Over at Radix Fidem, Ed Hurst has begun a series on Eschatology, and he started with Daniel 9, specifically this part about the Seventy Weeks:
25 Know therefore and discern, that from the going forth of the commandment to restore and to build Jerusalem to the Anointed One,a the ruler, will be 7 weeks, and 62 weeks; it will be built again, with street and moat, even in troubled times.
26 Then, after the 62 weeks, the Anointed One will be cut off, and will have nothing, and the people of the ruler who will come will destroy the city and the sanctuary; and its end will be with a flood, and even to the end there will be war. Desolations are determined.
27 And he will make a firm covenant with the many for one week, but in the middle of the week he will cause the sacrifice and the offering to cease; And on a wing of the Temple he will set up an abomination that causes desolation; even until a complete destruction, one that is decreed, is poured out on the one who causes desolation.
Hurst made some very curious assertions that I’d like to point out, but ultimately find his conclusion to be utterly fascinating. Please hold your judgments and read to the end.
He opens with this (emphasis added):
To be clear, this is also the context:
Here is the context: it was the first year of Darius, Daniel was reading from Jeremiah about the destruction of Jerusalem and the 70 years of desolation, and Daniel was praying and fasting. Hurst mentions just one (or maybe two) of these as “the context.” This will become important later.
This is the Hurst’s core claim regarding the chronology of Daniel’s prophecy. His calculation of the “70 weeks” or 490 years (457BC to 33AD) is derived from this. This popular explanation sees Christ as the one prophesied.
…
Gabriel begins by establishing a frame of reference. There is no specific Hebrew word for “week” so the actual term is simply “seven” and the thrust is not “weeks” but Sabbaths. This is a key warning in the Law and Prophets, a theme that keeps coming back. The nation was exiled so that the land could have its Sabbaths, Sabbaticals and Jubilees that had been missed for a very long time.
Further, notice the interplay of seventy years of exile versus seventy weeks of years (Sabbaticals). There are 7×70 years for what follows.
This is an important point. Daniel had just been reading about the seventy years in Jeremiah and now Gabriel mentions seventy weeks, that is, seven sets of seventy.
Skipping ahead…
This is an obvious reference to rebuilding and restoring the Temple and ritual offerings, of having once again the Presence of God in His appointed place in the Promised Land.
Another important point.
This is the point of the linked long article above. The Decree of Cyrus mentions the temple, but does not include the city.
Hurst is correct here. Both Cyrus’ (Ezra 1:1-4) and Darius’ (Ezra 5:3-7) decrees only discuss the Temple, not Jerusalem (the city). The decrees of Artaxerxes to Ezra (Ezra 7:11-16) and Nehemiah (Nehemiah 2:1-8) pertain to Jerusalem.
But there is a ‘decree’ that is missing from this list. The one contained in the book of Jeremiah, the very book that Daniel was reading. Starting in Jeremiah 30:18, we see the first of a number of decrees of God in Jeremiah 30-33 that Jerusalem (specifically) would be rebuilt:
This reveals the core error that Hurst makes: assuming that the decree is an earthly one by looking for an answer outside of the context of Daniel. He never considered that God himself made the decree, even though Daniel himself had just been reading about it:
Where in Jeremiah is this information found? In Jeremiah 25:11-12 and 29:10. Where is the decree of God that the city would be rebuilt? In Jeremiah 30:18, right in the very place in scripture that Daniel had just been reading.
Daniel had not been reading from Nehemiah where one of the earthly decrees had been made. Nor had Daniel been reading from Ezra, where the other three decrees were made. No, he was reading from Jeremiah, where God himself declared the promise.
Jeremiah 30-33 is a particular section of Jeremiah (known as “the Book of Consolation”) which refers to the eighteenth year of Nebuchadnezzar, when he besieged and destroyed Jerusalem. Jeremiah sets the chronology in Jeremiah 32:2 and Jeremiah 52:29. Notably, Jeremiah 30:18 describes Jerusalem as already being “in a heap.”
So when did this occur, and thus when did God make his decree to rebuild Jerusalem? In 587 BC. That’s a far cry from the 457 BC that Hurst has proposed. Hurst knows about this difficulty too (emphasis added):
Heiser notes the huge debate over whether this is Jesus or some other. I take the position that this refers to Jesus as the Messiah, though I acknowledge that the Hebrew term “messiah” is generic for “anointed one”, having been applied to other figures both Israeli and pagan (Cyrus is called a messiah in one place).
We too acknowledge this difficulty, but the difference between our conclusions is entirely in the context. We are looking to Jeremiah—as did Daniel—while Hurst is looking to Ezra (but not Nehemiah). Moreover, we agree with Jesus, who quoted this passage and did not associate it with Ezra or Nehemiah either. Check the parallels and you’ll see that Jesus instead associated it with the prophesies of Isaiah, which identified the anointed one as Cyrus.
Heiser is correct regarding the division between the seven and the sixty-two. Hurst is in error. The seventy weeks are divided into three separate prophecies: the Seven Weeks, the Sixty-Two Weeks, and the final Seventieth Week (split into two sets of 3.5 days).
The first prophecy is the Seven Weeks (emphasis added):
Recall how Hurst mentioned that scripture itself—Isaiah—calls Cyrus the Messiah.
The second prophecy is the Sixty-Two Weeks:
From 605 B.C., we progress forward Sixty-two Weeks—434 years—to 171 B.C..
Pause to consider this for a minute. Hurst had already correctly noted and emphasized that the seventy years have a close interplay with the seventy weeks, but he never fully explained what that interplay was, or why the Seventy Weeks were seven times the Seventy Years. This is that explanation.
Hurst erred in assuming that Hebrews held to a strict consecutive chronology. And yet, as we’ll see below (bear with me), Hebrews had a casual neglect of chronology, frequently resulting in a nonconsecutive recounting of events.
Gabriel explicitly gives the start of the Seven Weeks and the Seventieth Weeks, but he doesn’t provide a start date to the Sixty-Two weeks, because Jeremiah had already done so in accordance with Leviticus 26 (which pertains to Sabbaths):
If you follow my decrees and are careful to obey my commands, I will send you rain in its season, and the ground will yield its crops and the trees their fruit.
…
If after all this you will not listen to me, I will punish you for your sins seven times over.
…
I will turn your cities into ruins and lay waste your sanctuaries, and I will take no delight in the pleasing aroma of your offerings. I myself will lay waste the land, so that your enemies who live there will be appalled. I will scatter you among the nations and will draw out my sword and pursue you. Your land will be laid waste, and your cities will lie in ruins. Then the land will enjoy its sabbath years all the time that it lies desolate and you are in the country of your enemies; then the land will rest and enjoy its sabbaths. All the time that it lies desolate, the land will have the rest it did not have during the sabbaths you lived in it.
Note that Hurst had correctly identified this as being about Sabbaths…
Further, notice the interplay of seventy years of exile versus seventy weeks of years (Sabbaticals). There are 7×70 years for what follows.
…but he didn’t take the connection to Leviticus as the anchor for the Sixty-two weeks.
Note too that Daniel himself referenced Leviticus 26 (emphasis added):
…
As it is written in the Law of Moses, all this evil has come on us, yet we have not entreated the favor of Yahweh our God by turning from our iniquities and paying attention to your truth.
Daniel was asking God to end the curse, as he knew God would eventually do. But, Gabriel arrived just after this to inform Daniel of the Seventy Weeks that would be a seven times prolongation of that curse: The seventy weeks were the seven times punishment of the initial punishment. The seventy years of punishment were now turned into seventy weeks of years of punishment. While Hurst is correct that Gabriel would announce the end of the punishment, his purpose was to announce that it would be delayed and the punishment expanded by seven times. Gabriel was, unequivocally, bringing bad news.
The third prophecy is the Seventieth Week (emphasis added):
And that just about covers it. The Seventy Weeks of Daniel, split into three separate prophecies.
There is a very important observation to make here. Hurst’s explanation—in which he reads way too much into it—is nicely explanatory for a while—as are the other alternatives that choose an earthly decree to anchor the starting date—but as it approaches the end of the prophecy, it gets “murky.” That’s because it is the wrong explanation! Of course it gets murky if it is wrong. The murkiness is the sign that you did something wrong. The explanation I linked to above isn’t murky at the end, it maintains the same clarity it had at the beginning. In particular, it explains the anointed one being cut off:
Hurst is unintentionally engaging in special pleading by asserting that it is murky on purpose, when it is not murky at all. When Daniel says”an anointed one will be cut off” it is referring to Onias III being murdered (after having been stripped of his title by his brother Jason). The bulk of the history from this period is described in the books of Maccabees, in particular 2 Maccabees 4.
The first major problem is that modern readers—including Hurst—insist that this prophecy must have been about Jesus, the Messiah. The massive weight of Western tradition bogs them down in assumptions about what Daniel—written in the Ancient Near East—must be about, rather than letting Daniel (and his reading of Jeremiah’s prophecy) speak for itself. It is important to note that only later tradition dictates that this prophecy must be about Christ. Nothing in Daniel itself requires this.
Another major problem is that Jesus—who quoted from it—had the chance to make this identification and decided not to do so.
A third major problem many modern readers have is that the one week runs concurrently with the sixty-two weeks, which shouldn’t be a problem for Hurst, who consistently emphasizes this kind of approach to prophecy (emphasis added):
…and…
…
That’s close enough for Hebrew prophecy.
…
It’s funny how most scholars and theologians recognize that this final week is detached from the sixty-nine in terms of continuity, but then they won’t recognize the fluidity of the wording otherwise. The continuity is in the flow, not the calendar. Daniel would have understood that; seventy weeks were decreed, but not all in one lump.
Hurst is more-or-less correct on all these points.
If you were, hypothetically, to read Leviticus 26:18,21,23,28 and conclude that the 70 years prophecy in Jeremiah—corresponding to the reign of Nebuchadnezzar in 605BC—must have been extended by precisely 490 chronological years of the Seventy Weeks, then you’ll put the fulfillment of the prophecy in 45BC (when nothing of biblical significance happened). Or maybe you’d conclude that Jeremiah’s 70 years were the first of seven Sabbaticals of the Seventy Weeks, and so conclude that the end of the Seventy Weeks is 115BC (when nothing of biblical significance happened). Or maybe you don’t like 605BC and choose 586BC or 587BC instead, but this too calculates to nothing of biblical significance.
But this is not a Hebrew approach to chronology. You’d instead treat the moral import as having the greater weight, thus choosing the beginning of the seventy years as the beginning of the initial chastisement and the sixty-two weeks being merely a part of that chastisement, not literally a 7x mathematical multiplier. Why do we choose the beginning of the Seventy Years and the Sixty-Two Weeks on the same date in 605BC? Because that emphasizes the greatest moral import: it is when God’s punishment began. (It also matches the eschatological context of Daniel, where the statue of Gold begins at the same reference point)
So 62-weeks-of-years after 605BC brings us to… 171BC, into the final week-of-years of 171BC to 164BC. And right smack dab in the center of that 7-year period is 167 BC (3.5 years between 171BC and 164BC).
The irony is that, because of Hurst’s “casual neglect of chronological order”, he ultimately comes mighty close to the correct conclusion anyway, despite getting the chronology completely wrong:
To this we have to stand up and applaud. Despite all his errors, his methodology still leads him towards the correct answers!
…
[W]ithin a decade of Christ’s death and resurrection, the abomination of desolation that had been erected on the altar in 167 B.C. under Antiochus IV, returned to Israel. The armed Jewish response to it eventually culminated in the destruction of Jerusalem in 70 A.D., just as Jesus warned. In Matthew 24 and Mark 13 Jesus did not warn us that Seventieth Week was yet future. He simply warned us that the idol erected by a Greek antagonist as prophesied in Daniel 9:27 would soon return, and its return would serve as the harbinger of Jerusalem’s inevitable destruction.That’s not the only thing that Hurst got right either. Earlier he had correctly noted that…
…
The whole point of Gabriel’s choice of terminology points to this very thing — restoring the ritual calendar as a symbol of full restoration of the Covenant life.
…which is precisely what the correct chronology shows! The abomination of desolation ties the prophecies of Jeremiah, Ezekiel, and Isaiah together through Daniel and the Olivet Discourse (which we have not discussed here) alongside the fall of Jerusalem in 70AD. It’s all tied together through prophecy, and the correct chronology reveals this—rather than hides it in murkiness.
Hurst concludes with this:
So, despite getting the chronology of Daniel wrong, he still understood its significance correctly. This is a rather astonishing point.
For all those who challenge me and say…
…this is an excellent example of how one does not have to have a genius level IQ to arrive at the correct answer. One doesn’t even have to have a rational or correct argument to arrive at the correct answer!
In Hurst’s case, he possessed the correct assumptions (or axioms). For him, the chronology didn’t actually matter, so any errors he made regarding it didn’t impact his conclusions. (One has to wonder why he bothers with trying to explain the chronology if it doesn’t actually matter?!)
What I’ve demonstrated is that a proper analytical approach is helpful, especially if you want to arrive at the most completely true answer, but it is not required per se. The rational/analytical and spiritual/mystical/revelatory approaches are not inherently at odds, which is why scripture speaks so much about both working in tandem.
What I do is apply my mind, through logic and reason, to verify and validate what has been revealed. This is the intention of God. Revelation is, first, a spiritual matter, which is why spiritual men are more important than (merely) rational, logical men. But any examination of revelation that stops there is always going to risk being incomplete and incorrect. The application of the mind is necessary to validate truth claims, to help eliminate errors, for not all revelation comes from God.
My role here—if I have any at all—is not to reveal what God has revealed—although I certainly do this from time to time—but to validate what other men (especially the prophets of God) are revealing.
Ed Hurst is a prophet, as he has said on many occasions. I have no argument with that. I think a great many men in the Manosphere have the gift of prophecy. This is true of a sizable number of men (who will go unnamed). Jack @ Sigma Frame agrees with me. The modern church has little room for prophets, and so they are relegated elsewhere.
These men are, in a way, our leaders. But they do not—and are forbidden to—stand alone. In a sense, many (but not all) of these leaders are operating without being “under” proper leadership.
All prophecy in the church (as opposed to individual revelation, one’s calling) must be validated by the other members of the church, including its teachers. That’s what I do here: I validate what the prophets speak on behalf of the non-prophets who may read what they write. Ideally, the prophets in the ‘sphere would “be submitting themselves” to this instruction, altering what they prophesy in response to correction, but this is obviously not the case. Those subset of prophets who chafe at this should be treated with extreme caution.
”A Decree to Rebuild
In a sense, many (but not all) of these leaders are operating without being “under” proper leadership.”
I get what DEREK is saying in this post now!
It’s a Samsonian-type riddle message to MOSES, JESUS &GBFM to start the MOSES, JESUS & GBFMosphere!
This was prophesied back in May 2013 by EARL but DEREK wants it to materialize & make the idealz real soon now to save the world as WE know it.
A riddle? I’m not that subtle am I?
In any case, what was it that Earl said? You’ve made me curious.
”In any case, what was it that Earl said? You’ve made me curious.”
From the ”What is the ROISSY/manosphere?”
Posted on May 15, 2013 by Dalrock
”Earl says:
May 15, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I think manosphere should be renamed to GBFMOSPHERE. That will solve everything.
Beefy Levinson says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I second Earl. Discovering the manosphere was a good thing for me, but soaking up the wisdom of DA GBFM lzzozozozololzozozzolol is even better!
Krauser’s comment reminded me that once in a while Roissy posts something that makes me hope he’ll convert before the end. The manosphere is in agreement that Marriage 2.0 is an enormous risk for men. I think those of us who subscribe to Christian sexual morality would say that it’s a necessary risk as extramarital sex is sinful, though obviously secular manosphere bloggers will disagree. I’ve found that even manosphere inhabitants who say that Marriage 2.0 is not worth the risks mostly agree that Marriage 1.0 was a beautiful thing, if not the basis of civilized society. I was pleasantly surprised when Roissy wrote a post several months ago essentially saying Pope Paul VI got it right in “Humane Vitae.”
Dalrock’s is my favorite manosphere blog because of 1) his excellent work digging up statistics and 2) I believe that a vital step to restoring a sane society is purging feminism from the churches.
Even Saint Rollo got semi- stoked for it too:
Rollo Tomassi says:
May 16, 2013 at 1:27 pm
Every time I read GBFM it makes me think of Dave Chapelle parodying Lil’ Jon. Random spatterings of incoherent lololzzzllozz, butthex, and bernankified fiat currency, then interspersed with incredibly lucid and intelligent points, to be followed with more lolololzzzzlolzz,…
Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM) says:
May 15, 2013 at 3:15 pm
“Earl says:
May 15, 2013 at 12:55 pm
I think manosphere should be renamed to GBFMOSPHERE. That will solve everything.”
“Beefy Levinson says:
May 15, 2013 at 1:09 pm
I second Earl. Discovering the manosphere was a good thing for me, but soaking up the wisdom of DA GBFM lzzozozozololzozozzolol is even better!”
YESSSS!!!! IT WODL SOLVE IT ALLA!!!! LL!! lzozlzzoozozoz
lzozozzozozooz
HEREIN
GBFM EXALTS DA RED PILLZ RED PILLZZZZZ lzolzlzzlzolz
i can show you the way, neo, but you will have to walk it zlozlzlzozzlozlzlzo
ozlzlz the more you read me and roissy the mroe your life will improve as you come to see the fiat butthex matrix for what it is — you will see the green streams of fiat data (dripping with buttdouche fresh off the butthex presses) like the matrix but with a subltle difference as some of you wieinsteinas have already seen for urself lzozzll
at the ned of the matrix neo saw it as
1010101011110100101
1101001010100101010
1101010101011101001
0101010000010101111
0100101111111101010
1101010101001001001
1101001010101001010
1101001010100001010
0100101010010101010
and when you have walked the path you too will see the butthexing matrix for what it is and how the fed funded the desouling of womenz with massive amounts of douchcock frrom an early age in all tehir orfices and are acting through the soulles temptresses to seize your assetts now when a girl says, “what i really really want is a nice guy, i’m tired of the asswholes (lozlzl who got her younger hotter tighter)” instead of hearing what she says and then trying to be a nice guy you will hear the truth behind the butthexing matrix’s facade lzozlzl:
10101010010110101010101010
10101010101010101010010110
101010z01010z0101l01zzlzozll1
1o1o1o1o1ozozozo1o1o101011
1o1o1o1oozozzozozozozo01011
lozlzlzozlzozlozzlzozlzozlzozzoz1
1010i1o1o1want1010a01010001
douchebag10to butthex me0101
010and i want you 2 buy me100
01meals and a ring while i01011
0101give by butt & vagina01010
010away for free to butthexers1
100who tape it scretely lzozl100
zlzozllzlzlzozlzozzloozzllz and101
1010make my @nus sore for010
1010days010101 101010101011
1010lolsolsoslslollzzlozlzzozlz010
0101pay 4 my meals0101001010
101010and1010maybe1010u1010
1001can1010touch1010my10dry
101001dried1010up110pussy100
101stds stds stds0101010101010
10101buy me 1010a ring1010101
1010for100the1010pussy1010i100
0101gave1010away1010for0101
1010free1010when1010it0was10
100younger1010hotter0110lozlz
lolzlztighter1010and010propose01
1010so1001i1010can0110rape10
1010your101010anus1010in0101
1010divorce01010court1010and01
10transfer010your0101assets1001
1010to1010bernanke1001and1010
1010the1010fiat1010buttheex1010
1001matrix01010lozlzlzlzlzlzzozllzzl
omglzozlzlzllzlzlzzzlzllzlzlzlzlzlzllzlzllz
10lzozllzlz0zzllllzllzllzlzz1ozozlzlzl0
010111010101010101101010101
the sublime act of butthex is a beuatiful metaphor for what the fed does to a currency and a country, which is why the neocon weekly standard celebrates butthexers–es[pecially those who taope it without the girkl’s conthent and profit off the act. lzozlzlzlzl!
[on the war that devastated the Real World]
Morpheus: We don’t know who butthexed first, us or them. But we do know it was them that videotaped it without our consent while scorching the sky wioth a long trail of butthex lies. At the time, they were dependent on butthex power. It was believed they would be unable to survive without an energy source as abundant as the common man’s collective anushole. lozzllzlzlzzl
Trinity: I know why you’re here, Neo. I know what you’ve been doing… why you hardly sleep, why you live alone, and why night after night, you sit by your computer reading roissy & GBFM. You’re looking for him. I know because I was once looking for the same thing. And when he found me, he told me I wasn’t really looking for him. I was looking for an answer. It’s the question that drives us, Neo. It’s the question that brought you here. You know the question, just as I did.
Neo: What is the butthex fiat Mathrix?
Trinity: The answer is out there, Neo, and it’s looking for you, and it will find you if you want it to.
[Neocon sees a black cat walk by them, and then a similar black cat walk by them just like the first one]
Neocon: Whoa. Déjà vu.
[Everyone freezes right in their tracks]
Trinity: What did you just say?
Neocon: Nothing. Just had a little déjà vu.
Trinity: What did you see?
Cypher: What happened?
Neocon: A black cat went past us, and then another that looked just like it.
Trinity: How much like it? Was it the same cat?
Neocon: It might have been. I’m not sure.
Morpheus: Switch! Apoc!
Neocon: What is it?
Trinity: A déjà vu is usually a glitch in the butthexMatrix. It happens when they change something. Now that I am an aging women in the butthex matrix with her eggs and gina drying up having given the best years of her anus to drunk alphas during her college desouling years via massively multiplayer @sscockig in the butt sessions and getting her fiat mba (masters of butthexing in da Anus) and blowing upper level mangement lzozllz, the butthexmatrix is now delivering my cats. Two this morning and now two more. yaya! lozlzl
lozlzlzlzlzl
Morpheus: The Fiat lozllolozllzzl butthex Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. lzozozozozl! But when you’re inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, bloggers, teachers, betas, lawyers, herbs, carpenters, and neocon womenz writing for the weekly standard, repeating the fiat lies of secretive tapers of butthex without teh girls conthent lzozlzlzlzl. The very minds and anush@les of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that butthex system and that makes them our anus’s lozlzlzozzozozl enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unbuttplugged. And many of them are so inured to butthex, so hopelessly dependent on the system of secretive tapings of butthex without tehir conthent, that they will fight to protect it and reapet the lies of secretive tapers of butthex in teh pages of the weekly standard even though they seem to be nice neocon ladies.
[Neo’s eyes suddenly wander towards a woman in a red dress]
Morpheus: Were you listening to me, Neo? Or were you looking at the woman in the red dress (woman as temptress in the heor’s journey myth) who was desouled via copious fiat-funded butthex from butthexers celerbated in teh pages of the weekly standard?
Neo: I was…
Morpheus: [gestures with one hand] Look again.
[the desouled, massively-butthexed woman in the red dress is now a bestselling new york times author, pointing a cock at Neo’s @ss; Neo ducks]
Morpheus: Freeze it.
[Everybody and everything besides Neo and Morpheus freezes in time]
Neo: This… this isn’t the butthex Matrix?
Morpheus: No. It is another training program designed to teach you one thing: if you are not one of us lozlzlzlzlers, you are one of them butthexers.
lozlzlzl
i wanna start lzozlzlzl media where we have a character based on roissy who sees green streams of streaming data every time a bernankified chick opens her moutrh and throughout every episode all the herbs and betas pay for the meals of the chix roissy butthexes in the end due to his supreme knowelge of being THE ONE lzozlzlzllzzl
i would be more like one of those minor characters along for the ride in the mother ship
zlzoozolzol
stanidng off to the side going lzozlzz zlzozlzozlzozlz zlzozllzozlzlzlz and don’t gte me worng i would score with all the hotties but like roissy woudl get first pick for his lead d!ck and i’d get the next two as that’s only fair lzozlzlzlzllzlzllzl
See how info and fun packed the MOSES,JESUS & GBFMosphere would be!?
I almost did a spit take when I read that.
Professor,
Recently something finally dawned on me.
As you know, the Manosphere is full of men who really, really like hierarchical authority. And they also think they are all natural leaders who should be placed in charge, of their wives at the very least, but many of them also like telling other men and women what they must do.
Being natural born leaders, they chafe at being followers. At all. The idea that they would follow anyone other than themselves is heresy akin to “Man up!” Nobody tells them what to do.
So you have a bunch of “leaders” who have no one to lead, but refuse to be followers.
But, by their conception of what leadership is (a matter of hierarchy and rule), they are not leaders. They are not “leading” anyone. They are playacting at leading and clinging to their supposed authority and rule, but it is vacuous.
This is why they use censorship, something typically employed mainly by the far-left: they’ve mistaken authoritarian acts for leadership.
But here I am on this blog. I’m providing actual leadership in a meaningful way. It’s not authority based on the strict hierarchical right of rule, but it is leadership nonetheless. In fact, it is the same kind of leadership that I have in meatspace.
I thought, “why have people in meatspace followed me for decades, but people in the Manosphere do not?” That’s when it occurred to me that the problem isn’t with me, my ability to lead, or with what I’m leading with. The problem is illustrated in the refusal to “be submitting yourselves to one another.” Such a notion is completely antithetical to their worldview. It’s why I wrote in “Absolutely Mystified“:
“The reality is that I’m one of the more openly “everyone come to the table” persons you will meet. I don’t censor viewpoints, but welcome other views that challenge my own. Much to the chagrin of others, I don’t always try to fix other’s errors. In meatspace, I’ve frequently been seen as the group mediator for my propensity to resolve conflict. So, surely, I must be hailed as a great leader and unifier of men. Isn’t unity is the very thing I promote more than anything else?
This focus and approach—along with my insistence on addressing the ideas and avoiding ad hominem—is almost certainly what—ironically—makes me so divisive to the black-and-white religious fundamentalist thinkers that dominate the Manosphere (and who absolutely love ad hominem). I don’t have nearly the same problems in my discussion outside the ‘sphere or, especially, in meatspace.
It should be rather obvious at this point that the reason what I write is so divisive is not the positions that I hold, nor the methods in which I interact with others. Those same views (and methods) do not create anger and rage—what one writer claims is the dominate emotion in society—when I share (and use) them in meatspace. Not a single member of any of the churches that I have preached at have ever complained that I was describing the meanings of words. In meatspace, people who interact with me are civil and generally live-and-let-live.
No, the problem is with the people who are reading what I write and choose to respond the way they do.”
So am I going to start the GBFManosphere? No, because there are not enough followers in the current Manosphere. But I did identify what would have to happen for this to take place.
I’d appreciate if anyone else had any thoughts on this.
Peace,
DR
Here are some more of that classic sharkly ”live and let live” attitude(with the recently returned from three + years ago, AS, ”jack” & Oscar too) Derek!
AngloSaxon says:
2024-07-13 at 1:32 am
I think we are going to get lots of…
“Men and women are equal but different.”
“Me and my boyfriend are equals but I want him to lead.”
“I like it when my man takes the lead but we are still equal.”
“I want a man who puts me in my place when I step out of line, but women are still equal to men.”
Basically verbal affirmation of feminism (which is built on equality) but trying to inch towards patriarchy, but not having much of an idea of what that is. Lots of confusion, opportunities for Christians / Muslims / Pagans to step in and offer a clear vision….. Not sure what colour pill I’d give that.
Sharkly says:
2024-07-13 at 4:00 am
Exactly! As long as women are still blasphemously declared to be the image of our supposedly hermaphrodite god / goddess, and therefore categorically equal to men, then that purported sexual equality remains the undisturbed satanic foundation that Feminism got built on.
God’s word teaches those with ears to hear that men are the image of God.
A man shouldn’t have his head covered, because he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is man’s glory.
1 Corinthians 11:7
…but no human being can tame the tongue — a restless evil, full of deadly poison. 9 With it we bless the Lord and Father, and with it we curse men, who are made in the likeness of God. 10 From the same mouth come blessing and cursing. My brethren, this ought not to be so.
James 3:8
That is why women are told in the Bible to adorn themselves with shamefacedness and to reverence their husbands.
And since women aren’t generally nearly as good at truly abstract thinking, our loving Father gave women a physical image of Himself to serve in His stead. The apocrypha explains the practice.
When people lived too far away to honor a ruler in his presence but were eager to pay honor to this absent king, they would imagine what he must look like, and would then make a likeness of him. 18 The ambitious artists who made these likenesses caused this worship to spread, even among people who did not know the king.
Wisdom14:17
We men were made in the likeness of God, for the glory of God.
Jack says:
2024-07-13 at 5:08 am
AS,
“…trying to inch towards patriarchy, but not having much of an idea of what that is.”
“Not sure what colour pill I’d give that.”
Heh, yep! I would call that an ignorant form of Purple Pill, not to be confused with the willful variety.
This is the crux of the confusion from women’s perspective. Their heads get hung up on the perceived indignity of being humble and of being under men in a hierarchical structure of authority, and they lose sight of the joy of trust and submission.
For those readers who have no clue about what this looks like, I’ll offer the following as a case study.
Maybe some of you have seen videos of the ‘Hawk Tua girl’ that have been trending on social media.
The thing that makes Hawk Tua girl charming (to men) is her Feminine Trust and Joy of Submission. She’s not parroting all the boilerplate talk about equality, masculinity, Strong Independent Women, etc. She just gets right down to the main point with enthusiasm. That is the humility and trust that most women are missing these days.
But as can be seen from the popular reactions to this video, most women either don’t understand why she is appealing to men, or they hate her.
Oscar says:
2024-07-13 at 5:45 am
I don’t find her remotely charming. I just think of how shameful it would be to have such a proud harlot for a daughter.
AngloSaxon says:
2024-07-13 at 6:12 am
Simple is best.
Oscar says:
2024-07-13 at 5:39 am
Basically verbal affirmation of feminism (which is built on equality)
Feminism was never built on equality.
AngloSaxon says:
2024-07-13 at 6:11 am
Uhh have you been living under a rock? Its the basis of everything they do/believe in. Wahmen are equal give us vote. Wahmen are equal give us rightz etc.
Oscar says:
2024-07-13 at 7:34 am
Have you been living under a rock? Marxists always lie. No woman in history has ever wanted equality with men. They all want special treatment. There has never been an exception to this rule. Some are honest about it. The ones who lie about it are feminists.
See?-Oscar at least unlike Sharkly, Anglo Saxon & most others sees right through the feminist marketing of ”equality” as just to make MEN feel warm and fuzzy!
Yeah, saw that. I have a post scheduled for next week with that in. Now it seems redundant. I guess I’ll leave it be.
Update of the above. Here’s some more of that classic double-talk jackian -speak like about supposed ”rows” that NEVER took place or about someone’s ”long wordy screeds”.
”Jack says:
2024-07-13 at 9:55 am
Oscar,
“I don’t find her remotely charming. I just think of how shameful it would be to have such a proud harlot for a daughter.”
Christians are likely to dismiss her authenticity as shameful. I disagree that authenticity is necessarily shameful, but that depends on how you define humility.
Her reaction is quite genuine, so I disagree that she is proud; but that depends on how you define proud.
I would describe her response as ‘unclean’, but we should not expect authentic honesty to appear with propriety, as I described in Dirty Red Pill.
It also depends on the context. If a woman behaves this way with her husband in the bedroom, they probably have a very happy, sanctified marriage. Let us not confuse Coram Mundo vs. Coram Deo.
”I have a post scheduled for next week with that in.Now it seems redundant. I guess I’ll leave it be.”
I vote to still publish it!
Alright. As the warning suggest, the blog is entering auto pilot anyway.
One last update to the above.
Oscar says:
2024-07-13 at 10:12 pm
“Christians are likely to dismiss her authenticity as shameful. I disagree that authenticity is necessarily shameful…”
“Authenticity”? That’s a strange way to spell harlotry. Are you saying that if one of your daughters broadcasted her harlotry to the world you would not feel ashamed?
“It also depends on the context. If a woman behaves this way with her husband in the bedroom, they probably have a very happy, sanctified marriage.”
No kidding. She’s not married. That’s why it’s harlotry, and why it’s shameful.
Jack says:
2024-07-14 at 7:49 am
Oscar,
You are using Christian standards to judge non-Christians. You should know from being around the Manosphere for a while that illicit sex is the default setting for non-Christians. Nevertheless, there are things to be learned from them if you don’t make it personal and can look past the offense. If not, then we can disregard everything we’ve learned from PUAs, Rollo, Roissy, Roosh, et al. They’re all shameful.
Oscar says:
2024-07-14 at 8:42 am
Yeah. God forbid that we should call shameful sin what it is when unbelievers do it. Clearly, no one in the Bible did that.
May 16, 2024, it seems George Chuang posted what Ed Hurst posted on July 11, 2024.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=41GHcYm66mQ
I linked to the video from the manosphere for people to consider it on June 1, 2024.
https://nuncamedesesperare.wordpress.com/2024/06/01/i-dont-think-it-will-take-8-6-years/#comment-2196
I didn’t read Ed’s post, or even all of this post, and its comments, hopefully Ed wasn’t claiming to have originated that interpretation, I don’t recall if George Chuang claimed to have come up with it, but I seem to recollect that he didn’t claim to.
The secret to creativity is knowing how to hide your sources.
Sharkly,
Hurst was not claiming originality. His interpretation is clearly derivative (as is mine, FWIW).
Peace,
DR
Pingback: Eschatology Q&A
Pingback: Eschatology Notes
Pingback: Pompous Pontification | Σ Frame
Pingback: On Prophets and Prophecy
Pingback: The Parable of the Four Soils