I’m not sure how long it will take until I resume my series, but in the meantime, I wanted to include a relevant comment that was posted after I published yesterday’s post, “Genesis 3:16 Revisited.”
So the translations are different because translators cannot decide how to translate an ambiguous passage unambiguously. If it bothers you, then don’t read those translations and don’t be an American Evangelical. Better yet, learn Aramaic and Greek and read the original texts. Then you can be as confused as the translators, but at least people will believe you, except for people like yourself.
Whether or not you believe that Genesis 3:16 refers specifically to women’s desire to control men, it doesn’t change the fact that women are desirous by nature and that some (or most?) women’s desire is misdirected to control men. If it is indeed a heresy, then it’s a true heresy.
First, Jack has not responded to any of Pseudonymous Commenter Firefly’s arguments. He’s simply dodged them, and he suggests that you just dodge the issue too:
That is, of course, a loaded statement.
As a more-or-less American Evangelical, I reject all attempts to introduce doctrine into the church that has been derived from feminism. Not reading the translations doesn’t actually do anything about the problem.
The view that “a husband’s rule was reaffirmed but that now she will desire to strive for control” originates in the 1970s and does not exist before this. Jack has not provided any evidence that would dissuade us from drawing this conclusion. So we must reject the notion that Genesis 3:16 is antagonistic in this way due to the lack of concrete evidence to support it.
Second, in centuries and centuries of translations into a hundred different languages, the translators have not been confused about whether the Hebrew or Greek of Genesis 3:16 should be interpreted in this way:
This includes the English translations. Not even English translators were “confused”… until 1975. No one should think that any of these are correct:
All of these translations—each from this century—are “creative fan fiction.” Had any of us been having this conversation in 1974, no one would have translated it this way and none of us would have argued in favor of that translation.
Third, strictly speaking, it is not confusion at all. It is an artificially created disagreement based on a modern doctrine invented in 1975. The difficulty is not with confusion, but in trying to convince people not to accept a manufactured modern doctrine just because it confirms their biases. To wit:
It isn’t confusion, it is eisegesis. He wants it to be true, and so it must be!
Fourth, imagine, if you will, concluding that America, Ukraine, Israel, or pick-your-favorite alternative, is a country overly obsessed with border issues. Is that an accurate way to describe having your sovereign territory being invaded? Of course not. Let’s call the “obsessed with borders” claim what it really is: shifting the blame and blaming the victim. It’s a plain attempt to dismiss concerns (e.g. dying) by trivializing them. It’s also a rather plain attempt to treat “both sides” as if “each position” is deserving of equal or fair consideration.
The same thing is going on here. There is no confusion among translators. Starting in 1975, some aggressors crossed the line and now the people who support the aggressors are complaining that everyone else is obsessed with original languages and trying to make ambiguous passages unambiguous.
It is a completely disingenuous framing.
Fifth, the ESV has already reverted its confused interpretation from this…
…back to this:
Sixth, there has been some historical debate among translators and historical writers, but it wasn’t whether or not Genesis 3:16 was antagonistic or about control/contrariness. Rather, it was on whether to translate it as “desire for” or “turning towards.” The argument can easily be made that “desire” is a bad translation, as per John Chrysostom:
…
But when she made an ill use of her privilege and she who had been made a helper was found to be an ensnarer and ruined all, then she is justly told for the future, “your turning shall be to your husband” (Genesis 3:16).
Chrysostom’s contemporary Jerome, simply left it out entire from the Latin Vulgate at the turn of the 5th century:
(and thou shalt be under thy husband’s power)
…is not in the Hebrew Tanakh at all. It’s Jerome’s own interpretation and it says nothing about desire for control, but the exact opposite.
This debate over “turning” and “desire” (regarding is various denotations, connotations, and ambiguities) is a completely separate issue from whether “desire” implies contrariness. Moreover, if the word isn’t properly translated as “desire“, then it can’t mean “desire to be contrary” either! Fundamentally, it is an error of logic to presume that any “confusion” pertaining to the ambiguity in that disagreement has anything to do with the separate disagreement over the 1975 novelty.
| Translation(s) | Language | Word Used | English Meaning |
|---|---|---|---|
| Hebrew (Masoretic Text) | Hebrew | תְּשׁוּקָה (tshuwqah) | Turning, longing, desire |
| Septuagint (Greek, c. 300 BC) | Greek | ἀποστροφή (apostrophē) | Turning (toward/away) |
| Peshitta (c. 2nd century AD) | Syriac | ܬܘܩܦܐ (teshuqta) | Desire?, longing?, reconciliation?, turning? |
| Targum Onkelos (c. 2nd–5th century AD) | Aramaic | תַּקְפָּא (taqpa’) | Urge, impulse, strong desire |
| Targum Pseudo-Jonathan (c. 7th–8th century AD) | Aramaic | תקוף (taqof) | Desire, craving |
| Old Latin (Vetus Latina), Latin Vulgate (c. 400 AD) |
Latin | sub viri potestate eris | Paraphrase: “You will be under your husband’s power” (not an exact “desire” word) |
| The Old French Bible (c. 12th century) | Old French | “et ton desir…” | Desire or longing |
| Wycliffe Bible (1382) | Middle English | “thou schalt be vndur power of the hosebonde, and he schal be lord of thee” | Paraphrase: “Thou shalt be under the power of the husband, and he shall be lord of thee” (similar language to Latin Vulgate) |
| Pagnino’s Translation (1528) | Early Modern Italian | lust | First non-Hebrew translation to render “tshuwqah” as “lust,” influencing early English Bibles (Tyndale, Coverdale, Matthew, Great Bible) |
| Tyndale (1525–1535), Coverdale (1535), Matthew Bible (1537), Great Bible / Cranmer’s Bible (1539–1541) | Early Modern English | lust | Desire, longing, craving (older English usage) |
| Geneva Bible (1560) & Bishop’s Bible (1568–1602) | Early Modern English | affection | Emotional desire |
| King James Version (1611 AD) | English | desire | Longing, craving |
| Revised Standard Version (1952 AD) | English | desire | Longing |
| New International Version (1978 AD) | English | desire | Longing |
| ESV (2001 & 2025 AD) | English | desire | Longing (reverted in 2025) |
| ESV (2016) | English | desire contrary to | Desire to oppose or control (shift towards conflict) |
First, Jack has not responded to any of Pseudonymous Commenter Firefly’s arguments. He’s simply dodged them, and he suggests that you just dodge the issue too:
If it bothers you, then don’t read those translations and don’t be an American Evangelical.
That is, of course, a loaded statement.
As a more-or-less American Evangelical, I reject all attempts to introduce doctrine into the church that has been derived from feminism. Not reading the translations doesn’t actually do anything about the problem.
The view that “a husband’s rule was reaffirmed but that now she will desire to strive for control” originates in the 1970s and does not exist before this. Jack has not provided any evidence that would dissuade us from drawing this conclusion. So we must reject the notion that Genesis 3:16 is antagonistic in this way due to the lack of concrete evidence to support it.
Second, in centuries and centuries of translations into a hundred different languages, the translators have not been confused about whether the Hebrew or Greek of Genesis 3:16 should be interpreted in this way:
…your desire will be for your husband, and he will rule over you
…and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee
…and you shall be dependent on your husband, and he shall rule over you.
…you shall turn away from yourself and [now] towards your husband, and he shall rule over you…
…and you shall turn away from all others to focus on your husband, yet he shall rule over you
…and you shall turn away from all others, becoming dependent on your husband, who shall rule over you
…your instinct will be toward your husband, but he will dominate you.
This includes the English translations. Not even English translators were “confused”… until 1975. No one should think that any of these are correct:
…and you will desire to control your husband, but he will rule over you.
…your desire shall be contrary to your husband, but he shall rule over you.
…you will want to control your husband, but he will dominate you.
All of these translations—each from this century—are “creative fan fiction.” Had any of us been having this conversation in 1974, no one would have translated it this way and none of us would have argued in favor of that translation.
Third, strictly speaking, it is not confusion at all. It is an artificially created disagreement based on a modern doctrine invented in 1975. The difficulty is not with confusion, but in trying to convince people not to accept a manufactured modern doctrine just because it confirms their biases. To wit:
It doesn’t change the fact that women are desirous by nature and that some (or most?) women’s desire is misdirected to control men. If it is indeed a heresy, then it’s a true heresy.
It isn’t confusion, it is eisegesis. He wants it to be true, and so it must be!
Does ”good guy” Jack have a problem with the following TRUTH(that keeps women from marrying like he supposedly wants them to)?:
About this entry
You’re currently reading “pretty much every 30+ women’z article of consternation and confusion can be summed up with two questions: 1) where have all da good menz gone? 2) why is my butt sore?,” an entry on Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM(TM) GB4M(TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN(TM) GREATBOOKS4MEN(TM) lzozlzlzlzlzomglzozzl
Published: July 25, 2012 / 12:20 am
pretty much every 30+ women’z article of consternation and confusion can be summed up with two questions: 1) where have all da good menz gone? 2) why is my butt sore?
dalrocka lotsa dalrockacocka writes, “There are many ways the feminist dream can turn into a nightmare. Most of them involve flawed assumptions that men won’t ever adjust to women changing the rules. TheTelegraph has a new article out describing one way this is happening: Love in the time of austerity.”
–http://dalrock.wordpress.com/
hey dlarock lzozozo dalrocks!!
pretty much every 30+ women’z article of consternation and confusion can be summed up with two questions:
1) where have all da good menz gone?
2) why is my butt sore?
so i have made a thong for all of dem to wear on datez:
http://www.cafepress.com/greatbooksformen.653757685
zlzozozo
If he has a problem with ALL the feminismsz going on in America (like VOX supposedly does in his modest but posh BUT modest Manor in Switzerland too)then why are they NOT Leading RP® MEN & women ”million MAN( & wimminz) pro-RP® marches” across America{they could even have Pseudonymous Commenter Kansas(a self-admitted veteran of anti-abortion marches) shouting and dancing wildly fro & to like he used to do back in da day to get the crowds riled up at anti-abortion marches}denouncing Satanic feminism & demanding action be taken by Trump & Musk, immediately to stop Satan & his Satanic feminism?
Derek,
I’ve read your detailed posts on this topic and others, followed your impressive articulate reasoning and conclude that you are without the necessary insight to make any meaningful discussion about these topics worthwhile. In other words, you throw yourself at the problem and miss it completely. You’re like the Douglas Adams character, the Bugblatter Beast from Kraal – the most dangerous creature in the universe – who can be defeated by one means only: by not looking at it. The creature assumes that if you can’t see it, it can’t see you.
The problems many men have in today’s pysychosexual environment that Jack (the other one) et al are trying to help resolve are real. He and others are doing a great service to separate the wheat from the chaff in order to find something nutritious for struggling men to eat. Reading you, on the other hand, is like sifting through chaff to find the oats. The chaff is so much theological scaffolding that has progressively quenched since the Enlightenment, that makes perfect sense if Scripture was a chemistry textbook. The crumbling ruin of the Western church has become so enamored with the scaffolding that the spiritual mortar of church has been chipped away and replaced with the twin idolatries of Western intellectualism and reason.
It’s a spiritless landscape you paint, a barren, uninviting place where shelves of scholarly texts are needed just to make Christianity appealing. It’s like sifting through chaff to find oats. There are better ways to get your porridge. I’ll keep reading but the soul is slowly being starved.
Other Jack,
You have not read my recent comments, have you?
———————————————————————————
It may come as a surprise, but you are not the first to say this. And given your assumptions, I’m inclined to agree with you.
The reason I suggested that you must not be reading my comments—or at the very least, only a casual, occasional reader—is because you obviously do not understand what my purpose is. I agree with you, and your criticism is 100% valid, because I am definitely not trying to solve the problem you think I am trying to solve. That’s just not the reason I write. So while I appreciate the critique, I really do, there really isn’t much I can do with it.
I don’t mean this to be disrespectful to you and your well-intentioned critique, but you are without the necessary insight to make any meaningful or worthwhile discussion about my motivations. In other words, you’ve thrown yourself at the problem, but missed it completely.
It’s a shame, because you sound like the kind of deeply thoughtful person I would really enjoy interacting with, but you don’t understand me at all.
Among other things, I’m a dual ENTP (Debater) / ENFP (Campaigner). What comes out in dominate form on this blog is the ENTP side. What most people do not see is the ENFP. This causes people to misread me, because my F is just as strong as my P, if you can believe it. Most can’t (unless they know me in meatspace or are married to me).
Have you read Bruce Charlton’s “Not Even Trying?” You’ve spoken positively about him in the past. Maybe that book will clear up any confusion about my motivations.
It genuinely pains me—out of concern and hesitation—to respond to the rest of your comment, in fear of saying the wrong thing.
A couple days ago a new commenter E stopped by and more-or-less suggested here that the problems Jack (the other one) et al. are trying to solve are not significant. I disagreed….. but I also did not rigidly treat the Manosphere’s position as the only valid alternative.
My issue with the Manosphere is not with the problems it is trying to solve, but with the solutions it is offering. I wrote about that here just today [and here tomorrow]. I’ve long written about unity, and Jack (the first one) has long requested that I write more on the topic—which he considers to be the best way for me to substantially contribute to suffering men—but no one is ready to hear it.
A week ago my readers were getting restless because I was so heavily hyper-focused on one issue and not letting other topics distract me. This genuinely bothered a number of people. So I wrote “Matters of Faith” to provide balance. See, they thought I was being too extreme and neglecting the more important things (like you seem to think I am doing), but I was merely being detailed and precise. So I wrote that article because God’s power can overridee anything and that’s what people needed to hear.
Yes, yes it is. And I explain why here.
I’ve been viciously attacked and slandered. My name—which is notably my actual name—has been dragged through the mud. So I am responding in the way that Christ has instructed us to respond in such cases.
If you wish to avoid sifting through the chaff—assuming you find it a good use of your time—you’ll have to stay here and form a relationship with me. I’m willing if you are, but you are under no obligation. Otherwise, I will continue to be obtuse. Intentionally. But it’s not personal and no offense is intended.
It’s really funny that you say that, because I find the meaning of Genesis 3:16 to be nuanced and insighful. I believe the original Hebrew and Greek (from the Septuagint) form a beautiful play on words with a double meaning as reflected in the natural way-of-thinking of the ancient Hebrews. Did you read my earlier nuanced analysis in these comment threads, where I hinted at this? She how I explained it here.
It’s the Red Pill wisdom that the Manosphere ascribes to that I’d claim sounds like a chemistry textbook. It is static and rigid. What I describe is flexible, dyanmic, and diverse, like my interpretation of Genesis 3:16. To be clear: my arguments are, perhaps, static and rigid (i.e. rigorous), but what they imply opens up a variety of ways of thought, experience, and choice.
Is your objection because you don’t agree with me on my interpretation or is it because you think I’ve genuinely made a mistake? In light of what I just said, think before you answer.
Look, we’re not going to agree on this. I believe that Radix Fidem subscribes to a false facade of ancient Hebrew-ness masking pagan Greek mysticism. I’ve documented these errors on so many occasions, that it does not need repeating. But if you have trouble finding them, I can bring them out. Just ask.
The massive irony of your statement is that I’ve twice in 24 hours stated, in no uncertain terms, my complete rejection of the Western church. Indeed, I’ve criticized the Manosphere—including Radix Fidem’s Sigma Frame—for failing to do so.
You must be operating under different metaphysical assumptions than I am for you to say what you are saying.
No matter how many times I say “you don’t need shelves of scholarly texts” and “you don’t have to know Greek, Hebrew , or Aramaic” and “the least among us are our leaders” the outsiders still make this same claim over and over again that you have also made here.
I wish it were otherwise, but you lack the relationship with me that I have with the Professor, Jason, and Liz. Some of those relationships go back many years and includes much personal information.
I suspect you are looking for a vibrancy of the spirit in a different place from where I am looking for it. I’ve found it and it is wonderful. I assure you that I have had certain members of a certain group approach me privately and inform me that I’m missing out. In doing so they reveal that they’ve set the very limits on faith and the outpouring of the spirit that they claim to have escaped.
I don’t know if the same holds with you or not. Perhaps we just approach things differently and it is no more complicated than that. But I don’t have a relationship with you, so I do not know.
I get very little engagement on this blog. People refuse to have anything to do with me. But I’ve had wonderful fellowship with people outside the Manosphere. I’ve had highly constructive interactions with others, such as the Roman Catholic Betty whose last comment said:
The common factor in what you identify as barren and univiting comes from a certain subset of the internet. I don’t experience it elsewhere, and I don’t experience it in meatspace. The common factor is not me. Perhaps you can appreciate the implication of that.
You leave me speechless and unsettled. I would another outcome.
Peace,
DR
Not sure. I’ll dig around and be suitably chastised if I’ve mis-characterized.
[Note: See my other response here]
Jack,
I’ll be as honest and forthcoming as I can possibly be. I do not understand how you can fail to see that your statement here…
…
The chaff is so much theological scaffolding that has progressively quenched since the Enlightenment, that makes perfect sense if Scripture was a chemistry textbook. The crumbling ruin of the Western church has become so enamored with the scaffolding that the spiritual mortar of church has been chipped away and replaced with the twin idolatries of Western intellectualism and reason.
…is at odds with reality:
We can also add the axiom that a consistently submissive, sweet, sexy attitude from a man’s wife makes her almost irresistibly attractive to him.
The guy who believes to the core of his being that his slightly overweight 5 of a wife is the most beautiful woman in the world is a result of her attitude and actions towards him.
And, as I was rooting around for my writings that you had missed, I found this from a year ago:
There has been much talk about how my own approach has been divisive, even going so far as to call it persecution. This is gaslighting that covers how the Christian manosphere has become increasingly dogmatic, rules-based, authoritarian. If the early pioneers of the manosphere were its apostles and saints, the current iteration are the successors who are bureaucratizing and canonizing it.
The people you defend repeatedly establish new axioms, commandments, rules, regulations, laws, maxims, protocols, methods, procedures, codifications, and organizational charts. Jack @ Sigma Frame has 42 axioms that he subscribes to (and, per here, that’s not all of them), and who knows how many Corollaries! Charlton described Sigma Frame as the most Postivist site he’s ever seen. Chateau Heartiste gave 16 commandments. Illimitable Men gave 290 maxims.
The Manosphere has treated male/female relationships as if you can describe and manipulate them like chemical formulae and chemical reactions.
How do you explain this?
You speak of treating scripture as a chemistry textbook, so why is it that you defend those who do precisely that? Why do you suggest that I am treating it in the same way?
Over the years, I have explicitly stated one axiom at this blog. Just one. And, yes, I did checked all 45 articles where I mention axioms. I have neither defined, established, nor expressed any rules that are not contained within the scope of that single axiom. Everything else I leave to personal discernment and wisdom.
The Christian mystic almost certainly holds more axioms than I do (but he would probably never use the term “axiom” to describe them).
Most of the words I express are designed to tear down that which others have added, which are not contained within the scope of that solitary axiom. They are attempts to simplify that which people have made unnecessarily complex.
Most of the criticisms I receive are rooted in a different set of axioms that I do not subscribe to. In short, they are nothing more than disagreements of my ideas without any attempt to engage with their substance (including to explain why my axiom is inferior to some other(s)). The criticisms you’ve leveled at me apply not to me, but to those who disagree with me.
Fourth, imagine, if you will, concluding that America, Ukraine, Israel, or pick-your-favorite alternative, is a country overly obsessed with border issues. Is that an accurate way to describe having your sovereign territory being invaded? Of course not. Let’s call the “obsessed with borders” claim what it really is: shifting the blame and blaming the victim. It’s a plain attempt to dismiss concerns by trivializing them. It’s also a rather plain attempt to treat “both sides” as if “each position” is deserving of equal or fair consideration.
The same thing is going on here.
Peace,
DR
That is what i think of most of the ”Christian” manosphere for all these years.
A bunch of ”Bible-thumping” ”Christians” infiltrated a mostly agnostic and atheist place I.E. THE Roissyosphere full of game(and rather than make disciples for CHRIST they instead happily became disciples of game) then they ”institutionalized” & ”intellectualized” ”game” as being somehow Christian and that learning it was more important than the entire Bible and even asked the following(in the following post)
”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?”
with:
The short answer is yes. The Bible should be all you need.
and
and
Game will help you stop rejecting and being ashamed of the Bible when it comes to men and women. Game will help you understand that your wife wants and needs to look up to you. She needs you to lead her and at times overrule her emotions with your strength of will and frame. It will also help you understand that women aren’t the morally superior sex that our foolish culture claims they are.
Does thou Jack think ”All Scripture is God-breathed [given by divine inspiration] and is profitable for instruction, for conviction [of sin], for correction [of error and restoration to obedience], for training in righteousness [learning to live in conformity to God’s will, both publicly and privately—behaving honorably with personal integrity and moral courage]; 17 so that the [a]man of God may be complete and proficient, outfitted and thoroughly equipped for every good work.?”-2 Timothy 3:14-17-amplified
If you do then why do you side with the gamers and butthexters against Derek, MOSES, JESUS & GBFM(who preach salvation and deliverance to the prisoners of bad marriages and to the enslavement of sin-for all those that sin are the slaves of sin?
If you believe that the Western church by way of the Holy Scriptures once made Western civilization GREAT, then why do you think Western civilization might be helped by the (other) Jack’s intellectualism,game, and ”risque” pics, if i may ask 100% seriously?
Professor and Jack,
I’ve seen this Dalrock quote before, but I’m reading it in a new light now. I agree with what Dalrock said: what the Manosphere teaches is only required if you don’t fully embrace Christianity and you don’t fully reject pagan philosophies. And, it is incomplete.
But if you embrace the Red Pill and it “works,” then why would you ever want or need to embrace what Christianity has to offer? It is a suitable replacement for Christ and the “biblical frame.” See my comment from yesterday, which says in part:
Game treats women like they are animals to be psychologically manipulated. The Manosphere goes on-and-on about “female nature” (but then complains when you talk about the role of intelligence: actual human nature). That’s because the Manosphere is full of black-and-white males who want the world to be static.
Static is “every woman is this way” with the idea that “you can follow this script for success.” But dynamic is “each woman behaves differently according to her intelligence” with the idea that “there is no one-size-fits-all approach.” The Manosphere really does not like the idea that women have meaningful differences. Nope, one-size-fits-all doctrines is what they prefer.
Jack @ Sigma Frame and I have long disagreed because “headship” is a biblical anachronism: it isn’t found in the Bible. Like Game (and “control” in Genesis 3:16), “headship” is a made-up concept. It can, conceivably, help some men, but implementing it in a bad marriage likely means that you’ll never achieve what God wants for your marriage: true unity of mind, body, and spirit.
Patriarchal headship is legalistic, hierarchical, and transactional rather than self-sacrificial. I’ve never seen a single Manosphere case study where a marriage based on patriarchal headship led to true unity. I’ve asked for people to provide case studies, and have received nothing. There are tons of examples of complementarian and egalitarian marriages that are seemingly successful, but not patriarchal marriages.
Perhaps it is as Commenter E says, those with good marriages simply fade into the background and become inconspicuous once this occurs. But, if that is what is happening, it means that once a man acquires a good marriage, he leaves the Manosphere to its fate.
This is why I’ve said that the Manosphere should be focused solely on evangelism, on following the Great Commission, rather than trying to push an incomplete solution.
I’ve often written on this blog (in the comments) that modern man does not want what Christ has to offer. Bruce Charlton has also written about this. Modern man reads 1 Peter and the promises that Peter made about the future life to come in response to the suffering here-and-now and this does not resonate with most men. They don’t want their problems to be solved in the life-to-come, they want them solved now. And they’ll do whatever it takes to make that happen. See here, here, and especially here and here. I’ve also described it in “On Suffering.”
I’ll finish with this quote which summarizes my view…
Nowadays in the West it is quite normal for previously devout churchgoing Christians to experience that their faith is At Least strongly challenged by extreme adversity; by personal experience of the evils of this mortal life.
Yet, there really is very little evidence of this happening in the first 3/4 of Christianity – it is recorded, but exceptional – despite at-least equally great (perhaps greater) human suffering.
Indeed the opposite was more usual: the assumption that the more humans suffered, the more devoutly Christian they became.
It was indeed a commonplace that peace, prosperity, and comfort were the main enemies of Christianity.
…and with my follow-up comment…
In doing so, they’ve found salvation to be incomplete and unnecessary. [Peter’s solution] simply isn’t important or relevant.
Modern man does not desire or see a need for salvation.
…and…
Modern man seeks reduced suffering as its highest ideal.
This isn’t a Christian ethic. It is utilitarianism.
When I focused on removing false faith on the Sigma Frame blog, I was told instead to focus on solving the suffering of men. Inherent in that very claim is that removing false faith and replacing it with real faith was not a valid solution to suffering.
This illustrates Charlton’s point precisely. Modern man does not view the promise of salvation and glory as the solution to suffering, for modern man views suffering as an impediment to a properly functioning Christian life; an indication that his walk with Christ is somehow inferior. He cannot understand what 1 Peter is saying because he does not have the mind for it. It is an alien concept that he has rejected.
The Red Pill is utilitarianism wrapped up in an Christian facade.
Peace,
DR
Charlton just wrote about this in “Prosperity Gospel Lite”
Implications about this mortal existence flow backwards from this post-mortal intent.
There is no general reason why “being a Christian” would necessarily lead towards a “successful” (high status, wealthy, comfortable, pleasurable, healthy, pain-free) mortal life; and indeed there are plenty of reasons why it would not.
Patriarchal headship is legalistic, hierarchical, and transactional rather than self-sacrificial. I’ve never seen a single Manosphere case study where a marriage based on patriarchal headship led to true unity. I’ve asked for people to provide case studies, and have received nothing. There are tons of examples of complementarian and egalitarian marriages that are seemingly successful, but not patriarchal marriages.
Most of the time when i talk about being a Patriarchist -i’m mostly talking about providing a sanctuary/covering away from the ever-veering further left culture,” Christians”(like the ones who sneak around and slander you under the disguise of supposedly ”loving the brotherhood and Holy Patriarchy that doesn’t exist in the manosphere nor world” & their world of ”Christian”(which is always only on the surface as in saying JESUS & AMEN-NOT of the heart) ”good guy” Republicans & Democrats.
This is why i agreed with radio host Michael Savage back in 2007 after video of the Execution of Saddam Hussein was leaked on the internet saying ”you think that our politicians would face death as stoically and unflinching as Saddam Hussein did ? Or would they be begging for their lives?”
This reminds me of why Mark Driscoll’s version of what one may call ”bullying ( ”tough guy”pseudo-RP-in how it tells MEN their ”’must-dos” as he did )Christianity” that was mostly liked by the Christians/wimminz that he wasn’t doing his ”bullying Christianity” too.-SHOCKING right? Like the latter-day sphere that wonders”WHERE , OH WHERE IS ALL YOUNG MEN THAT WE WANT TO ”ENCOURAGE”?”
Answer?:
Their(mainly calling themselves ”blackpillers”) stay as far away from their Mark Driscoll-like ”bullying Christianity” as possible as they can.
i knew from the first time i heard about the ”cussing preacher”(his nickname from the late 2000s) that he was being pushed and liked by those who weren’t on the receiving end of his
”bullying Christianity” I.E. mainly women, other preachers, parents and grandparents which is why he was defrocked and disgraced only when he committed the most heinous of ALL sins and crimes-yelling at a woman!!!-as one ”brave” ” MAN” after another came forth(in 2014) admitting they had heard him do it(long after it had happened of course)!
i first found out about driscol when i found his site under a Google search about marriage in 2006-their was FAQ about marriage-which was where he was talking about how a wife could still ”tickle her husbands pickle” with at least ”oral sex” while she’s pregnant”.
i had NEVER heard a preacher talking so blatantly sexually like that as i thought ”it must be some ”new age Christianity” trying to be popular with the ”new normal” of proud Clinton BUT ”Conservative” oral sexers -who just a decade earlier were acting like TV shows like ”married with children” and ”NYPD blue’ ‘were going to ”destroy this Christian nation”(which had actually happened long before that)-but they themselves were somehow ”traditionalists” and ”average hard-working Americans” like thrice divorced Rush Limbaugh said of himself.:
Of all the still available of Mark Driscol being the proto-type of the ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader WE see today the following one is my FAVE:
https://julieroys.com/mark-driscoll-tries-to-justify-how-dare-you-sermon-but-facts-dont-match-testimony-others/
Of all the still available of Mark Driscol being the proto-type of the ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader WE see today the following one is my FAVE:
WHY?
HERE:
Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill in 2014, after an internal investigation at the church found Driscoll guilty of “arrogance,” “a quick temper,” and leading “in a domineering manner.” He then moved to Scottsdale, Arizona, and launched The Trinity Church, where some former staff have accused him of cult-like actions, like mandated loyalty and 24/7 surveillance of members.
Driscoll preached his infamous sermon, entitled “Marriage and Men,” at Mars Hill in 2009. It has been used by critics to highlight what they say is Driscoll’s angry and abusive leadership.
A former Mars Hill member told Mike Cosper, host of the extremely popular podcast The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, that the sermon typified Driscoll’s core message.
“That message was, You suck, do better, do like me,” Cosper recalls.
Clips from that sermon have now gone viral on social media.
Driscoll screaming “How dare you!” was also mixed into the song, “Sticks and Stones,” by King’s Kaleidoscope and featured in the signature open of The Rise and Fall podcast. (The producers of the podcast eventually removed Driscoll’s sound byte from the open at the request of Chad Gardner, who wrote “Sticks and Stones.”)
But in a video posted last Sunday, Driscoll claims that his anger in the sermon was justified. And to his “critics and enemies that have used it,” Driscoll says, “shame on you.”
Driscoll’s explanation of what ‘triggered’ his anger
According to Driscoll’s recent video, the infamous sermon came a few years after his wife, Grace, had revealed to him that she had been sexually assaulted before the couple had met. Driscoll said the news “wrecked” him.
Yet, as Grace began to tell her story in the church, more women felt safe to come forward with their stories of abuse, Driscoll said.
“And the thought of men doing these things to not just daughters, but God the Father’s daughters—it just made me furious,” he added.
Driscoll said that on the day he gave the sermon, women were coming up to him between services and sharing their abuse stories with him. “And by the end of the day, I was completely emotionally devastated and angry and furious at all the damage done to women, starting with my wife.”
Then, Driscoll said he heard an especially tragic story, which “triggered” him, before what was “probably the sixth or seventh sermon of the day. I just preached myself, literally, almost to death on a few occasions.”
Before that last sermon, Driscoll said an 18-year-old African American woman told him she was born out of rape, and her mother didn’t allow her to meet her father because he wasn’t safe. But after turning 18, she flew out to meet with her dad. He then raped her, Driscoll said.
“I honestly started crying so hard, I threw up—and then preached the sermon,” Driscoll said.
It was this sermon that was recorded and eventually went viral, Driscoll said.
SEE?He had compassion for wimminz and zero for MEN-does that NOT sound like your average ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader ?But their compassion is limited usually to their daughter-wimminz and( of course) zero to MEN(HUGE significant difference huh?)
One other still available Mark Driscoll link?:
https://www.aaronrenn.com/p/newsletter-77-mark-driscolls-gender
Mark Driscoll is the former pastor of the now defunct Seattle megachurch Mars Hill Church. Driscoll was a mega-celebrity in his heyday, attracting 14,000 people to his multi-site church, appearing on major network television, and becoming an innovator in podcasting and videocasting his sermons. His charisma; his brash, edgy style; and his stand-up comic style delivery helped him draw a large audience of young hipsters and creatives in one of America’s most secular cities. This success in that environment, especially in reaching younger men, was a big part of his claim to fame. He was plugged in with a who’s who of New Calvinist superstars. He was a founding member of the council of the Gospel Coalition, and was promoted by the likes of John Piper.
A cascade of scandals that included various allegations such as plagiarism, paying to get one of his books on the New York Times bestseller list, and inappropriate use of funds from his Mars Hill Global venture eventually did him in. Driscoll resigned from Mars Hill, which promptly imploded. He later moved to Arizona and started a new venture called the Trinity Church. It appears to be successful, although Driscoll’s popularity is a shadow of what it once was.
The story of Mark Driscoll and Mars Hill was covered in an extremely popular podcast called The Rise and Fall of Mars Hill, produced by Christianity Today magazine.
I noted last a fews weeks ago that Jordan Peterson’s daughter now attends Driscoll’s church, and was tweeting endorsements of him, which I thought was an interesting convergence.”
That’s SHOCKING huh?-” Jordan Peterson’s daughter now attends Driscoll’s church-BUT why wouldn’t a latter-day manosphere idol’s RP® princess/Goddess daughter go to a ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader-type church is my answer!
The only ones that are RP® who definitely wouldn’t go to Driscol’s ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader-type church?
Is the latter-day manosphere ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leaders themselves as they would NEED their name & pictures predominately displayed in their ”bullying Christianity” RP® Genius Leader churchian church to the ”glory of Dalawd!” of course!
“That message was, You suck, do better, do like me,” Cosper recalls.
Sounds a bit like the Manosphere.
Blankslatists have no explanation for this.
Nor this.
However, on July 29, 2018, while cycling through Tajikistan, they and two other cyclists (one from the Netherlands and one from Switzerland) were attacked and murdered by five men who had pledged allegiance to ISIS. The attackers used a car to run them off the road before stabbing and shooting them. The terrorist group later released a video showing the attackers swearing allegiance to ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi.
Their deaths shocked the international travel and adventure community and raised discussions about the risks of cycling through certain regions.
Nor this.
Scripture states that all men are born fallen. All people are inherently bad. There is not a single one who is naturally good, excepting God himself, absent the redemption of Christ. Without Jesus, life is a spiritless, barren, uninviting landscape. It is absolute folly to try to fix mankind without giving them Jesus first.
Paul J Watson did a video about this recently concerning India.
I lived there for about nine months in 1997 and it was a different time but even then……western women (white) were encouraged to be with a male companion, her boyfriend or hubby while out and about outside the tourist areas of New Delhi, Bombay and Calcutta.
I wasnt bothered much while in India. In a nightclub in Bombay on night……a few local men didn’t like “Britishers” in the club. I explained I was an American, and that just made it worse. My friends Sandeep and Jaswinder thankfully cooled it down and everything was okay.
I would hear stories of course of many Indian women and western white women being abducted, raped, hauled off / whisked away to some smaller town. Never to be found.
The videos encouraging single n’ sexy white women to travel to India astound me. These women are convinced because its “brown people” they must be communal and caring. Even the Indians I knew in India knew when to call trash actual trash.
“Just because the bathroom is filthy does not require me to walk or wade through it” Jaswinder once said.
The problem also lies in two factors:
*Western women think and believer that laws, customs, and rules from the USA or any other modern western republic seem to apply in other countries. There may be some law and order in areas of cities or some tourists sites….but even I saw firsthand when there……the law is held by those with the most sticks in some areas and vast swaths of the in-between areas. I did see a man being beaten with rods (sticks) from a train car as we sped past outside Madras, the local police were doing it. I was told it was “probably” a thief who was caught or adultery, or rape…if it was murder, I was told “his carcass would be on the road, vultures would be eating from it”
Even through the closed window, and over the train noise, I could hear his agonizing screams.
*I dont know how all these “empowered” and “sexy” and “amazing” white women have money, time and the budget to do all the traveling they do.
It reminded me of when I was in college……and there would be a really drunk gal at a party with mostly men (who were also drunk), dressed really scantily, screaming at the top of her lungs, while standing on a table “Im soooo f*cking drunk and horny!”
No, rape is wrong and people who do this SHOULD have theirs cut off, but coming to a party like this, assuming you will be safe, and behaving like this, and not having a friend with you is dangerous.
When my father was teaching me how to drive….decades ago back in New York State I would say “Yeah, but that guy is breaking law / is in the wrong”
My dad replied “True, but it doesnt matter what laws he breaks if you’re dead”
If there is such a thing as “rape culture” (the term feminists and leftists use), then it is in India. I wouldn’t suggest that American women go there, especially not if they are traveling without men on a virtue-signaling “mission of peace and harmony.”
India is a very low trust culture. It’s nothing like America’s high trust culture. America is becoming a lower trust culture, but it’s nowhere at the level of India.
Your father had it right, I think.
Scripture states that all men are born fallen. All people are inherently bad. There is not a single one who is naturally good, excepting God himself, absent the redemption of Christ. Without Jesus, life is a spiritless, barren, uninviting landscape. It is absolute folly to try to fix mankind without giving them Jesus first.
YES!
P.S.Derek
Remember ALL the recent talk of ”luck” & ” assortive mating” usually leads to people getting what they ”want” in relationships &marriages?
Well as Roissy=Heartiste used to say Science! proves it here in this very study from 2023
A sweeping new analysis including data from millions of couples shows that birds of a feather flock together
Date: September 5, 2023
Source: University of Colorado at Boulder
Summary:
A new study looked at more than 130 traits and involved millions of couples over more than a century. It found little evidence that opposites attract. Instead, for 82% to 89% of traits, partners tended to be similar.
Opposites don’t actually attract.
That’s the takeaway from a sweeping CU Boulder analysis of more than 130 traits and including millions of couples over more than a century.
“Our findings demonstrate that birds of a feather are indeed more likely to flock together,” said first author Tanya Horwitz, a doctoral candidate in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and the Institute for Behavioral Genetics (IBG).
The study, published Aug. 31 in the journal Nature Human Behaviour, confirms what individual studies have hinted at for decades, defying the age-old adage that “opposites attract.”
It found that for between 82% and 89% of traits analyzed — ranging from political leanings to age of first intercourse to substance use habits — partners were more likely than not to be similar.
For only 3% of traits, and only in one part of their analysis, did individuals tend to partner with those who were different than them.
Aside from shedding light on unseen forces that may shape human relationships, the research has important implications for the field of genetic research.
“A lot of models in genetics assume that human mating is random. This study shows this assumption is probably wrong,” said senior author and IBG Director Matt Keller, noting that what is known as “assortative mating” — when individuals with similar traits couple up — can skew findings of genetic studies.
Looking back more than a century
For the new paper, the authors conducted both a review, or meta-analysis, of previous research and their own original data analysis.
For the meta-analysis, they looked at 22 traits across 199 studies including millions of male-female co-parents, engaged pairs, married pairs or cohabitating pairs. The oldest study was conducted in 1903.
In addition, they used a dataset called the UK Biobank to study 133 traits, including many that are seldom studied, across almost 80,000 opposite-sex pairs in the United Kingdom.
Same sex couples were not included in the research. Because the patterns there may differ significantly, the authors are now exploring those separately.
Across both analyses, traits like political and religious attitudes, level of education, and certain measures of IQ showed particularly high correlations. For instance, on a scale in which zero means there is no correlation and 1 means couples always share the trait, the correlation for political values was .58.
Traits around substance use also showed high correlations, with heavy smokers, heavy drinkers and teetotalers tending strongly to partner up with those with similar habits.
Opposites don’t actually attract.
So is Pseudonymous Commenter and Pseudonymous Commenter Taiwan want to give us ALL their studies that disprove the above?
i found out about the above study from Anna Akana’s latest satire video from 2 hours ago here:
Couples share 89% of values, study says opposites don’t attract
SEE?
As she says couples even aligned on how much water they consumed.
Does anybody still want to yell at Derek?
No kidding! Who could have seen that coming?
It’s easy to spot differences, but much hard to spot similarities. Most people are just completely clueless about how similar their mates are and how dissimilar they are to other people’s mates.
This is why I don’t understand why the Manosphere constantly harps on women that they shouldn’t even be considering… unless they are naturally attracted to that kind of woman because they are most similar to themselves.
————————————————
I got my son this for Christmas this year:
Next up on my reading list is:
It’s fairly ironic that the Manosphere is guilty of denying human nature when it can’t stop talking about it.
Professor,
You forgot to quote the blankslatist disclaimer:
Remember, if you admit that biological differences are real, you are a NAZI!
Peace,
DR
Professor,
This will amuse you:
Guess which traits I am opposite of my wife on? You got it. Good guess!
I’ve noticed that people do not, in general, marry someone with exactly the same personality traits as themselves. Half of all marriages will be an extrovert married to an introvert. They might share something in common or they may not, but more often than not, the specific combination of multiple personality traits yields a dissimilar result.
You’ll never guess whether or not my wife shares the same personality as I do. 😉
The researcher has missed the point. With assortative mating, people tend to find someone similar to them. Greater than 80% of traits will be similar. People only tend to notice the ~10-20% of differences. The same is true of extroversion and introversion. People have noticed that these are more commonly dissimilar than would be expected for assortative pairing. And so they, rightly, conclude that extroverts are more likely to end up with an introvert in relative—not absolute—terms.
I suspect that this accounts for 90% of the “opposites attract” belief.
Peace,
DR
It’s easy to spot differences, but much hard to spot similarities. Most people are just completely clueless about how similar their mates are and how dissimilar they are to other people’s mates.
The main thing i think helped me with females of any age?
Was my falling in love with a girl at age 7, way before ALL the hormones kicked in as a teen and adult that would make me more likely to be blind to any traits that were NOT in the least little bit sexual in nature as my love for my first girlfriend was 98% based on how comfortable and at peace she made me feel when WE were alone together at recess every weekday,with just 2% of it based on how pretty she was, which to me was just a happy bonus to the comfortability and peace she gave me each weekday for an hour.
You’ve mentioned this before, and I know exactly what you are talking about.
Now, compare your experience to “Dave from Hawaii” gaming his wife. The differences are like night and day.
I’ve never envied a single Red Pill-inspired relationship.
Pingback: Saturday Misadventures - Derek L. Ramsey
Pingback: Genesis 3:16 Revisted 3.0 - Derek L. Ramsey