dalrock ever step in? no, he watched on in glee as his flock of fawning frankfartian fanboyz taught that jesus came to abolish the law of moses so as to make way for dalrockcasz gamey gamesz lzlzozloz.
long story short, if a young man who is facing divorce and losing his children went to dalrock and vox for counsel, dalrock and vox would tell him to “man up, bitch!” and learn some game like da lostass occkas dalrockas and voxas, as feminism has won and shall go on winning, as long as dalrock and vox blog.
never in a million years will dalrock nor vox suggest that we need to change the culture, or schools, or courts, or laws to reflect the teahcings of moses and jesus, of homer and virgil; but instead dalrock will dictate that men must now learn game. for dalrock and vox do not see christianity as brotherly love serving the greater good, as they cannot see beyond da tips of their own cocoakskskz, which dicktate that “Christians need game,” as dalrock writes on his blog.
and anyone who suggests that men need to revel in the Great Books for Men and exalt the courts with classical law will be shut down, castigated, impugned, censored, and deleted from dalrock’s blog lzlzlzolzolzolozo.
Dalrock writes, “The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible.” This is tantamount to writing, “The answer to the question of why Firefighters need to burn down houses is because Firefighters have adopted kerosene over water.” Some might suggest that “Firefighters” really ought adopt water to live up to their name, but not Dalrockasaz, who prefers game over Christ.
AND DALROCK SHALL GAME FOREVER AND EVVV-ERRRRR LZOZZLZOZOZOZOOZ
GAMER OF GAMERS, AND BRO OF BROS! LZOZOZLZLZOOZLZZLZOL
Today Darlrokzkzasz shared the good newsz GOOD NEWSZ GOOD NEWSZ BROTHAS:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/frigidity-is-ugly/#comments
Dalrockasz “Christainsz need to learn game to sevr butt and gina tingzzlzlzooz” Lotas Cockas writes:
“There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way.”
Where, one might ask, does this “tendency” appear? Why, check it out! FROM DALROCK’S VERY OWN BLOG AND WEBSITEZZZ!! LZOZOZOZOZOZZOZOZO
Dalrockas states that the Bible is not enough, as following the Bible does not serve the base, animalistsic butt and gina tinzgzlzlzlololoozozozzo, which, according to Dalrock, is what Christian men must now do, as da tinzgzlzlzo is greater dan JEsus even who came to abolish da law of mosesz according to so many in dalrockckas flock of frankfartaian foflowowresz lzlzozozlzlozoz:
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/06/why-christians-need-game/
If you are a Christian in the manosphere you likely have asked the question:
Shouldn’t Christians be able to learn what they need to know about men and women and marriage from the Bible, and not from the studies by pickup artists and Evolutionary Psychologists?
The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need.
The problem is Christians have decided not to follow the Bible on the question of marriage in specific, and men and women in general. I’m not just talking about Christian enthusiasm for providing moral cover for frivolous divorce. I’m also talking about the numerous sections of the Bible which modern Christians are embarrassed about because the sections offend their newer and more dominant religion, feminism.
In an amazing feat of double-speak that would make Orwell proud, Dalrock writes, “This is the reason Christians need to learn game. The Bible is sufficient, but it isn’t what 99% of Christians are following when it comes to men and women. ” Basically the summersaulting, logic-defying Dalrock is stating that the Bible both is, and is not sufficient, and thus, naturally, “Christian” men must learn to serve da butt and gina tizngzzllzlzzzozo, rather than having Christian women serve God, Moses, and Jesus, as, well, because the Bible isn’t sufficient, even though it is, and isn’t and is, and isn’t, and thus, naturally Dalrockck flock of frankfariataizn “Christians must learn game.”
Dalrock writes, “The answer to the question of why Christians need game is because Christians have adopted feminism over the Bible.” This is tantamount to writing, “The answer to the question of why Firefighters need to burn down houses is because Firefighters have adopted kerosene over water.” Some might suggest that “Firefighters” really ought adopt water to live up to their name, but not Dalrockasaz, who prefers game over Christ.
http://greatbooksformen.wordpress.com/2013/12/21/true-christian-women-do-not-need-to-be-gamed-dalrock-voxs-christianity-is-not-the-christianity-of-jesus-christ/
LOZOZOZOZOZ
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2014/08/05/frigidity-is-ugly/#comment-135093
Sunshine says:
August 5, 2014 at 10:35 am
There is a tendency in the sphere to make everything about Game/attraction, as if women can’t be loving unless their genitals are leading them that way. This is the opposite extreme of Dr. Mohler seeing a woman’s clitoris as a divining rod for good men, and equally as foolish. It isn’t that attraction and romantic love don’t matter; they are very important. But they aren’t the only thing. We do miserly women a disservice if we claim the only way they can overcome their ugly attitude is for their husbands to lead them via their genitals. We also do good and loving women a disservice by assuming they are only good and loving because they are following their genitals.
Exellent, excellent, excellent observation here.
And really, isn’t this what GBFM has been trying to say in his own way all along? Although there is nothing sinful about wanting to be attractive and attracted to one’s spouse, tingle-basedmarriage is not biblical marriage…it’s not even marriage at all. It is right and honorable for a woman to be giving, loving, and generous in all ways with her husband, just as it is right for him to be giving, loving, and generous with her.
True Christian Women do Not Need to be Gamed: Dalrock & Vox’s Christianity is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ
A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:
16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee. -Genesis
Indeed women no longer follow God, Jesus, and Moses, but their butt and gina tinglez. And the hilarious thing is that rather than trying to resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women, the “Christian men” such as Dalrock & Vox suggest that we all become slave to butt and gina tingelzozozizlzo and learn how to serve them first and foremost, over the teachings of Christ and Moses, as serving butt and gina tinzgzzlzlozolzoz over Christ and Moses is the heart and soul of game.
Dalrock & Vox’s “Christianity” is not the Christianity of Jesus Christ
A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed. A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill:
16 Unto the woman he said , I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bringforth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.
Posted this at Dalrock’s blog, who placed my comments in limbo, as the words of Christ in the Sermon on the Mount are considered to be “too disruptive” on a Christian blog. lzozlzozozlzo. & dat is why like d da heartsites as heartises never cesors da words of jesus christ as heartsites does not fear them zlzolzoozzlzoz for his soul is pure
http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/08/11/losing-control-of-the-narrative/#comments
Interesting that this post should be titled “losing the narrative.”
Dalrock states that Christians need “Game,” and Vox writes, “I’m neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.”
Vox states that Game is Truth and that it is a subset of Christianity. The most-respected, most-read, and most-profound blogger on Game is Heartiste. His “Sixteen Commandments of Poon” summarize Game:
http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/
Heartiste makes no claims of being a Christian, but he may well be, as there are those who say they are not going, who go, just as there are those who say they are going, who do not go.
Dalrock and Vox are stating that the teachings of Heartiste are the same as those of Christ, who, by all accounts, defines Christianity. Dalrock and Vox are thus submitting that the Sermon on the Mount actually goes something like this:
The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
1 And seeing the multitudes, Dalrock went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciple Vox came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
The Beatitudes
Lk. 6.20-23
3 ¶ Blessed are those who fuck her good: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ¶ Blessed are they that ignore her beauty: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
5 ¶ Blessed are the irrationally self-confident: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after two women in the kitty: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
7 ¶ Blessed are the ones who never say “i love you” first: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ¶ Blessed are they that keep her guessing and never marry her: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
9 ¶ Blessed are they that make her jealous: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for too much boldness: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for Game’s sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.
Folks–if we are to regain Christianity, will it come from men acting less Christain and perverting the teachings of Christ, or will it come from men following the true teachings of Christ over Game?
I leave you with the true teachings of Christ, and I fully understand that I may be censored/banned/persecuted for doing so:
The Beginning of the Sermon on the Mount
1 And seeing the multitudes, he went up into a mountain: and when he was set, his disciples came unto him:
2 and he opened his mouth, and taught them, saying,
The Beatitudes
Lk. 6.20-23
3 ¶ Blessed are the poor in spirit: for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
4 ¶ Blessed are they that mourn: for they shall be comforted. Is. 61.2
5 ¶ Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth. Ps. 37.11
6 ¶ Blessed are they which do hunger and thirst after righteousness: for they shall be filled. Is. 55.1, 2
7 ¶ Blessed are the merciful: for they shall obtain mercy.
8 ¶ Blessed are the pure in heart: for they shall see God. Ps. 24.4, 5
9 ¶ Blessed are the peacemakers: for they shall be called the children of God.
10 ¶ Blessed are they which are persecuted for righteousness’ sake: 1 Pet. 3.14 for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.
11 ¶ Blessed are ye, when men shall revile you, and persecute you, and shall say all manner of evil against you falsely, for my sake. 1 Pet. 4.14
12 Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets 2 Chr. 36.16 · Acts 7.52 which were before you.
The Salt of the Earth
13 ¶ Ye are the salt of the earth: but if the salt have lost his savor, wherewith shall it be salted? it is thenceforth good for nothing, but to be cast out, and to be trodden under foot of men. Mk. 9.50 · Lk. 14.34, 35
About this entry
You’re currently reading “why/how did feminism succeed? because dalrock, vox and their flock of frankfartian fanboysz want it to.,” an entry on Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Published: September 14, 2014 / 4:05 pm
Category: Uncategorized
Tags:
tteclod
9.14.14 / 6pm
From one who says he won’t go: if “[her] desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her],” is her attention to be toward his god, who made her, or to him, for whom she was made as a companion?
I ask because I sometimes wonder if women who claim direct connection to their deity outside the leadership of men sin according to the laws of Moses. Put another way, why are no Levite daughters permitted into the holy of holies with the presence of their god?
Reply
HM
9.15.14 / 8pm
From one who says he won’t go: if “[her] desire shall be to [her] husband, and he shall rule over [her],” is her attention to be toward his god, who made her, or to him, for whom she was made as a companion?
I ask because I sometimes wonder if women who claim direct connection to their deity outside the leadership of men sin according to the laws of Moses. Put another way, why are no Levite daughters permitted into the holy of holies with the presence of their god?
tteclod,
The meaning of Genesis 3:16 is a matter of dispute. I’m not a theologian or even particularly knowledgeable about scripture, but the interpretation I’ve come to believe is that women by nature are inclined to want to control their husbands (the meaning of the word desire being a “desire to control,” not a longing), i.e. a power struggle between the genders emerges as one of the consequences of original sin. The remedy to this curse is given in Ephesians 5 (the praxis of which, I realise, is also open to dispute).
This is no way diminishes a woman’s relationship to God, although she has a different nature and different role in the temporal (social) order. (NB:I realise that the spiritual life and temporal order are not the same, but are closely linked).
With regard to your second paragraph, this is not going to answer your question, but ask yourself why did the second person of the trinity incarnate as the biological son of a woman (Mary) but NOT the biological son of a man (Joseph), why did the resurrected Lord appeared first not to men but to a woman and finally, why is there no marriage in heaven? What is God trying to tell us about “gender” with all these things? To me, this says very clearly that women, although different from men, are equal to them in God’s eyes, created in His image and likeness, and must be respected as such, not viewed and treated as an inferior creation (as the Gamecocks claim).
Reply
tteclod
9.16.14 / 7pm
Keeping in mind we’re talking about what for me are fictions attempting to transmit wisdom, I’ll do my best to keep this civil.
Ephesians, if read without any attempt to add to the text or otherwise interpret, very clearly says, “the husband is the head of the wife even as Christ is the head of the church, his body, and is himself its Savior.” That’s so obviously placing the man as savior of his wife that it’s difficult not to see Joseph Smith’s natural progression to Mormonism. So, that’s a no-go for temporal equality, at a minimum, and implies “heavenly” inequality, barring something to the contrary.
As for the so-called son of Yawheh (or “I am”), there are two options for the birth story: either the birth is mystical (toward which the Catholics lean without removing the woman or gestation) or the birth is natural. If the birth is mystical, it resembles that of Aphrodite, who sprang form Zeus mind. If it is natural, then it must be virginal, else there is nothing miraculous. Were somebody to claim such a birth today, we would rightly suspect fraud. Since I’m not Christian, you may reasonably conclude my conclusion on the matter.
As for the virgin birth, the story itself is older than Christianity. There are several other such myths, Egyptian, Greek, et cetera, all preceding the virgin birth. That aside, it’s not unusual for Christians to assert that women are spiritually saved through childbearing, so the theology (proposed by Paul in his first letter to Timothy) seems to consistently associate childbirth with obedience to deity and salvation from damnation. In that context, the so-called Son of God could be born no other way without damning all women. That still doesn’t assure equality and places the so-called mother of God incarnate cuckolding a human man – which isn’t an ideal ethical position – then bearing the cuckold’s children after her firstborn.
As for “no marriage in heaven,” if I am not mistaken, the actual answer from Jesus to the Sadducees regarding marriage dealt with not heaven, but the resurrection, which the Sadducees thought was bunk. Jesus deftly dodges the question with words that don’t really get us anywhere. He said, paraphrased, “When the dead rise, none of them will be married or get married.” Then he added something particularly destructive of your argument that there is temporal and heavenly categories: “[Our] god is not a god of the dead, but of the living.” If we are to take that bit of wisdom seriously, then it follows that all our fancy talk about WHAT MAY BE is not nearly as important as talk about WHAT IS.
As for first sightings post-resurrection, I personally favor the narrative provided by the gospel of Mark, without the ending that appears to have been appended. According to that narrative, Jesus is not sighted at the tomb; another man is there who advises the women that Jesus has gone ahead to Galilee. That seems more probable, if probability has anything to do with deity, a notion with which I doubt you’d agree.
So, while the various Abrahamic scriptures may justly teach that women are not inferior creations of Abraham’s god, they also teach that women are creations subordinate to men. Further, to go back to Genesis for a moment, it may be reasonably argued that Adam’s sin was crediting Eve’s opinion over his god’s. If we are to believe Genesis chapter 2, then Eve was made to be Adam’s companion, and if there was equality in the initial creation, that collapsed after the fall and with the curse upon Eve, one may presume to keep her from tempting Adam from god’s will by subordinating her will to Adam’s.
Of course, I claim no better qualification as a scholar than you claim, especially since I’ve abandoned any belief that more than the intended wisdom has truth, but it seems to me that the Abrahamic scriptures are very clear on the matter: woman is led by man, saved by childbirth, and her place on earth is not directly connected to the godhead, but as companion to man, at best, or subordinate to man, at worst.
I’m still interested to know what GBFM thinks of all this.
Eric
9.15.14 / 2am
Dalrock, Vox, Boxer, and the other Frankfartian Gamecock fanboyz preach this because they instinctively know that Game and Feminism are really mutually dependent on each other. If there were no feminism there’d be no need for Game.
Male feminism is really what Game is all about.
Reply
Eric
9.15.14 / 2am
I wonder how Dalrock and his Churchian fanboyz would explain the principle of Divine Love? Does God ‘game’ sinners to convert them, by their logic?
There’s absolutely nothing in the Gamecock Theology that has any room for free will, or love freely given. It’s nothing more than Biological Materialism with a spiritual veneer: which is probably why Dalrock and Vox tolerate atheistic Marxism but won’t hear the Sermon on the Mount.
Reply
HM
9.15.14 / 9pm
Honestly Eric in all the years I have read in the Manosphere (and I have read widely) I don’t think I’ve ever heard anyone talk about God’s love for man. Moreover I’ve never heard a discussion about love of God or love of neighbour (the two great commandments).They only “love” the Gamecocks ever talk about is the temporal love they feel women withhold from them, or are incapable of giving them in the first place.
Their answer would be “these things aren’t the subject at hand” – but nearly everything else in life, including the kitchen sink, seems to be fair game on the 300+ comment threads. So I don’t really understand how most of these people are “Christian” in any way other than a nominal way.
I find it increasingly impossible to dispute GBFM’s thesis that despite their claims to the contrary, they worship not the Trinitarian God but the gina tinglzlzlzlzl.
Reply
HM
9.15.14 / 9pm
which is probably why Dalrock and Vox tolerate atheistic Marxism but won’t hear the Sermon on the Mount
They tolerate it because they are indifferent to evil in that the don’t believe in a divine order that limits human freedom. I mean they “believe in God,” but not really — or only in an abstract way.
Reply
Eric
9.16.14 / 12am
Harvest Moon:
I haven’t heard it either; in fact they rarely talk about love at all—except in a negative way.
St. John’s writings have a lot to say about love, and although he says little about love between the sexes, it’s very strongly implied in his writings that God’s love for man is the archetype by which love on earth should copy. It’s interesting that in St. John’s gospel, he mentions several encounters between Jesus and various fallen women. They all reformed once Jesus taught them about the nature of love (they were all adulteresses and prostitutes and Jesus taught them that sex does not equal love). This is exactly the opposite of what the Churchian/Dalrockian Gamecocks preach.
St. John says somewhere else that perfect love drives away fear (Game teaches you have to keep gaming to keep the woman interested); and that those who deny love are not Christians, but are walking in darkness though they think they see.
BTW, did you close your blog?
Reply
HM
9.16.14 / 9am
Eric,
Yes, if Jesus wanted to treat women this way we would see examples of Gamey Jesus in the Gospels showing men exactly how to do it, but no such examples exist. I have sometimes wondered if greyghost, Deti, Dalrock, asdgamer, etc. expect to have a few beers and shots before they approach the White Throne where they swap war stories with Peter, John the Baptist, and Jesus the AMOG about how they gamed da b1tches.
Yes the blog is closed (thanks for asking and for your excellent contributions) but I should be around here for the foreseeable future.
Eric
9.17.14 / 6am
LOL—I think that when those guys see that the ‘other place’ is basically a continuation of the competition, egomania, and manipulation that they practiced on earth, they might just ignore the Saints altogether and go hang out with the guys with the horns and pitchforks; who really understand Game a lot better than them, and could even give them a few pointers!
HM
9.16.14 / 8pm
littlettcloud,
How silly of me to not realise sooner (duh!) that you are too clever and sophisticated a thinker by far for a monotheistic simpleton like me to engage with meaningfully on any theological subject. It’s best I think not to waste my time – or yours – on discussions about things like Biblical interpretation and mythology.
Best,
HM
Reply
Eric
9.17.14 / 6am
Harvest Moon:
I was going to write a long reply to his points, but I think that the metaphysics go over his head. This is what I meant about the Gamers not being able to think above purely materialistic concepts.
Suffice it say: women are NOT an inferior creation, they are separate aspect of the Divine Nature, equal with the other aspect, the masculine. The two aspects are needed to create Life, by an act of will. That’s why it is said that the ‘two become one flesh’ (i.e. unifying both aspects); that women are ‘saved in childbirth’ (because they bear the created life that the united aspects produce) and why ‘there is no marriage in Heaven’ (because in a spiritual sense a male and female are united as one). Men and women strive to be Godlike by responding to the aspects respective to their genders.
But like I said, this is too deep for Gamecocks to follow.
Reply
HM
9.17.14 / 8pm
I think that the metaphysics go over his head
I used to be very patient with people like ttecloud, applying the principle of charity and giving the benefit of the doubt in all cases. I finally realised (and this took me a couple of years – I’m a little slow on the uptake/not the sharpest crayon in the box) that 99% of the time people ilke this are only trying to wind up Christians, whom they despise irrationally, and have zero intention of actually considering a different point of view. Attempting to converse with them is as useless as going down the rabbit hole with a Moonie, a Jehovah’s Witness, or the wackier, more syncrestic end of the so-called Emerging Church. A few years after I made the decision to not get pulled into conversations with people like this I came across a great website called Strange Notions. It’s run by a group of Catholic intellectuals and the purpose is to provide a forum for civil debate between Christians and Atheists/Agnostics. If an Atheist honestly wants to dialogue thoughtfully with a Christian I send him there, where the people are much smarter and more patient than I.
women are NOT an inferior creation, they are separate aspect of the Divine Nature, equal with the other aspect, the masculine
This is so basic and obvious, and the fact that believing it makes one more or less an outcast in the company of Gamecocks just shows how far down the rabbit hole they have gone and what a cult it has become. No wonder the threads on Dalcock are running to 700+ comments.
On a totally OT note, I am charmed and captivated by this song, which I heard for the first time sung at an open mike evening last year by a high-school girl with a lovely voice, and has been going through my head all day. I know you like popular music but don’t know if you’ve heard it yet:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PC57z-oDPLs
First Aid Kit – Emmylou (Official Video)
Reply
Eric
9.19.14 / 4am
Harvest Moon:
I’ve been wondering what the appeal for Red Pill women to embrace Game even though it encourages men to behave like brutes. The thought came to me that it’s related to the thug-chasing/weak men meme. Women don’t have to commit to males like these. Thinking about it: what the Dalrockian Frankfartians teach really doesn’t hold women accountable.
Suppose a Gamecock’s wife runs off with another man. According to Game, it’s not her fault: she hypergamous. Or the other guy was more ‘alpha’. Or something.
I’ve thought about the same dynamic in relation to women who chase thugs and weaklings: when they leave men like that, nobody blames them. This way they never really have to commit.
A relationship based on love would require a commitment. So Gamecocks never want to talk about that.
I liked the song and hadn’t heard it before. The vocals reminded me of this tune:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rHzzgT_m6Zw
MORE TODAY THAN YESTERDAY – September In The Park (Spiral Starecase Cover)
Reply
HM
9.20.14 / 7am
Eric,
You highlight one of the contradictions of the Gamecock Theology – the fact that they condemn women (rightly) for chasing thugs, but instead of holding them morally accountable, they then proceed to promote a gamey brand of the very same thuggery as the solution. As GBFM says, it’s putting out fire with gasoline.
A relationship based on love would require a commitment. So Gamecocks never want to talk about that.
They duck this issue by saying women aren’t capable of love.
I was skimming Roosh last night and noticed a creeping existential despair in some of the comments. It also like the penny is starting to drop for some of these commenters, to wit:
What isn’t natural is today’s SMP — uncontrolled hamsters, anti-male Family Law, crap culture and female entitlements amuck. All these factors get in the way of what used to be basic male/female relations (for better or worse).
w w w .rooshv.com/maybe-it-doesnt-really-get-better-than-this
Take a look at this interview with Alice Von Hildebrand (still beautiful, elegant, and brilliant at 90). It is long (90 min) and the presenter is annoying, but it’s extremely worthwhile. Interestingly, her husband was described by the Nazis as the number one enemy of Hitler, and Von Hildebrand describes herself as the “deadly enemy of feminism”:
w w w .barnhardt.biz/2014/09/14/octet/
(I think the links are sticking me in moderation so have edited them).
Reply
HM
9.20.14 / 9am
Eric,
If you go to 1:18, soon after she starts explaining the dynamic whereby women understand masculinity only once they understand their own femininity and vice-versa. This relates directly to what you and I have discussed previously about the genderbending in Gamecock theology, where both masculinity and femininity are distorted beyond recognition to the point of destruction.
If Von Hildebrand were to spend a few hours reading Dalrock, I’d say she would take him down in about fifteen minutes, just as she did with De Beauviour in three hours.
Reply
Eric
9.21.14 / 5am
Harvest Moon:
A lot of Gamecocks do end up in despair. Dalrock & Co. will never admit it; but over time in the Manosphere I’ve seen some Gamecocks’ brains really go down some really deep rabbit-holes. Some have swung the opposite direction and renounced sex: I know of two former Game bloggers who’ve sexually sterilized themselves.
It has to be painful to go through that much trouble learning and practicing Game techniques ‘that really work’ and then see stories like these:
http://patriactionary.wordpress.com/2014/09/19/homeless-drunkard-stoner-guy-doesnt-sleep-on-the-street-every-night-because-of-game/
It’s painful enough to see when you’re single and DON’T practice Game! LOL. This is the kind of thing that drives normal men beyond the US borders to look for love interests.
Like GB4M has said, women hold the upper hand legally/socially in our culture. Game takes away the only power men actually have: the freedom to dissociate and disengage from a feminist culture; and tells them that they have to participate in it and go along with it.
Reply
HM
9.21.14 / 10am
Eric,
That video is very depressing. A woman who finds this attractive should be avoided at all costs. And no – NAWALT, though it appears many (?) are.
If this is all it takes to have sex with so many women, why are the Gamecocks so heavy on self-improvement (structural alpha, DHV, etc.) when clearly it’s not needed, if the dynamic in the video really is that widespread. This is just another contradiction in their idealogy.
If a man came to believe, through experience and conditioning of Gamecock idealogy, that AWALT, I can see how it would lead to despair and a degree of insanity (MGTOW I understand, but self-sterilization sounds like insanity to me).
This guy says that he pursues sex for “ego and validation” not pleasure: (at least he is self-aware enough to recongise this) – another example of how Game messes with men’s heads instead of equipping them to master themselves:
h t t p://en.reddit.com/r/TheRedPill/comments/2h0eeu/being_a_sexually_undesirable_guy_in_my_college/
Like GB4M has said, women hold the upper hand legally/socially in our culture. Game takes away the only power men actually have: the freedom to dissociate and disengage from a feminist culture; and tells them that they have to participate in it and go along with it.
You and GBFM are right – this is the ONLY way forward, moreover, this is what “masculine frame” is – not what the Gamecocks say it is. Frame is refusing to bend/react in any way to the dominant culture when it violates one’s moral code, which will likely mean having to stand alone, at least for long periods of time. It is conviction and self-mastery. In the context of male-female relations, this means being indifferent to women unless they behave better. MGTOW does this to an extent, but reading some of their writings they seem a bit reactive to women (at least psychologically/internally) as opposed to indifferent to them. The greatest example of masculine “Frame” to my mind is Christ’s ministry including through his trial and passion. He went through so much and didn’t say a word.
Eric
9.22.14 / 5am
“A woman who finds this attractive should be avoided at all costs.”
I agree totally: this is the kind of thing that causes a lot of us to stop pursing women altogether—it just ceases to serve any purpose.
I was on the bus the other day and heard two college girls swooning in the seat behind me about some guy they saw out the window: ‘that one in the sweater.’ I looked at this guy (?) seriously, I couldn’t tell if he was even a man or a butch lesbian. A flabby, pear-shaped body, smooth-skinned and pale.
There’s something radically wrong with women’s attraction filters. If you do a Google search for the ‘Ten Hottest Guys’ they all look like the type of males that most normal men go out of their ways to avoid. I can understand, or even sympathize with, a girl who’s taken in by an old-fashioned Svengali-type rogue who’s handsome and charismatic; but these guys aren’t good-looking, don’t look especially intelligent and their looks alone suggest highly defective personality traits. There seems to be nothing logical about choosing men like these.
BTW, OT but have you ever noticed that almost all the male pop-culture icons have beady, rat-like eyes and they always look like they’re scowling or squinting? LOL, what’s up with THAT? Are women today turned off by sunglasses or something? LOL
HM
9.22.14 / 7pm
There’s something radically wrong with women’s attraction filters…BTW, OT but have you ever noticed that almost all the male pop-culture icons have beady, rat-like eyes and they always look like they’re scowling or squinting? LOL, what’s up with THAT? Are women today turned off by sunglasses or something? LOL
I did the google search and you are right, there is nothing attractive about these men. Most are entertainers of some sort with a few sportsmen thrown in. The only ones I would consider classically masculine is Ryan Gosling and perhaps George Clooney. In the case of Gosling, he is not classically handsome but has sort of a James Dean/Marlon Brando broodiness about him that I find attractive.
Yes, the rest look like rats LOL. What gives? I don’t know. Women’s attraction filters clearly are being socially programmed. As for teenage girls and college-age girls, they must be growing up in homes where they are neglected by BOTH parents in that they are so easily programmed/brainwashed. So much for a “stable middle-class upbringing.”
When I was a kid the popular entertainers were men like Tom Selleck, Pierce Brosnan, Bruce Willis, etc. All normal men more or less. I haven’t watched MTV in over 30 years. But it’s obvious how much the world has changed….gradually, but like all at once, and certainly by design. I don’t know if you have spent any time reading at the excellent site (but disturbing) Vigilant Citizen, which painstakingly details all this social programming:
h t t p ://vigilantcitizen.com/musicbusiness/2014-vmas-oversexualization-pushed-music-industry-puppets/
Is this metrosexual ratface phenomenon widespread with middle-age women also? You said a while back that you find women aren’t interested in you. Is this women within 10 years of your age or younger women? I am just curious, because according to Gamecock theory your SMV should be relatively high by definition as you are a businessman over 35. Or does this high SMV only apply if you are a PUA? I have noticed that on TRP Reddit (which I have been reading a little bit lately) that when the men there speak of success it’s always about PUA and/or plates. This may just be the focus of that reddit, but I don’t think I’ve yet seen a story there of a Gamecock actually meeting a woman they would want to marry. \Moreover I’ve seen a number of comments lately about the contempt they feel when they see how easily one of their pickups or plates is to manipulate with PUA/dread tactics.
I found this site yesterday and thought of you – it looks quite interesting (you may know it already) and there is an active discussion forum:
w w w.happierabroad.com/team.php
Eric
9.23.14 / 4am
Harvest Moon:
Oh yes, I know Happier Abroad. If you ever start a blog again, that guy has one of the most extensive archives of anti-feminist research around.
BTW, speaking of your old blog, do you still have my e-mail address? Here’s my new one: minneconjou_5 at Hotmail. Some of these more personal topics we should probably keep from Gamecock prying eyes. LOL
I remember from my own school days (it sounds like we’re about the same age) that Tom Selleck, Sylvester Stallone, and Clint Eastwood were the girls’ crushes among the higher-status girls. I think Clint actually had an appeal for women across-the-board in age ranges. I do remember that some of the lower-status ones like effeminate guys like Michael Jackson, some of the punk rockers, and some of the more thuggish actors.
You’re probably right about younger women being neglected by BOTH parents. I’ve noticed a decided trend: in HS and college, I knew very few girls and only dated a couple whose parents were divorced. Around the 90s, I began noticing that younger women had more and more single/divorced moms or stepfathers and siblings from other marriages. Now, it’s not uncommon to meet younger women who have no idea who their fathers even are. You can imagine how susceptible they are to cultural programming when they’ve had no male role models outside the media.
HM
9.23.14 / 6am
Eric,
I will shoot you off an email later this week.
HM
9.21.14 / 12pm
I’ve thought about the same dynamic in relation to women who chase thugs and weaklings: when they leave men like that, nobody blames them. This way they never really have to commit.
Eric,
I’m still contemplating this one. The female nature seeks commitment more than the male nature. That a woman would avoid commitment is completely contrary to her nature (outliers excepted) and indicates she is a product of social conditioning.
I haven’t come up with a coherent theory about how all this works, but I believe it relates to the genderbending ushered in by the Frankfartian sexual revolution. Here are my current thoughts:
Men by nature seek self-admiration by conquering a series of women, NOT by securing commitment. The more challenging the woman the greater the self-admiration (that most women are no longer “challenging” in this respect by definition de-masculniizes men by lessening their sense of self-admiration, even when he has a high N count – thus the existential despair/self-loathing). The Marriage Gamecocks invert the male nature (teach men to act like women) by trying to teach them to secure commitment from a woman by manipulating her, with her sexual nature as the fixed given.
The commitment-avoidant aspect of the thug-chaser seems to suggest that her sense of self-worth is tied to her ability to have sex with a series of “challenging” men (men who won’t offer commitment). She has, in effect, been socially programmed to find self-worth through the thrill of the chase (by acting like a man). The “challenge” for women prior to this cultural degeneration was to secure commitment from a good man (with male sexuality as the fixed given, not female sexuality), but this is no longer challenging for her because there is no thrill of the chase. What a screwed up SMP we live in.
Reply
Eric
9.22.14 / 5am
I think that most women DO want a committed relationship: but Frankfartian sexual ethnics have socially programmed them to see such traditional relationships as ‘oppressive’. They get into relationships like these because they can have a semi-committed relationship (the woman commits to it) and still maintain a sense of power and being the one in control. But the men’s weaknesses also give the women an ‘exit strategy’: they can still have the option of pulling out with no social stigma.
Sort of like a committed relationship, but with ‘no strings attached.’ I doubt that it follows the ‘thrill of the chase’ paradigm for these women; since these types of men are not an especially challenging sexual conquest. It would be about like a man who combed the street every night; picked up whatever gutter-wench he could find, and then bragged about all the sex he was getting. Other men would shun him—but I think women get away with it because they can commiserate with each other about their ‘challenging relationships.’
Reply
HM
9.22.14 / 8pm
I doubt that it follows the ‘thrill of the chase’ paradigm for these women; since these types of men are not an especially challenging sexual conquest.
Sorry I wasn’t clear here What I meant by “thrill of the chase” wasn’t “chasing after sex” but chasing after commitment from these weak men, who play hard-to-get (act like women). My theory here is that it is an inversion of the way that men seek sex from “challenging” women – these women, as an analogue, seek “commitment” from weak (“challenging”) men, instead of trying to attract normal men who are in a position to pursue them and give commitment to them (should they prove themselves worthy of it). But it’s just a theory.
Even in high school, before the rise of the ratfaced metrosexual, I remember girls “chasing after” weak loser men who were countercultural insofar as they wore leather jackets/dressed in black/played drums or bass in a punk band. But it wasn’t that widespread – it wasn’ the cheerleader types who did this, it was usually the quiet/sensitive/insecure types who did this. And prior to that you had girls fainting over Frank Sinatra and the Beatles. I think is all sort of a pre-cursor to the outright genderbending we see today.
SEE what a non-WASTE OF TIME comments look like when compared to non-serious trolls comments & posts like that ”my wife’s evil church guy”,matt perkins =bgr=biblicalgenderoles & even jackIQ142?
HERE’S SOME MORE OF THAT ”REDPILL” DOUBLESPEAK ON ”PATRIARCHY” WITH ”THE HUSBAND IN CHARGE” OF ”MARRIAGE” BUT IT STILL”TAKES A VILLAGE” LIKE IN THE 90S?
The Important Place of Marriage
In light of all this savagery between raw Feminine and Masculine Sexualities, it is easy to see why marriage was instituted as a compromise between the sexes, intended to provide Women with a Male owner who is responsible for her and grants her daily Attention and all that goes with it, and Men with the ownership of a woman who is submissive to him and gives him as much Sex as he wants or needs, and all that comes with that. This arrangement reduces the amount of Savagery and Vampirism permitted within the arrangement. But even so, it still takes a church, a community, an extended family, and well-established, well-maintained, and well-enforced moral norms to keep them in line.
That is the basis and the beginning of civilization. Without it, human sexuality resorts back to feral mating instincts, broken families, and social chaos.
With that said, let’s take a closer look at the dynamics and transactions of Sociosexual Vampirism.
HOW IS THAT DIFFRENT FROM ”FEMININISM” WHERE ”MEN ARE EVIL AND MUST BE UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF THE SEAHAGS & ”GOOD” GOVERNMENT”?
CUZ GUYS WHO CLAIM TO BE ”GENIUSES” WITH IQS OF 142 SAY SO!!
NO WONDER THE ”GENIUS” OF 142IQ WHO WROTE THE ABOVE THINKS THE FOLLOWING GUY IS ”REDPILL”:
About
Name: Jesse Powell
Location: United States
Religion: Atheist
Sex: Male
I am a Traditional Family Activist or TFA. I decided to start this group, this identity, for the purpose of providing an organization for secular people and others with weak ties to organized religious faith to join as a way of finding community among others who wish to bring back the traditional family as the dominant cultural norm and to have the practices and values of the traditional family supported and facilitated through law.
The Traditional Family Activist group that I see developing in the future is meant to serve a dual purpose; to facilitate members and supporters and readers in resuscitating traditional family practices in their own lives as well as to advocate for cultural and legal changes meant to bring back the traditional family for society as a whole.
Traditional Women’s Rights are very important as a value to uphold for TFAs. Women must be restored to their honorable role in society as women. The destruction of the protection and support women are entitled to by birth right has done great damage to the family and to the culture at large. Traditional Women’s Rights are meant to empower women in the feminine sphere so that women can serve their vital role as women once again.
Unconditional Chivalry is a very important value TFAs uphold. Men owe an unconditional Chivalrous obligation to provide for and protect women; all women. Society cannot survive without femininity and femininity cannot survive without Chivalry. Chivalry is therefore a must, not a choice; an unconditional obligation of men on behalf of women.
Obedience to the Superior Power or God is a very important value for TFAs. TFAs understand objective truth and objective reality; that the rules of life are imposed upon us by a force greater than ourselves, greater even than what we as humans collectively decide upon among ourselves. It is this greater truth, the Superior Power or God, that everything else is derived from.
The beginning of the Traditional Family Activist group is today; October 30, 2013. I Jesse Powell am the leader and founder. I hope to create a good environment that will be safe and secure for women and that will provide to men opportunities to practice their skills as the leaders of their families and leaders in the society at large; particularly as leaders in the struggle to restore the traditional family and Traditional Women’s Rights.
I owe a great debt of gratitude to the TWRAs. I joined the TWRAs on January 27, 2013 and sadly am resigning as a TWRA in order to start this new cause of the Traditional Family Activist. I am so grateful to have met Edita, The Radical One, Happy Housewife, Judithann Campbell, and Mamaziller in my journey as a TWRA. These women have changed my life so much. They showed me a secular group in favor of patriarchy was viable; something I didn’t know before I met them. This knowledge has changed my approach to cultural activism entirely. There is no way I would have started a group like the TFAs that I am launching today without the signal from the TWRA women that a group like the TFAs might do some good, might be something that women and men together will come to support.
I especially want to thank The Radical One for the great support she has shown to me, for the great trust she put in me, and most of all for her resiliency; her commitment to the TWRA cause to ensure that the TWRAs live on. The Radical One started the TWRAs with Edita on July 16, 2012 and she (The Radical One) is keeping the flame alive. Anyone out there not quite ready to join me and the TFAs, I urge you to support The Radical One and the TWRAs instead. The Radical One is doing a great service for the cause of Traditional Women’s Rights and the traditional family and I fully support her.
So, here’s to the future! May the Traditional Family Activists grow and prosper and spawn many imitators! It’s time to take back the culture and the law from the feminists! Come and join me!
SEE ALL THE CONTRADICTORY NONSENSE THAT IS CLAIMED TO BE ”TRADITIONAL” & ”REDPILL”?
LOL! I see a simp still flaunting his woman-serving gender-fluid textual analysis.
Unlike you, my uncle, the professor of Biblical languages, was honest enough to admit that no Bible verse ever says that women are the image of God. Which is likely a small part of why the earliest church fathers taught the truth that women are not likenesses of God, our Father, nor of His Son, nor of their masculine uniting Spirit, who Himself, impregnated Mary.
Here are some verses I’ve translated to help you:
1 Corinthians 11:7 A man truly ought not to veil the head, being an image and also glory of God, adversatively the woman is a glory of the man.
Wives are not the image of Christ, as you’ve claimed. The husband is the image of the Christ, the Bridegroom, and the wife is the image of the church, the betrothed of Christ. See Ephesians 5.
So, God created the man in His own image.
In the image of God made He him.
Them He created and a female.
I don’t intend to stay and argue endlessly with a stubborn liar. Ain’t nobody got time for that! I’m just here momentarily to proclaim that you’re wrong. Women are the image and likeness of your goddess (or hermaphrodite deity), but not of my God.
Note: “God” is a masculine word/title, the feminine form is “goddess”.
God, who originated all of the earth’s languages, made it that way.
God created two sexes and then exclusively identifies Himself with the masculine, to teach us something about Himself. Something which you are too stubborn to learn. You do the will of Satan by blasphemously emasculating God (or “transing” Him) when you claim that women are also His likeness. You only add to your sin by making those unfounded gender-inclusive statements to please women rather than God.
That hasn’t worked out well in the past. You might want to sit this one out.
This is one of Dalrock’s better post’s in his declining years i.e without MOSES,JESUS & GBFMS blessing & help) that explains how churches & government’s busybody their way into MENS=HUSBANDS domain & jurisdiction while claiming ”the husband is in charge & holds full responsibility over the woman=wife” if they believe it then why the busybodiness meddling?
https://theredarchive.com/blog/Dalrock/complementarian-threesome-meet-the-new-man-of.7467
Complementarian Threesome (meet the new man of the house)
Dalrock
January 18, 2016
Dalrock
Back in 2010 an unnamed pastor* at the Council for Biblical Manhood and Womanhood (CBMW) explained how the complementarian model for marriage works in: Breaking the Marital Impasse: How Authority and Submission Work When Spouses Disagree
Breaking the impasse is critical to the complementarian model because having a “tiebreaker” is, along with the husband having sole responsibility for all failures of the marriage and most of the responsibility for failures by the wife, what distinguishes complementarian marriage from egalitarian marriage. Often times complementarians will present the husband as the tie breaker, but this can’t really be. In the complementarian model the husband’s responsibility is total, but should his wife feel on any issue that he isn’t “listening” to her, she has not only the right but the obligation to throw a godly tantrum. Since the godly tantrum trumps the tiebreaking role, obviously someone else needs to be the tiebreaker.
Enter the CBMW, which explains that the tiebreaker in all decisions within the marriage is neither the husband nor the wife but the third person in the complementarian threesome, the couple’s pastor. To illustrate how the complementarian model of marriage works, the CBMW pastor offers the example of a couple which has been discussing an issue for several weeks before the husband finally decides that the time for further discussion has passed and makes a decision:
…the problem concerned Elizabeth’s leadership of our church’s preschool ministry. Elizabeth loved the work, but life in their home was crazy. Ted was forced to work longer hours at work, their family was growing, and another ministry they shared in the church was quickly multiplying. Ted did not believe it was wise for Elizabeth to continue to supervise the preschoolers. They had been discussing this issue for weeks, but could not agree on a course of action. Finally, Ted “put his foot down” and made the final decision. Elizabeth would have to resign from the ministry.
Since the couple was at an impasse Elizabeth invoked the complementarian model of decision making, appealing to the couple’s pastor for a ruling:
Elizabeth was stunned, angry, and hurt. In her anger she told him she would never quit. After 24 hours of conflict, Elizabeth called me for help.
The CBMW pastor explains that this model is required not just for cases where a husband is sinning, but where a wife feels uncomfortable about her husband’s decision (emphasis mine).
What would wise, biblical counsel sound like in real-life situations where conservative Christian spouses disagree about the nature of submission and the parameters of marital authority? What is a wife to do when she feels uncomfortable submitting to her husband in an area, but cannot quote “chapter and verse” that it is a sin.
The pastor explains that Elizabeth was right to come to him, because even though her husband discussed the issue with her for weeks before making a final decision, she felt like her husband was committing the sin of not listening to her (emphasis mine):
…Elizabeth began to sense that Ted was not really listening to her. She was aware that he had made up his mind before they talked. She discussed this issue with him, but he never really engaged the matter before making the decision that she must quit. Ted and Elizabeth thus made a fleeting and failed attempt at guidelines #2 and #3.
That is when guideline #4 kicked in and Elizabeth sought help from her pastor. She was right to do this because as a believer she is under pastoral authority as well as husbandly authority. She also had grounds because she believed she needed help in engaging a sin issue with her husband.
Therefore the CBMW pastor agreed to preside over the case of Elizabeth’s role in the children’s ministry. After deliberating over the case, the pastor issued a split verdict. Ted had the right to make the decision that he did, but although he discussed the issue with his wife for weeks, he was sinning because she didn’t feel like he was listening to her. Ted also sinned by making the decision since making a decision his wife disagreed with was unloving and constituted demanding his own way. Elizabeth on the other hand was right to refuse to do as Ted said and appeal to the third person in the marriage (because Ted was in sin), but she was wrong to not submit to her husband and appeal to the pastor (because this is rebellion). In the end, two thirds of the marriage were found by the CBMW pastor to be in sin (everyone but the pastor himself), and the pastor ruled that Elizabeth was to quit her work in the children’s ministry (emphasis mine):
As I spoke with Ted and Elizabeth it became clear that they were both right, and they were both wrong. Ted was correct that he had authority to make a decision regarding Elizabeth’s ministry commitments that were doing damage to her and her family and needed to be streamlined. He was incorrect in the way he executed his leadership. In fact, Ted had not listened to his wife. He did not shepherd her well. Repentance for Ted meant confessing that he had been quick to speak and slow to listen, and that he had been unloving in demanding his own way, thus violating the law of love.
on the other hand, Elizabeth was correct that her husband had treated her in an unloving way, but was wrong in that she used his sin as a legal loophole to squirm out of submission. She approached the decision about her ministry as an exercise in personal autonomy, rather than glad-hearted submission to authority.
In Summary:
Ted:
Was right to make the decision.
Sinned by making the decision.
Listened to his wife for weeks before making the decision.
Sinned by not listening to his wife before making the decision.
Elizabeth:
Was right to not submit to her husband and instead appeal to the pastor to overrule her husband.
Sinned by not submitting to her husband and instead appealing to the pastor to overrule her husband.
The pastor:
Has final authority in all decisions in the marriage.
Has no responsibility for the outcomes of the marriage, as assuming this responsibility would be usurping the role of the husband.
Hopefully this clears up any confusion as to how complementarian marriage works. For those interested in practicing this alternative lifestyle, I would suggest buying a bigger bed, as things are about to get awfully crowded.
*Update: Commenter David J pointed out that the name of the author/pastor is Heath Lambert, based on footnote #4 in the article.
i agreed with dalrock so much on that post:
Was right to not submit to her husband and instead appeal to the pastor to overrule her husband.
Sinned by not submitting to her husband and instead appealing to the pastor to overrule her husband.
The pastor:
Has final authority in all decisions in the marriage.
Has no responsibility for the outcomes of the marriage, as assuming this responsibility would be usurping the role of the husband.
Hopefully this clears up any confusion as to how complementarian marriage works. For those interested in practicing this alternative lifestyle, I would suggest buying a bigger bed, as things are about to get awfully crowded.
If Jack really thought that that ST.Dalrock stuff is TRUE then how can he NOT see that is like his own ”it takes a village”stuff with ” In light of all this savagery between raw Feminine and Masculine Sexualities, it is easy to see why marriage was instituted as a compromise between the sexes, intended to provide Women with a Male owner who is responsible for her and grants her daily Attention and all that goes with it, and Men with the ownership of a woman who is submissive to him and gives him as much Sex as he wants or needs, and all that comes with that. This arrangement reduces the amount of Savagery and Vampirism permitted within the arrangement.But even so, it still takes a church, a community, an extended family, and well-established, well-maintained, and well-enforced moral norms to keep them in line.”
”That is the basis and the beginning of civilization. Without it, human sexuality resorts back to feral mating instincts, broken families, and social chaos.”
So NATURAL RIGHTS (OF MEN) because women’s rights were only those given to them by their owners I.E. MEN in accordance to NATURAL LAW-which Jack doesn’t recoginize for all his eyepleasing of the Catholic church you think he would) are NOT basis and the beginning of civilization?BUT busybodiness meddling in other MENS possesions is?
Why doesn’t Jack use some of his busybodiness meddling with TRUMP or the democratic republicans legion in DC?
Who also said this ”it takes a village” complementarianism of jackiQ142 & others is meddling?
B(8)OXER that’s who on the above dalrock post:
Boxer says:
January 18, 2016 at 1:40 pm
Dear Fellas:
Sadly, this lack of boundaries is evident even here on Dalrock blog, with men frequently acting like women, gossiping about people’s marriages, speculating on infidelity without a shred of evidence, etc.. See Pastor Saeed and his wife Naghmeh for recent example.
It’s amazing to me that rather than welcome their brother home, the comments include all manner of lurid s#it about his wife, any one of which would get the speaker’s @ss kicked if he were to say it to the husband directly (whether it may be true or not).
When I read the New Testament, it seems to hold the family unit as sacrosanct. In fact, several selections overtly mandate that other men don’t need to be talking to or about any married woman. Ephesians 5 covers the fact that a woman’s husband is responsible for her, and it follows that he will handle her misbehavior and he should be approached about it. It doesn’t mention any exceptions nor outside authorities.
It’s not reasonable to tell men they should be married, and then to expect them to be cucks in the house that they pay for. Meddling preachers can fux off, and should be told this explicitly. It’s a husband’s job to correct his wife, and not some faggot priest’s or anonymous internet kooks.
Boxer
”Sadly, this lack of boundaries is evident even here on Dalrock blog, with men frequently acting like women, gossiping about people’s marriages, speculating on infidelity without a shred of evidence, etc.. See Pastor Saeed and his wife Naghmeh for recent example.
It’s amazing to me that rather than welcome their brother home, the comments include all manner of lurid s#it about his wife, any one of which would get the speaker’s @ss kicked if he were to say it to the husband directly (whether it may be true or not).
When I read the New Testament, it seems to hold the family unit as sacrosanct. In fact, several selections overtly mandate that other men don’t need to be talking to or about any married woman. Ephesians 5 covers the fact that a woman’s husband is responsible for her, and it follows that he will handle her misbehavior and he should be approached about it. It doesn’t mention any exceptions nor outside authorities.”
Does any of that sound like what happened to DEREK at sf, mainly with jackIQ142’S speculations about his marriage and wife between ’22 & ’24 with the so-called ”MAN=HUSBAND IN CHARGE” ”PATRIARCHY” there?