In “Hellenization,” we discussed Jack at Sigma Frame’s embrace of Radix Fidem and Greek-inspired (Hellenistic) pagan mysticism. We contrasted this with Jesus’ mind-focused teaching in the Shema, the Greatest Commandment.
We also pointed out that sola scriptura—the ultimate and final authority of the written Word of God—is mutually incompatible with any other form of earthly authority that man can apply to the Word (and Will) of God. There exists no possible compromise that can bridge the gap between sola scriptura and the insufficiency of scripture. And we noted that Jack (and Radix Fidem) assert the latter:
IMHO, one should consider ALL of these views when reflecting upon his Maker and his purpose for living, including the 3 I added, as well as a healthy dose of introspection and prayer. Personally, I believe God uses different sources of authority to speak to individual men, so it’s worth identifying which one that is for you. (I’m NOT saying “pick and choose”, I’m saying pay attention to how God speaks to you and how He works with you.) For me, there was a time in my life when confusion over scripture caused me to stumble, and I spent a few years searching for how to recover my faith. (Click on the links to read more.) So I’ve found that I need to concentrate on that which reinforces my faith (i.e. Prima Fide and Fidem Scriptura). This is partly what attracts me to Radix Fidem.
Mysticism has replaced the sufficiency of scripture with ungrounded, arbitrary authority and theology.
Let’s examine how this happened.
Radix Fidem teaches that the post-exilic Jews embraced Greek philosophy (including Aristotelian logic) and abandoned Ancient Near East Hebrew mysticism, and so were corrupted and went astray.
Yet, most curiously, when we look at the modern first century takes on the ancient Shema, we do not see Jesus disagreeing with the Pharisees on the use of the mind and critical thinking. No, we see Jesus and the teachers of the Law being in complete agreement!
We agree with Radix Fidem that the Phariseed believes in the use of critical thinking and reliance on the mind in order to know the will of God. This is why, for example, Paul—a Pharisee—taught exactly that:
Therefore, I urge you, brothers and sisters, by the mercies of God, to present your bodies as a sacrifice—living, holy, and pleasing to God—which is your reasonable service. And do not be conformed to the pattern of this age, but be transformed by the renewing of your mind [Greek: nous; mind, intellect], so that you can test and approve what the will of God is—what is good and pleasing and perfect.
Let no one deceive you with empty words, for because of these things the wrath of God comes upon those who are disobedient. Therefore, do not take part in these things with them, for at one time you were darkness, but now in the Lord you are light. Walk as children of light (for the fruit of the light consists in all goodness and righteousness and truth), discerning [Greek: dokimazo; test, prove, examine] what is pleasing to the Lord.
When the teacher of the Law posited this same belief in Luke, we find that Jesus agreed with him:
And Look! A certain lawyer stood up, testing him, saying,
And Jesus said to him,
And he, answering, said,
And he said to him,
Given the testimony found in Matthew 22:37 and Mark 12:30, we find Jesus himself affirmatively repeated this teaching. And given that English translators and commentators elsewhere use the word “mind” in place of the Greek and Hebrew word “heart,” we find the following translation to be faithful to what Jesus taught:
And he said to him,
It seems rather plain that the Pharisaic emphasis on the mind did not actually help them use their mind to love God. The problem wasn’t their use of the mind, rather, it was the misapplication of the mind.
Now, given its relative hostility towards using the mind, it is no wonder, then, that Radix Fidem calls placing the Word of God above all else as “bibliolatry.” Scripture itself stands against the principles they hold dear! One Radix Fidem writer put it this way:
Your brain cannot perceive divine truth.
What a stark contrast this statement is to the words of Jesus himself!
So, then, it is also no wonder that in Jack’s testimony at Sigma Frame he writes:
After several years, I learned how to get myself spiritually fed with no Bible at all! A lot of people refuse to believe me on this, but it’s true. I think perhaps it was possible for me, partly because I was already well-versed in scripture, as a result of my growing up in a Baptist Church.
Oh, I believe him. You can see why he doesn’t believe scripture is the sufficient Word of God after reading his developmental and experiential account of how he came to believe just that.
Well, he then goes on to note that after he became disconnected from the Word of God due to discontent…
I did not read the Bible and pray every day, but rather, once every two or three days. But whenever I did, I would read several chapters at once, and I did a lot of contemplation and soul searching. I was content with my habits, because God spoke to me, and I was always fed, spiritually.
…
But as time went on, God stopped talking to me through my morning devotions, and the newness and novelty died away. Jay also became more and more critical, and I began to fear our confrontations, because I had nothing new to tell him.
A couple weeks after I recognized that God stopped talking to me through my early-morning disciplines, I gave up my vain discipline.
…
God still wasn’t talking to me, and soon I despised trying to read the Bible. I wouldn’t even touch a Bible for more than a year and a half, because it was repulsive to me.
I do believe that my own spiritual life and experiences are extraordinarily unique. God typically uses other people and His Word, to speak to people, as their lives are being transformed “from glory to glory”. So, I strongly suggest that others continue their daily reading of God’s Word, for as long as God speaks to you there. The written Word will convince you of His truths and realign your thought processes, as you regularly read the Bible.
Simultaneously, develop regular habits of prayer and worship.
…prayer then became his lifeline:
My lessons in prayer began first. With my life in a shambles, and getting nothing out of the Bible, I turned to prayer as my only lifeline to God.
One can see how this led him astray into mysticism. You can also see why most of his writings have sparingly few scripture references. I have noted this phenomenon in other Radix Fidem prophetic writings as well.
When one believes they have a direct word from God, what need have they of scripture? What does it matter if the word received contradicts that which is contained within the pages of the scriptures? Mysticism is self-authenticating.
Here is a preview of what we’ll see below:
Jack’s testimony explains why there is such a strong focus on individual experience, to the extent that truth is not expected to be witnessed and validated by the church. For example, in “On Prophets and Prophecy” I noted:
It’s a pretty major tell that Providence can’t even conceive of a single reason why Hurst would submit to anyone, even as he understands why someone else would submit to him. This is, incidentally, how cults form.
The New Testament contains many teachings on authority, leadership, and submission in the church (e.g. in 1 and 2 Timothy). John Providence’s question above indicates that he could not come up with any idea why it might be a problem that Ed Hurst of Radix Fidem has no one to submit to in the church. Similarly, Jack does not identify any inherent problem with holding a self-tested, independent system of belief.
When one believes that (often emotionally-driven) individual experiences, like prayer and worship, are essential, but reading the Word of God is conditional, there will be nothing remaining that can hold one to the firm foundation that is Christ. One’s theology and faith will drift into individualism and, ultimately, a different gospel.
Since then, my experiences with prayer have grown to be more powerful and more personal. I’ve learned that the essence of prayer is in achieving an alignment between God’s thoughts, and my own thoughts. Now I have come to believe that all the other aspects of prayer, such as confession, adoration, thanksgiving, supplication, answered requests, passion, purpose, the outpouring of the Spirit, etc. are all byproducts of one’s alignment with the will of God in prayer.
This focus on power and experience is not limited to Jack. Other mystics agree that scripture alone isn’t powerful enough:
One of the consequences is and has been the demotion of the Holy Spirit, who was clearly in charge of the church in Acts, to an ethereal and practically powerless idea who locked himself behind a text that can only be properly understood by those who, conveniently, are educated enough to ‘understand’ the Bible in its original languages without regard to the Hebraic worldview behind both testaments.
…
You seem to be talking about what it means to ‘walk in the Spirit,’ as the New Testament would call it, from an epistemological perspective. I could not go beyond the limits of my mind in the Spirit until I was brought to a crisis where I had to deny that mind in order to move forward with the Lord. I would have intellectually assented to everything you are saying here before that, but I was unable to actually live this way, which is the only way to actually know what you are talking about in a subjective sense.
Scripture warns that what one receives spiritually must be tested to ensure that it comes from God. But that is the one thing you can be sure that mystics will reject, for the mystic wouldn’t be a mystic anymore if they placed the Word of God in primacy over their mystical or prophetic experiences (rather than the other way around).
The Apostles taught that the church was to be fed—edified—collectively and through the reading of the scriptures. Jack’s testimony rejects both of these things. His faith is individualistic and experiential with a reduced focus on both scripture and fellowship. Scripture itself would warn against the validity of such an approach.
When the early church met in their homes, they would gather together in a circle and share with one another. Many would prophesy, and the group as a whole would evaluate and test what they had to say. This is why, for example, both men and women would prophesy:
However, upon attending the Mennonite Church with another friend, I noticed that they had a very different idea of worship. They all sat in a large circle, signifying equality, and they didn’t have any music or order of service at all. Instead, they each took turns standing up, and they all told the others, one-by-one, a summary of their own spiritual state and what God had done for them that week. This order of service was very interesting to me, because they let all the children run around the room and play during their worship, and no one paid any attention to them, even though they were very noisy sometimes. When I asked someone why they let all the children run around during the worship, it was evident that they believed the children were worshipping too, in their own way. I was so humbled to learn this.
The early church also practiced offering (sacrifice) of gifts for the poor and needy, baptising new believers, eating full meals together, singing songs, praying, reading and examining scripture, and proclaiming the good news of Christ. The purpose of the gatherings was edification, not worship.
This system of edification made it almost automatic to experience and validate each person’s spiritual gift(s), as well as the facilitating the identification of the men and women most qualified to be deacons and elders. I bet it made it easy for men and women to find marriage partners too!
There was no concept of a worship service as we know it today.
This continued up until the early 4th century when the Roman persecution of the church ended and Christianity was legalized and the late 4th century when Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire. The traditional Anabaptist gathering is the closest you can get to how the early church “worshiped” during the first three centuries of the church.
Moreover, from all my experiences of visiting more than a dozen, vastly different denominations, I formed a new concept of worship. Worship is any kind of activity that taps into the power of God, and brings rest, renewal and restoration to the person worshipping.
That, right there, is not the biblical meaning of worship (which we’ll shortly discuss below). Consequently, Jack didn’t become an Anabaptist. He became a mystic.
I urge others to discover and develop their own style of worship with these things in mind.
Learning the disciplines of prayer and worship were not easy either. But they were very powerful things. Looking back, I see that my habits of prayer and worship were the channels by which God restored me. In fact, these were the most crucial disciplines that I was forced to discover from God’s silence.
Over many years, my faith was slowly rebuilt, but my new faith was totally and uniquely my own, given to me by God, and it is not at all like what had been handed down to me from my parents and teachers.
…
But looking back, I can clearly see that this was a time when I stopped emulating the Christian culture around me, and started to form, test and trust my own independent system of beliefs. So, of course it was messy.
No, nobody suddenly discovered a new form of faith that the Apostles didn’t teach and that was unknown to the early church. The language of “disciplines” comes from the occult. So, instead was found a new gospel, one which is not found within the pages of scripture.
This is why ecumenism and conformity are taught at Sigma Frame instead of the gospel. It’s why sin was allowed to prevail and why Christ’s instructions in Matthew 18 were rejected with respect to disputes among Christians online.
So, when someone says that they…
…you can be sure that statements like this…
Is it better to rely on what everyone subjectively believes the Bible is telling them with no objective standard by which to judge what everyone subjectively interprets? This is exactly what has happened within Protestantism, resulting in hundreds of denominations.
…are simply the logical consequence of the underlying axiom that presupposes the impossibility of an objective standard. But, of course, it’s a self-inflicted wound. Having first rejected the sufficiency of scripture, everything that follows is a big mess, with no objective basis from which to judge right from wrong. Only subjective personal experience remains.
The subjectivity is highlighted in the way that ‘faith’ and ‘worship’ have been redefined and replaced with something that isn’t found in the Word of God. A friend recently provided a similar correction:
I despise people who twist the definitions of words to alter them, instead of just using words properly to mean what they are already defined as meaning. It is a satanic goal, that was carved on the Georgia Guidestones, to have a “living” language, where the meaning of words becomes fluid and subject to change. God’s word is eternal. And we should not intentionally be distorting the meanings of words, so that what has already been written and defined changes in meaning. It makes fools of our ancestors, and of us, when we twist their words for no good reason.
Let me define a couple of words:
im·mu·ta·ble: unchanging over time or unable to be changed
e·ter·nal: lasting or existing forever; without end or beginning
If Jack means “immutable”, or “enduring”, or “timeless”, he should just use those preexisting words to express himself, and not work to pervert the set definitions of words like “eternal” so that he can talk in a silly private code, using misdefined words he has adulterated. His writing is confusing enough without resorting to the needless literary vandalism of muddying the set definitions of words we all know.
And while this is a bit too harsh and judgmental—”…despise people…”—the argument itself is sound.
We’ve already noted above that Jack’s use of “worship” is not biblical. But neither is his use of “faith.” In the New Testament faith is not individualized. Faith is trust in Jesus Christ, and that trust is the same no matter who holds it.
This is why Paul never refers to faith as “my faith” alone. In fact, the only portion of scripture where Paul uses first-person pronouns of faith, he makes it clear that it isn’t individualistic:
That is, that I may be comforted together with you by the mutual faith both of you and me.
Faith is trust in Christ:
I am crucified with Christ: nevertheless I live; yet not I, but Christ liveth in me: and the life which I now live in the flesh I live by the faith of the Son of God, who loved me, and gave himself for me.
And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law, but that which is through the faith of Christ, the righteousness which is of God by faith
There is one body, and one Spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling; One Lord, one faith, one baptism,
Holding the mystery of the faith in a pure conscience.
The Faith—belief; trust—in Christ is overwhelmingly ours and one in scripture. It is that which all Christians share in common.
To say that you…
…is, to use the language of scripture, equivalent to saying that you formed, tested, and trusted your own independent system of faith.
When the church speaks of a “personal faith” it is a personal trust in the universal faith, not universal trust in personal faith. So, I will say this as emphatically as I am able: if your system of beliefs, of faith, is self-formed, self-tested, and independent, then such mystical faith—so far as it strays from the universal faith/trust/belief in Christ as revealed in scripture—is of no spiritual value whatsoever.
Could this explain why?https://sigmaframe.wordpress.com/2025/01/13/the-effects-of-bad-mothering/
Part of the reason that my life turned around after that car accident is because the fear of losing me put the fear of God into my mother and she started LEAVING ME ALONE.
When I recovered and returned to school 2 months later, I went from barely passing to a straight A student. Everyone treated me differently too. I felt grateful for my life. I felt loved by people. I felt loved by God.”
Here’s that in the context of him being a powerful ”Jack’s Testimony”,”A Child’s ‘Righteous’ Rebellion ”& ”Case Study 1 — My Brief Stint as a 12 Year Old G@ng Lord ”
Oscar has written four posts about Son-Husbands and Devouring Mothers to be posted in January. (One pilot post, and 3 film reviews.) Perhaps by divine providence, reading Oscar’s essays induced me to revisit how my own mother has affected me, and I’ve found I still have much to learn about this — and I’m 52 years old. God!
You see, my mom was a devouring mother and she tried to make me into a Son-Husband.
I was conceived while she was on birth control, and she continued to menstruate and didn’t know she was pregnant until she went to a doctor to find out why she was gaining so much weight. (The same thing happened with my sister 8 years later.)
She refused to breast feed me when I was an infant (“too embarassing”, “too much trouble”, “too painful”, etc.) and because mother’s milk contains the antibodies that I didn’t get, I was a sickly child as a result (~4 dozen allergies and asthma). She was exasperated with having to care for a sick child and so when my younger sister was born, she decided that breast feeding her would be less work.
At the age of 4, she would conspire with others to deceive me and force me to receive anti-allergy injections against my will. Every Saturday, the neighbors would come over and they would chase me all over the house until they caught me, and they would hold me down while my mother administered a shot. Many times, I ran away to avoid this situation, and so they ended up chasing me all over the neighborhood. Yeah, I was 4 years old. For years, I had nightmares of being surrounded by evil gremlins who would, with taunting sinister glee, puncture my body with needles and force me to take drugs.
When I became curious about sex at the age of 8, she sternly warned me never to have sex outside of marriage, threatened to disown me if I did, and told me that if I ever got a girl pregnant out of wedlock then I’d be damned. This scared the sh!t out of me.
My parents’ relationship gradually deteriorated as I grew older. By the time I grew past adolescence, my mother favored me over my father. When I was a teenager, she often wanted to have long ‘talks’ in which she encouraged me to talk about my feelings, desires, and emotions. It made me feel very embarrassed and self-conscious.
A Child’s ‘Righteous’ Rebellion
While growing up, I always had the strong impression that my mother’s influence was preventing me from being my healthy self, making friends, and having a normal childhood. I didn’t know how or why at the time, but looking back, I can see that my pre-adolescent intuition was more or less correct.
I figured out that there was something very evil about all this when I was very young — I don’t know when, maybe as early as 7, but definitely before I was 10 — and I hated her for this. I reacted to this by fighting against her passive-aggressive soft-controlling influence.
Even as a 7-year-old child, I remember pointing my finger at her and telling her off whenever she had a heated or prolonged argument with my father. I distinctly remember loudly commanding her to “Stop fighting!” with all the rage I could summon.
I stonewalled her when I felt she was shifting into control mode. I holed up in my room and locked the door to avoid her whenever she came looking for me to ‘comfort’ her after these arguments, or to ‘reassure’ her of our relationship, or when she wanted to ‘console’ me after I had some difficulty at school. Once, she got the key to my room to let herself in, and my father caught her in the act. I still remember hearing his voice on the other side of the door sternly warning her, “Don’t do it! If you do it, he’ll never trust you again!” Fortunately, his words deterred her from her intentions, but I still didn’t trust her. That was broken and gone long before I could even remember.
And, it seemed like I got a spanking from her every week whether I needed it or not, which only deepened my resolve.
Nevertheless, despite all my childish ‘righteous’ rebellion, I could not escape the curse of having a devouring mother. I wasn’t a simping Oedipal ‘Mommy’s Boy’, as Oscar and Jordan Peterson described. I was the opposite, whatever that is.
Dr. Peterson described it as “hypermasculine” for lack of a better description, and I think “hypermasculine” fits.
Case Study 1 — My Brief Stint as a 12 Year Old G@ng Lord
I was a g@ng lord in middle school. It was easy to do. I found some guys in school who were severely disadvantaged in some way; dirt poor, low intelligence, super ugly, or very unpopular. I approached them and asked them, “Hey, do you want to join my gang?” Man, you should have seen their faces light up! It was like they saw Jesus coming in the clouds! I gave them comradery, a purpose for living, a sense of belonging, and a shelter from their constant rejection. I gave them POWER! I could tell those guys to do anything, and they’d do it, no questions asked. I mean ANYTHING. I never had to lift a finger. And they went far beyond my expectations — too far.
To this day, I am saddened to think about what those guys did under my command. We inflicted genuine fear throughout the school and busted* a couple of guys for life. Eventually, I was transferred to another school so as to break up the gang.
I have repented of this, but it took an act of God. You see, I was in a car accident at the age of 14 in which I almost died. I witnessed the death of my mother’s father who was driving. I saw angels come to take his soul and to save my life in the same action and moment in time. I am dead serious. I had no pulse at the time I arrived at the surgeon’s table, but the doctor was so overwhelmed with compassion that he operated anyway. I’m missing some internal pieces now, but I lived. It was a miracle, and this turned my life around. I was no longer afraid of death, or power… or people (i.e. my mother).
Part of the reason that my life turned around after that car accident is because the fear of losing me put the fear of God into my mother and she started LEAVING ME ALONE.
When I recovered and returned to school 2 months later, I went from barely passing to a straight A student. Everyone treated me differently too. I felt grateful for my life. I felt loved by people. I felt loved by God.
* To be clear, I mean their confidence was permanently destroyed. I saw them years later as an adult, and they were so pansy @ss emasculated it was pitiful.”
See, he had visions at an early age, and ” I felt grateful for my life. I felt loved by people. I felt loved by God. ”So now it’s easy to see why he believes in a mystical faith, yes?
…
When I recovered and returned to school 2 months later, I went from barely passing to a straight A student. Everyone treated me differently too. I felt grateful for my life. I felt loved by people. I felt loved by God.
Obviously angels are real and visions happen. This is why, for example, I believe that John C. Wright really was visited by spirits during his conversion. He reported visitations by three apparitions in particular, one of which claimed to be Mary. These played a key role in his conversion to Roman Catholicism. Here is how he describes it:
Then I was saved from certain death by faith-healing, after which I felt the Holy Spirit enter my body, after which became immediately aware of my soul, a part of myself which, until that time, I reasoned and thought did not exist. I was visited by the Virgin Mary, her son, and His Father not to mention various other spirits and ghosts over a period of several days including periods of divine ecstasy, and an awareness of the mystical oneness of the universe.
And a week or so after that I had a religious experience where I entered the mind of God and saw the indescribable simplicity and complexity, love, humor and majesty of His thought, and I understood the joy beyond understanding and comprehended the underlying unity of all things, and the paradox of determinism and free will was made clear to me, as was the symphonic nature of prophecy. I was shown the structure of time and space.
You can see a lot of common elements in these near death experiences. But, most importantly, what they all lack is the verification, validation, and testing of the spirits that scripture says is required. This is further borne out by examining the fruit of these interactions.
Can you imagine what would have happened if Jack or John had gone to an Anabaptist church where everyone sat in a circle and shared their experience? The church would have tested the spirits according to scripture and likely found them wanting.
Or, perhaps more shockingly to consider, would a demon even have come to bring you back to life if you had been part of such a church? What greater loyalty could a demon receive but to save someone from death and receive their lifelong service in response?
We know where Jack’s experience led him: Radix Fidem. But, Wright’s experience led him straight into the arms of the authoritarian Roman Catholicism, where an individualized faith based on the authority of one’s own experience is completely forbidden.
Of course these experiences are mutually exclusive. They cannot both be completely true events expressing a full reality. One, at least, must be false and demonic. Yet, both men are also perfectly fine and comfortable with their own brand of mysticism, completely certain that their version is completely correct and godly. This is possible because both men give primacy to their personal experiences, and in the case of Jack, is facilitated by a rejection of the mind. You’ll probably have to wait forever before one (or both) of them will admit that their version is the incorrect one.
Mysticism invariably leads to “all roads lead to God” pluralism, universalism, or the very popular perennialism and panentheism among mystics. It is unity by accommodation. It’s why Jack has focused in the past on avoiding division and conflict. It’s why he recently wrote that there are many different, but valid, flavors of authority. It’s the religious version of political globalism.
It’s ironic considering the complaints about subjectivity and a lack of objectivity because there are hundreds of denominations.
I do find it interesting how Jack’s mysticism has led him to speaking kindly (at different times) of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. “Christian” mysticism owes much to these two groups. In fact, most of the occult mystical practices within Christianity had their Christian beginning in those two groups.
Jack speaks well of young men who are supposedly fleeing Protestantism for the ordered structure of Cathodoxy. It would not be surprising if Jack one day partially or fully converted to one of those groups. Since real mystical experiences are overwhelming found within—and point to—Roman Catholicism and the mystical disciplines he relies upon come mainly from Roman Catholicism, I don’t know how Jack can avoid converting. Based on the reasoning he uses to defend his beliefs, logic dictates that this is the end result.
I do find it interesting how Jack’s mysticism has led him to speaking kindly (at different times) of Roman Catholicism and Eastern Orthodoxy. “Christian” mysticism owes much to these two groups For example, !A speaks well of young men who are supposedly fleeing Protestantism for the ordered structure of Cathodoxy.
Yeah, one diehard DAL’& VOX churchian gamey game practitioner has changed his views on prostitution & churchian gamey game , by way of an old Catholic Spearhead commenter
Just look at what happened to Pseudonymous Commenter/DR Orion Taraban after DAL’ left in 2020! He quickly went from ”Gamey game is good and all knowing like wimminz ginas and butts” to ”doclove is right! Paid sex is just as good as learning Churchian gamey game from Dalrock/Vox!”
Need proof?
Hot take:
The only difference between the sex-for-rent thing; and cohabitation or marriage; are that in the latter 2 arrangements, the man and woman went on several dates first and probably had sex before moving in together.
In all three arrangements, almost all the time, the continued relationship is contingent and dependent on the man paying the bills and the woman having sex with him. If he stopped paying the bills, she’d leave. If she stopped having sex with him, he’d kick her out or at the very least the relationship would be in very serious trouble.
Men always pay for sex. Always. All men pay for sex(even with DAL’ & Voxian churchian gamey game).
All women expect to get something in return for sex. Always. All women expect to be “paid” for sex.
i’m starting to think that Psudeonomous Commenter and Rabblealliance here are the same guy as he stopped believing in the sanctity of game=redpill too!
RabbleAlliance(NOT Psudeonomous Commenter or DR.Orion Taraban)
Delta(s) from OP
For context, I’m talking about men paying women money or a fee to have sex with them on a regular basis, and they don’t necessarily have to be sex workers, nor do men have to exclusively do so with just one particular woman(as i hear ANE allows polygamy, ladz).
Now, for my reasons.
Men who regularly pay for sex are inherently misogynistic in a non-gamey=redpilly way since they know they can’t get sex for free because they’re not willing to put in the work(of learning sacred Dalrockian/Voxian churchian gamey game) to make themselves attractive and charming enough to attract a woman to the point of having them be comfortable enough to have sex with said Dalrockian/Voxian gamey game men. This includes men who are socially awkward, physically disabled,ANE mystical and even men who simply don’t have the time or emotional availability for a committed ”take-care of- the- b!tch relationship.
Consider also the one-night-stand. In this scenario, the man and woman would be mutually attracted to each other with lots of Dalrockian/voxian gamey game, and the motivation would be mutual physical pleasure, not money for the woman to use for whatever reason she wants to, even if the intentions for giving money to her are good, like to spend on Dalrock’s legal fund of ”happily married fathers with game with sexy wives & two(2) childrens in a post-CHRISTian but ANE pagan mystical faith world” that supports even the “HAPPILY MARRIED FATHERS NEED GAMESZ BIBLE STUDY GROUP” & the poor poor “Sisterhood of da Sore Bungholes in Search of Beta PRoviders Bible Study Groupz”.
Paying(or praying in the name of DAL’& VOX) for sex is basically cheating – it’s circumventing an unspoken system that regulates who is and who isn’t supposed to have sex or as ST. Rollo says ”the old set of books”. The last thing we need is to perpetuate the idea that sex is nothing more than a commodity that men can buy without having to put in any effort to achieve sans money or a fee as is the societal norm.
UPDATE: I’d like to thank everybody for conversing with me as part of my first-ever post on CMV. The journey was interesting, challenging, frustrating, mystical and ultimately rewarding. I didn’t appreciate the gamey =redpilly insults and gratuitous down-voting as a substitute for a reasoned argument/rebuttal, but I did appreciate the new perspectives brought to the table that caused me to reevaluate my perceptions regarding the matter.
Looking back, I realize now that some of my attitudes toward paid sex were based on the manufactured stigma surrounding paid sex that I was taught growing up and not so much the attitudes of the participants themselves, such as DAL’& VOX. I will be going forward with a more enlightened & catholic doclove by way of ANE mystical attitude toward paid sex, and I thank those who helped me to change my views. If you have any additional questions, feel free to PM me by saying ”What’s up, DR.Taraban/
Pseudonymous Commenter”.. I won’t be answering new comments in this CMV anymore.
See you next CMV.
UPDATE #2: I’m still receiving insulting Dalrockian/Voxian game=redpilly(FYI, I’m a latter-day ”manosphere” reddish blackpiller, ladz). My traditional Dalrockian/Voxian views have changed(mostly by way of old Spearhead commenter doclove.) If you wish to discuss specific aspects of my CMV further, feel free to PM me by saying ”What’s up, DR.Taraban/
Pseudonymous Commenter???”.
I won’t be answering new comments in this CMV anymore as too many mon-playa h8ers from DAL’ & Vox’s denominations of the “HAPPILY MARRIED FATHERS NEED GAMESZ BIBLE STUDY GROUP” & the poor poor “Sisterhood of da Sore Bungholes in Search of Beta PRoviders Bible Study Groupz”(both of which became their own full foolish denominations back when the sphere started fracturing heavily in 2015).ladz.https://www.reddit.com/r/changemyview/comments/l5oiae/cmv_men_who_cant_achieve_sexual_activity_without/
See you next CMV ladz.
See how DAL’ leaving affected Psudeonomous Commenter and his faith in “HAPPILY MARRIED FATHERS NEED GAMESZ BIBLE STUDY GROUP” churchian gamey game?i bet he doesn’t even open sets on ”targets” anymore, even at work!https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2bBk2gd1Kfk
Mystery’s 5 Levels of Game | Mystery PUA Training
Here is a relevant essay I just found:
Anyone can become heretical and/or apostatize, but I’ve long noticed a higher-than-average rate of heresy and apostasy among the following groups:
Apologists
Professors
Worship leaders
Celebrities
Here’s a short thread on what often goes wrong and what can be done about it.
Apologists
One of the cardinal dangers for apologists is that of accommodation, of changing the Christian faith to make it more palatable to Christian audiences.
Remember that the father of liberal theology, Friedrich Schleiermacher, began his journey into heresy with an attempt to save Christianity. That’s why he wrote On Religion: Speeches to Its Cultured Despisers (AD 1799), in which he set out to defend the Christian faith against the skepticism of his contemporaries.
Schleiermacher believed that Enlightenment thinkers, especially Hume and Kant, had rendered the Christian faith impossible to believe. So he changed the essence of the Christian faith to produce something “sensible” that moderns could accept. Instead of saving Christianity, however, he simply “the faith once for all delivered to the saints” (Jude 3). C. S. Lewis warns against this in his essay, “Christian Apologetics” (published God in the Dock). He writes, “Do not attempt to water Christianity down.”
The other cardinal danger for apologists is that they focus so much on arguments for the existence of God that they abandon intimacy with God himself.
Again, Lewis—something of an apologist himself—has a profound warning on this point: “I have found that nothing is more dangerous to one’s own faith than the work of an apologist. No doctrine of that faith seems to me so spectral, so unreal as the one that I have just successfully defended in a public debate. For a moment, you see, it has seemed to rest on oneself: as a result when you go away from the debate, it seems no stronger than that weak pillar. That is why we apologists take our lives in our hands and can be saved only by falling back continually from the web of our own arguments, as from our intellectual encounters, into the Reality—from Christian apologetics into Christ Himself.” —Lewis, “Christian Apologetics” (God in the Dock)
Professors
Professors of theology also have a long track record of heresy and apostasy. Think of the higher criticism of the German schools in the 1800s, or what happened to Princeton in the early 1900s, or any of the professors you’ve read about who eventually stopped believing in some aspect of Christian doctrine or ethics (e.g., the sinfulness of homosexuality).
Again, C. S. Lewis understood this dynamic quite well. In The Great Divorce Lewis imagines a conversation between two old friends: one now in heaven, the other in hell. The condemned man is obstinate, the redeemed man penitent. The latter says, “Let us be frank. Our opinions were not honestly come by. We simply found ourselves in contact with a certain current of ideas and plunged into it because it seemed modern and successful. At College, you know, we just started automatically writing the kind of essays that got good marks and saying the kind of things that won applause.”
Stretch that tendency over a whole career and you’ve got a recipe for disaster.
Similarly, in an address to university students (many of whom were studying to become professors) Lewis famously warned against the power of “the inner ring.” He writes, “I believe that in all men’s lives at certain periods, and in many men’s lives at all periods between infancy and extreme old age, one of the most dominant elements is the desire to be inside the local Ring and the terror of being left outside.”
Though this desire can afflict any man, Lewis (an academic himself) knows the unique power this temptation holds for professors, especially Christian professors. The world thinks we’re nuts. Certain ideas are not simply unfashionable but deemed indefensible for any “good” person to believe. But our job (for I’m a professor myself) is to pass on the good deposit that was entrusted to us (2 Tim. 2:2), not caring one whit about whether holding these positions will get us promotions, invites to conferences, requests to write for “respectable” journals, or job offers at more prestigious schools. The faithful professors are the ones who know that If the world hates what they are teaching, they’re in good company (John 15:18–21).
Worship leaders
The number of high-profile worship leaders (some of whom are pastors, but some are not) who have apostatized is significant. Loads of famous CCM artists have done so as well, and I’ve even seen it happen once in my own church many years ago.
There are a few factors here, not all of which are present in every case, but each of which is worth considering.
A lot of worship leaders are effeminate, which is a sin according to the Lord (see this excellent article from Steven Wedgeworth on the meaning of 1 Cor. 6:9: https://desiringgod.org/articles/what-is-effeminacy). Mark Driscoll got in trouble for saying this once, but he wasn’t wrong in his observation. Search “effeminate man” on Google, and the results you reveal a worryingly high level of overlap with the appearance of many contemporary worship leaders, dressed like they’re heading for a photo shoot at the local modeling agency.
An effeminate man is a soft man, and soft men struggle to hold onto—let along sing—hard truths. Worship songs are chosen for their “feel” or their facility of emotional expression, instead of their ability to help the congregation remember and rejoice in who God is and all that he’s done for us. These leaders have forgotten that songs were part of Israel’s battles, raised against the walls of Jericho and the enemies of the Lord. They were not merely meant to reduce our stress levels; they were meant to help us fight lies, temptations, and every stronghold that stands against the Lord (2 Cor. 10:4–5).
Worship leaders also serve in a role that comes with the temptation to be performative. It’s easy to think more about how a certain song will sound instead of thinking about what the words of the song actually mean. The fog machines and concert lights certainly don’t help here, and I’d advise churches that drop that stuff posthaste. Congregational worship isn’t meant to be a rock concert. We’re not aiming for “high energy” or sentimentality, but for fidelity.
Over time, a relentless focus on production value, “vibes,” and whatever else, turns not only congregational worship into a show but the whole Christian life. And many worship leaders caught in this trap will inevitably tire of living that way. The old word for this is hypocrisy, but kids these days call it “being fake.” It’s not long before people stop trying to live a lie. The antidote to this is sincerity and a heaping portion of humility. Don’t worry about how a song feels, or what you look or sound like on stage. You’re there to serve the Lord, so do it with gladness and a sense of joyful duty.
Celebrities
The last group with higher-than-average rates of heresy and apostasy are celebrities, including social media “influencers.”
This is no surprise to anyone, for the temptations of this group is a powerful composite of all that I’ve said above. Celebrities make a living by their popularity, which brings a hyper-concern for what their audience will celebrate and/or tolerate. Their livelihood is also performative by nature. So of course these folks are tempted to water down the faith, to hide the light under a bushel, and to chase whatever is fashionable.
The clearest solution is one that comes with the highest cost: don’t seek to be a celebrity. Fame has a dangerous allure that very, very few people seem equipped to handle. And those who have fared the course with their faith intact seem to be those who cared least about their popularity or their “brand” or their “following.” So remember, as Francis Schaeffer rightly said, that there are “no little people” and “no little places” in Christ’s kingdom. Thus, instead of intentionally aiming to enlarge your platform, simply be faithful and leave the rest up to the Lord.
I think this is especially relevant:
Wow, LOL. After I wrote all the above, I became aware that Sigma Frame had just published an article called “Why is Eastern Orthodoxy more attractive to Men than Protestantism?” The timing couldn’t have been better.
In light of the Pope’s recent visit with Father James Martin, the following is especially ironic:
Dumpster fire, indeed.
Thankfully, our friend Gunner Q comes to the rescue:
Your leaders would do far better to shame Protestant clergy for apostasy & feminism, than to participate in the diabolical Kalergi scheme of endless forced migration until everybody becomes a rootless cosmopolitan. But that would require imputing legitimacy to Protestantism, something that no church claiming apostolic succession seems willing to do.
Again, it comes down to power, authority, and submission.
I’ve read Sigma Frame long enough to know that men in the Christian Manosphere are looking for this-worldly solutions and are not interested in other-worldly value. Gunner’s comment will go unheeded.
I’ve read Sigma Frame long enough to know that men in the Christian Manosphere are looking for this-worldly solutions and are not interested in other-worldly value. Gunner’s comment will go unheeded.
YEP!
Derek,
i like where !A#$ & that ”I’m a 67yo BLACKPILLED bro like blackpilled bob FYI ” parallels mainline protestantism with the mainline SIMP FRAME bluepill GODDESS WORSHIPPING,”redpill”manosphere.
Foreword from !A#$
Apparently, some readers are still not seeing why young American men like Pseudonymous Commenter/DR Orion Taraban are drawn to the blackpillosphere instead of the ever-failing latter-day mainline bluepill,”redpill” manosphere. This post will spell it out in greater GBFMian detail.
What’s Missing in the simp frame bluepill,”redpill” manosphere?
A common theme I’m hearing, particularly with the many young men and young families, is “something is missing …”. Most new simp frame bluepill converts say, “Something is missing in my ”redpill” Dalrockian/Voxian church & HAPPILY MARRIED FATHERS NEED GAMESZ BIBLE STUDY GROUP” or even “Sisterhood of da Sore Bungholes in Search of Beta PRoviders Bible Study Groupz” ”. I’ve also heard some say “something is missing” from what I’ll summarize as simp frame bluepill, ”redpill”manospherian ANE/gnostic materialism.
Concluding Statements
As professorGBFMtm aptly wrote, mainline bluepill simp frame goddess worshipping,yet”redpill”manosphere is a Progressive dumpster fire, and much of it follows after secular culture of the incel blackpillers on chads,tyrones,beckys, and stacys.
Young men are seeing all of this, and their gut tells them something is off; they intuitively sense it — that this is not REAL REDPILL MANOSPHERE. So they’re looking, some searching, others trying out vastly different faith beliefs, with some coming to full blackpill Orthodoxy, to find out what REAL REDPILL MANOSPHERE is like, go read old ROISSY & GBFM posts ladz(no I’m NOTPsudeonomous Commenter/RabbleAlliance/DR. Orion Taraban) .
I’m sure not every young man who is disillusioned with the mainline bluepill simp frame goddess worshipping, yet ” redpill ” manosphere is making a beeline to Blackpill Orthodoxy (many become “nones” or switch to Catholicism or other Protestant churches), but among those staying ROISSYian & GBFMian instead of the mainline bluepill simp frame goddess worshipping, yet ” redpill ” manosphere or full blackpill Orthodoxy, this decision reveals these younger men’s desire for authenticity and truth in a broken world.
I’ve read that younger generations have a low trust in institutions, including organized religion. No one has told me this explicitly, but I do get the sense that this is true — new converts, especially those coming from the mainline bluepill simp frame goddess worshipping, yet ” redpill ” manosphere, are looking for a sphere they can trust — people they can trust.
I stand with my blackpill orthodoxysphere and my parishioners as I’m a 67yo BLACKPILLED bro like blackpilled bob FYI, ready to introduce them to the ancient ways of the TRUE REDPILLIAN faith of the ROISSYosphere, or if GOD is even more merciful, the GBFMosphere(THE TRUE REDPILLIAN faith even more potent & MANLIER)!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty2h6mxRa0E
This Is What Happens When Men Start Reading Again – Books That Build Men
This Is What Happens When Men Start Reading Again – Books That Build Men
Rob Pirie – The Cause
43.9K subscribers
Subscribe
10K
122K views 2 weeks ago DENHAM SPRINGS
{!A#$ definitely NEEDS to watch that video-in light of ”God still wasn’t talking to me, and soon I despised trying to read the Bible. I wouldn’t even touch a Bible for more than a year and a half, because it was repulsive to me. ”}
UPDATE from RabbleAlliance/Psudeonomous Commenter /DR.Orion Taraban
Farm Boy’s avatarFarm Boy says:
5 September, 2025 at 4:17 pm
No one is coercing women to trade their bodies for housing or DAL/vox churchian gamey game.
They have that option. Guys don’t
Like
Psudeonomous Commenter & okay I admit it/ RabbleAlliance/DR. Orion Taraban says:
5 September, 2025 at 4:23 pm
FB
But guys have the option to offer money or housing. Something of value for something of value.
All men pay for sex. All women expect to be “paid” for sex(& ”work”).
All relationships are transactional. Even the validational relationships where it’s all pure sexual attraction are transactional, because both parties are still getting something in exchange for what they’re giving; and because neither party would enter into the interaction if they weren’t getting something they wanted.
What Psudeonomous Commenter /RabbleAlliance/DR.Orion Taraban and most of the Christian Manosphere forget is what Jack’s guy Aaron M. Renn forgets here:
”The End of Bourgeois Values
How America’s shift from Protestant work ethic to post-Christian consumer culture unraveled the values that once defined its middle class.
Aaron M. Renn
May 14, 2025
∙ Paid
It’s no secret that America’s working classes – more broadly, those without college degrees and professional jobs – have been living increasingly socially dysfunctional lives. This was documented well by Robert Putnam in Our Kids and Charles Murray in Coming Apart.
Just as one example, America has the highest share of its children living in single parent households of any country in the world. This has profound negative consequences for our country.
One popular culprit for this is a decline in adherence to “bourgeois values” or bourgeois culture. We see these values described well in Amy Wax’s controversial Philadelphia Inquirer op-ed on the subject:
Too few Americans are qualified for the jobs available. Male working-age labor-force participation is at Depression-era lows. Opioid abuse is widespread. Homicidal violence plagues inner cities. Almost half of all children are born out of wedlock, and even more are raised by single mothers. Many college students lack basic skills, and high school students rank below those from two dozen other countries. The causes of these phenomena are multiple and complex, but implicated in these and other maladies is the breakdown of the country’s bourgeois culture.
That culture laid out the script we all were supposed to follow: Get married before you have children and strive to stay married for their sake. Get the education you need for gainful employment, work hard, and avoid idleness. Go the extra mile for your employer or client. Be a patriot, ready to serve the country. Be neighborly, civic-minded, and charitable. Avoid coarse language in public. Be respectful of authority. Eschew substance abuse and crime.
Failure to valorize and adhere to bourgeois values is part of the conservative theories about the “culture of poverty.”
Bourgeois values are a modernized and secularized version of those of Max Weber’s Protestant ethic. For a deeper exploration of America’s traditional Protestant ethic, see my essay from last year:
Is Evangelicalism Really Protestant?
Aaron M. Renn
·
October 9, 2024
Read full story
Bourgeois values is actually a good term for them because they are associated with the bourgeois economy, that is to say, capitalism, particularly capitalism as it existed prior to roughly the Great Depression.
The problem is that America is now a post-bourgeois country, both economically and culturally. This poses significant challenges to those, such as myself, who want to both reduce social dysfunctions like drug abuse and generally elevate the health, flourishing, and productivity of our people.
I will trace this American post-bourgeois shift across three dimensions:
From a Protestant to a post-Christian culture
From a bourgeois to a managerial economy
From a production to a consumption based society
From Protestant to Post-Christian
America was 98% Protestant at the time of the founding and deeply embodied an Anglo-Protestant, Calvinistic culture. While Weber’s Puritans were the English Puritans, not the American ones, his analysis does broadly describe the austere, self-controlled, industrious, energetic, and expansionistic American culture that tamed the continent and perhaps more than any other built the modern world we live in today.
These values and behaviors were ultimately rooted in religion. As that religion dissipated, so did those values. French writer Emmanuel Todd views this collapse of Protestantism as a crisis for the West. I previously wrote an essay that went into some detail on his views.”
Too many MEN in the 1800s and 1900s wanted and were proud of their wives for NOT doing any work! Even breastfeeding, like Jack says here”She refused to breast feed me when I was an infant (“too embarassing”, “too much trouble”, “too painful”, etc.) ”ALL this ”wimminz shouldn’t have to work” trickled down to ”MEN shouldn’t have to work too” in relation to ”equality of the sexes”/blankslatists like 1970s-style ”egilitarian” MRAS-”tradwives” are just the ”rightwing” reaction against it.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FYlw_ly6R5M&t=463s
No, Medieval Women Weren’t Tradwives
See? Chivalry, A.K.A. Courtly love of the rich a-holes was copied by poorer(financially MEN & led to our current decline(as poorer MEN kept copying rich a-holes like Bill Clinton and Donald Trump ), as well as even poorer MEN like U.S. southern blacks, the”right”s Bill Clinton by way of Vincent McMahon.
Here’s a video to go along with Psudeonomous Commenter/RabbleAlliance/DR. Orion Taraban latest comment:
Psudeonomous Commenter/RabbleAlliance/DR. Orion Taraban says:
5 September, 2025 at 6:57 pm
Clearly you haven’t gotten the memo yet. If a woman does anything that is of benefit to or gives pleasure to a man, then it’s automatically coercion/exploitation/slavery.
It never occurs to people that it might be women exploiting men. You know, things like “I love you” and “let’s get married so the sex we’re having is legitimate in God’s eyes” and “I promise to have and to hold you” and ”I’m saving all my butthex for you”. Things like sexing up a man really well and extracting marriage from him; then cutting him off sexually almost immediately after the wedding. Then to get out, it will cost the man a fortune in assets and alimony out of his bungh*le, dude.
That’s bait and switch. That’s fraud in the inducement of butthex. That’s deceit. That’s manipulation. That’s financial exploitation. That’s committing butthex in the wrong context ladz.
There’s a video for that
Psudeonomous Commenter/RabbleAlliance/DR. Orion Taraban .
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mOldCmUyQDE
Why Marriage Turns Men Into Donkeys
It explains how wives turn bluepill MEN into yes MEN & when those wives divorce those bluepill MEN and come into the ROISSY/MANosphere?They become either redpill (silent)yes MEN or ” simping goddess worshippers like ST.DAL & ”RP GENIUS””LEADERS” who FAIL WITH ”The Manosphere men, young demonized men, and secular folks like Trump ”,bluepilled ”RP GENIUS”” LEADERS”, with even BIGGER simp frame yes MEN like bee1234567890 and Oscar to ”Spiritual” false teachers like !A#$ ,{REDACTED} & Matt Perkins=Larry Solomon=BGR.