Is turkey kosher?

Your turkey craving conscience can rest after reading this post.

The Question

Over the centuries, there has been much debate in theological circles over the question of whether turkey is kosher. I didn’t want to chicken out of this question, so I decided to take a stab at figuring out how to carve this bird.

Concerning the use of birds as food, the Bible states,

13 ‘And these you shall regard as an abomination among the birds; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, the vulture, the buzzard, 14 the kite, and the falcon after its kind; 15 every raven after its kind, 16 the ostrich, the short-eared owl, the sea gull, and the hawk after its kind; 17 the little owl, the fisher owl, and the screech owl; 18 the white owl, the jackdaw, and the carrion vulture; 19 the stork, the heron after its kind, the hoopoe, and the bat.

Leviticus 11:13-19 (NKJV)

The phrase “after its kind” is frequently repeated. So I decided to study the taxonomies of turkey and the other birds cited as forbidden, to see if they might belong to the same family or genus.

Burrowing Owl (not mentioned specifically, but presumed unclean)

The Classification of the Birds

The birds listed in Leviticus are the eagle, vulture, buzzard, kite, falcon, raven, ostrich, owl, sea gull, hawk, jackdaw, stork, heron, and hoopoe.  The bat is also mentioned.

I’m no expert in taxonomy, so I spent about three hours going through whatever information I could find on Infogalactic.  After sorting through everything, I found that the taxonomical divergence between the turkey and these other birds occurs between Class and Order.  They do not share any relation by Family or Genus.


All the birds listed are in the class of Aves, except the bat, which is a mammal.

The stork and heron are in a large subclass, Neomithes.


The eagle, vulture, buzzard*, kite, and hawk belong to the order Accipitriformes.

The falcon belongs to the order Falconiformes.

The raven and jackdaw belong to the order Passeriformes.

The ostrich belongs to the order Struthioniformes.

The owl belongs to the order Strigiformes.

The sea gull belongs to the order Charadriiformes.

The hoopoe belongs to the order Bucerotiformes.

But the turkey belongs to the order Galliformes!

* There are many types of birds that are called a buzzard.  Most of these resemble the hawk, and are included in the order of Accipitriformes and the family of Accipitridae. One exception is the turkey buzzard, which is in the order of Cathartiformes.

See the source image
Turkey (clean!)

About Passeriformes

This order deserves attention because it covers half of all bird species, and contains more than 110 families. One family, Corvidae, is a cosmopolitan family of oscine passerine birds.  Over 120 species are described, including crows, ravens, rooks, jackdaws, jays, magpies, treepies, choughs, nutcrackers, and the vast majority of anything that could be described as a songbird. They are considered the most intelligent of the birds, and among the most intelligent of all animals.  The genus Corvus, including the jackdaws, crows, and ravens, makes up over a third of the entire family.

See the source image
Jackdaw (unclean)

About Caprimulgiformes

This order is not included among any of the birds in Leviticus, so it is presumed to be clean.  I found this order to be interesting, as it contains hummingbirds, swifts, nightjars, nighthawks, whippoorwills, and potoos. These birds are generally insectivorous and nocturnal, and many are crepuscular.

See the source image
Whippoorwill (clean)

About Galliformes

The Galliformes are an order of heavy-bodied ground-feeding birds that includes turkeygrousechickenNew World quail and Old World quailptarmiganpartridgepheasantjunglefowl, and the Cracidae.

The name derives from “gallus”, Latin for “cock” or “rooster”. Common names are gamefowl or gamebirdslandfowlgallinaceous birds, or galliforms. “Wildfowl” or just “fowl” are also often used for the Galliformes, but usually these terms also refer to waterfowl (Anseriformes), and occasionally to other commonly hunted birds.

This order contains five familiesPhasianidae (including chicken, quail, partridges, pheasants, turkeys, peafowl, and grouse), Odontophoridae (New World quails), Numididae (guineafowl), Cracidae (including chachalacas and curassows), and Megapodiidae (incubator birds like mallee fowl and brush-turkeys).

Despite their distinctive appearance, grouse and turkeys probably do not warrant separation as families due to their recent origin from partridge– or pheasant-like birds.

See the source image
Great Curassow (clean)


From a taxonomic viewpoint, the turkey is not anywhere closely related to any of the birds described as unclean in Leviticus.  For me, this settles the question once and for all as to whether turkey is unclean.  If you believe Acts 10:9-16 and Acts 11:4-10, then it probably doesn’t matter very much anyway, but there may be some readers who are more particular about this matter.

I have only tasted one kind of bird that is forbidden in Leviticus, and that is the ostrich.  It is surprisingly delicious and tastes like hamburger mixed with savory herbs. I’ve heard that this meat is popular in Australia.


All information in this post was gathered from Infogalactic.


See the source image
Hoopoe (unclean)

Appendix – The taxonomy of turkey and the birds cited in Leviticus

Colored fonts indicate groups of like order.

Bird: Turkey
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Aves
Order: Galliformes
Family: Phasianidae
Subfamily: Meleagridinae
Genus: Meleagris
Species: M. gallopavo; M. ocellata;

Bird: Buzzard
There are many types of birds that are called a buzzard.  (Click on the link for a list.)  Most of these are included in the order of Accipitriformes and the family of Accipitridae. One exception is the turkey buzzard, which is in the order of Cathartiformes (same as the condor).

Bird: Eagle
Class: Aves
Order: Accipitriformes
Family: Accipitridae

Bird: Hawk
Class: Aves
Order: Accipitriformes
Family: Accipitridae

Bird: Kite
Class: Aves
Order: Accipitriformes
Family: Accipitridae

Bird: Vulture
Class: Aves
Order: Accipitriformes
Families: Accipitridae (Aegypiinae); Cathartidae;

Bird: Falcon
Class: Aves
Order: Falconiformes
Family: Falconidae
Subfamily: Falconinae
Genus: Falco

Bird: Hoopoe
Class: Aves
Order: Bucerotiformes
Family: Upupidae
Genus: Upupa
Species: U. epops

Bird: Heron
Class: Aves
Subclass: Neornithes
Infraclass: Neognathae
Superorder: Neoaves
Order: Pelecaniformes
Family: Ardeidae

Bird: Stork
Class: Aves
Subclass: Neornithes
Infraclass: Neognathae
Superorder: Aequornithes
Order: Ciconiiformes
Family: Ciconiidae

Bird: Jackdaw
Class: Aves
Order: Passeriformes
Family: Corvidae
Genus: Corvus
Subgenus: Coloeus
Species: C. monedula (western); C. dauuricus (eastern);

Bird: Raven
Class: Aves
Order: Passeriformes
Family: Corvidae
Genus: Corvus
Species: C. corax

Bird: Ostrich
Class: Aves
Superorder: Paleognathae
Order: Struthioniformes
Family: Struthionidae
Genus: Struthio
Species: S. camelus

Bird: Owl
Class: Aves
Clade: Afroaves
Order: Strigiformes
Families: Strigidae; Tytonidae

Bird: Sea Gull
Class: Aves
Order: Charadriiformes
Suborder: Lari
Family: Laridae

Mammal: Bat
Kingdom: Animalia
Phylum: Chordata
Class: Mammalia
Clade: Scrotifera
Order: Chiroptera
Suborders: Megachiroptera; Microchiroptera;

Posted in Animals, Food, Health | 2 Comments

Scott on Forgiveness

There is an intermediate step between a wrongdoing and forgiveness.

Readership: All
Note: I left this as a comment under Forgiveness (2020 November 22), but Jack wanted to make this into a stand-alone post, because he felt it brought out the finer points.

I have this axiom of wisdom that I live by.  If there is no Bible verse or other piece of traditional wisdom literature to back it up, there should be.

Don’t complicate that which is inherently simple.
Don’t simplify that which is inherently complicated.
Know the difference.

I assess the topic of forgiveness as moderately complex.  However, it is clear that it is a major component of the faith, and therefore I presuppose that it must not be TOO complex because the least erudite and sophisticated believer needs to be able to understand it.

I propose that there are several things going on here that even a person with an IQ of about 80 can get.

Confused Person - Gentleman, Png Download - 650x650 (#10974757) PNG Image -  PngJoy

First – Restoration is the Ideal

Jack described Forgiveness has having two subtypes.  I conceptualize this difference to be the vertical (between you and God) and the horizontal (between you and others).  These two types of forgiveness share some things in common, but they also have some pretty significant differences.

One thing to think about, regarding how they are different is this–it is implied, even in Luke 17:3-4 that the repentance may or may not be “real” or truly heartfelt and contrite. After all, if he comes to you 7 times in a day, you would naturally get a little suspicious. This part appears to be left to the victim to deal with. But God knows if you really “mean it” and can see right through a lame half-ass repentance. So, you shouldn’t really try one of those with him.

Jack said that it is a misconception that forgiveness necessarily means a full restoration and forgetting the transgression.  I say this is not so much a misconception, but an ideal.  We should try, with everything we have in our messy, screwed up souls to COMPLETELY restore relationships between each other through the processes laid out in scripture.  And we will fail, as we often do.  But at the same time, this is why the path to forgiveness is not negotiable in my view.

There are situations where reaching this ideal is just impossible in the temporal world.

Wife cheated on you, left, and divorced you?  You got remarried and have a whole new family?  Can’t really restore that one, even if she repents, fully and completely.  Got it.

Only GOD can do forgiveness perfectly.  Perfectly means completely restored, forgotten and the forgiver treats the issue as if it never happened.  Ever done that?  If not, your forgiveness is flawed, and fails to meet the standard God set forth.  But you can’t get there without accountability and repentance.  Don’t worry about it, just keep trying.


Second – Letting it go

There is an intermediate step between the wrongdoing and forgiveness, and that is holding a grudge.  For most people, dealing with the psychological/emotional impact is the hardest part of forgiveness.  Getting over this step is what many of us call “letting it go”.  This is where you pile up all the stupid crap that people do to you, throw a blanket of love over it, and move on.

Jack referred to a few scriptures that allude to this step as glorifying and showing true love.  Yes, it’s REALLY important in close relationships like marriage.  Love does not keep a precise accounting of wrongs done.  (1st Corinthians 13:4-7)  But Christ does indeed explicitly tell us that actively, angrily, bitterly holding a grudge will destroy your soul.  And it is a sin.*

There is huge and broad spectrum of what letting it go might look like in any particular situation, but it allows the transgressor to come back, sometimes YEARS later and repent and then true forgiveness can be obtained.

* I would add this personal note: I personally have not struggled with this, thank God.  For all my problems, I am not a natural grudge holder.  I love reconciliation.  I crave it, and hold it out for anyone I may have even the slightest disagreement with.  The story of the prodigal son is exactly the kind of dad I would be in a situation like that.

Third – Talking Past Each Other

I want to acknowledge that some of us writing on here are saying what looks like the same thing, and arguing where no argument is needed. I agree whole heartedly with Jack, for example, that if one is holding out for repentance for every single unintentional slight, you will be in this sin-repentance-forgiveness cycle all day, every day. But, I covered that. That’s “letting it go.” I hold the process out for really bad, big stuff.

To put an ever finer point on it, I think the way I am describing it is how the majority of Christians, even the most reverent ones functionally, and realistically already live their lives. So its not really mind-blowing, life-changing theology.

The need for forgiveness applies to everyone, no matter what their religious beliefs are. When I read people discussing how repentance can only be done by “real” or “regenerate” Christians, and how is a gift they received way back in eternity sometime, it’s like eyewash to me.  That’s super cool for seminary discussions but it’s the kind of stuff that makes regular people think we are a navel gazing club of weirdos.

It’s the reason I hated seminary.


Posted in Enduring Suffering, Forgiveness, Holding Frame, Introspection, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Perseverance, Psychology, Relationships, Self-Concept, The Power of God | 5 Comments

Female Divorce Lawyer Stands for Fatherhood

Fatherlessness is the modern plague of perdition.

Readership: All;

“Fathers are the forgotten contributors to child development.”

Psychologist Michael Lamb

When I first read the title of this video on YouTube, I expected to hear this woman (Marilyn York) dish out the typical feminist boilerplate.  But to my astonishment, she actually had quite a bit of good information about the causes of fatherlessness, and the negative consequences thereof. Sometimes looks are deceiving!

In a few previous posts, I’ve predicted that fatherlessness will reach epidemic proportions for Gen Zs.  According to Ms. York, it already has.

We’ve heard much of this before, but it’s nice to hear it from a woman for a change.

What Representing Men in Divorce Taught Me About Fatherhood | Marilyn York | TEDx University of Nevada

Notes (Positives)

Fathers make their childrens’ lives secure, fun, and challenging.

Fathers have a unique intuition about their children’s emotional needs and personality.  We have the idea that fathers are clueless about the details of their childrens’ lives, but in fact, they know things about their children that their mother does not know.

Children with involved father figures have stronger cognitive and motor skills, elevated physical and mental health, become better problem solvers, and are more confident, curious, and empathetic.

Notes (Negatives)

2/5 of all children in America are growing up without fathers.

According to the 2016 census, 17,000,000 children are growing up without fathers.  Other estimates put this figure at 30,000,000!

Young people originating from fatherless homes account for…

  • 90% of all homeless and runaway kids.
  • 71% of all high school dropouts.
  • 63% of youth suicides.

A lot of homeless girls between the ages of 18-22 come from fatherless homes.

Causes of Fatherlessness

Between 1960 and 2016, the percentage of children growing up with just mothers nearly tripled, from 8% to 23%.

The main contributors to fatherless homes are divorce and out of wedlock births.


Every 13 seconds, someone in America gets divorced, accounting for 2,500,000 divorces a year.

The Tender Years Doctrine (in place since circa 1873-1881), argues that mothers make better single parents than fathers.  This doctrine guided American jurisprudence for more than a century.  But now psychologists are finding that children who grow up with only a father fare better in life than those who grow up with only a mother.

Paternity laws desperately need reform to protect the 40% of children born out of wedlock each year.

Out of Wedlock Births

More than 40%, or 1.5 million babies are born out of wedlock each year.

It’s perfectly legal in all 50 states for a woman to conceal her pregnancy, leave the fathers name off the birth certificate, and never tell him he has a child – ever!  How is this not kidnapping?

Just as horrible, a woman can knowingly list the wrong father on the child’s birth certificate, deceive him, and a short while later, in many states, the wrong man becomes that child’s legal father forever! He’s obligated to a child that isn’t his, and that child just lost their real father with little to no recourse.

This is a betrayal of the worst kind, and the law not only allows it, it creates the opportunity!”


Posted in Culture Wars, Divorce, Male Power, Models of Failure, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, Single Parents | 11 Comments

Which pets are cleaner? Dogs or Cats?

Pet humor.

Readership: All

I overheard an argument about which type of pet is ‘cleaner’ – dogs or cats.  The dog proponent ended the discussion with the following statement.

“Cats clean themselves with their tongue, and then vomit out the hair!  Dogs rely on their owners to give them a proper bath.  But you wouldn’t do that, because you’re too lazy!”

Personally, I prefer dogs because they are passionate, loyal, and teachable.

Once I had a dog that was so smart, he could answer questions!

I asked him, “What’s on top of the house?”  He replied, “Woof!

I asked him, “What’s on trees?”  He replied, “Bark!

Then I asked him, “How does it feel?”  He replied, “Ruff!

He could even tell you his name!  “Ralph!


Posted in Satire | 9 Comments


“Forgiveness is the name of love practiced among people who love poorly.”

Henri J. M. Nouwen

Framing Forgiveness

Scott wrote about The 4 Big Lies of ‘Christian’ Therapeutic Moralistic Deism (2020 November 19).  It is no coincidence that two of these four big lies are related to forgiveness because being forgiven and having the ability to forgive others are central qualities of Spiritual Regeneration.  These two lies were…

  1. You must learn to “forgive yourself”.
  2. Unconditional immediate forgiveness for anyone who sins, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter whether or not they have repented.  Conflating the lack of doing this with “holding a grudge”– which is a clearly enumerated sin.

In the first, Scott argued that only God and/or the person who was wronged have the place of extending forgiveness.

Concerning the second lie, Scott stated that repentance must predicate forgiveness.

Lance Roberts argued that forgiveness cannot be transactional, and that it can only be done through faith.

“God forgave me long before I repented; in fact, he’s forgiven me for every sin I’ve ever done and ever will do most of which I don’t even know I committed/will commit.  We are supposed to emulate Christ and forgive those who trespass against us.”

In response, Sharkly pointed out that God forgives from the standpoint of eternity, but we do not.

Deep Strength added that God raises the bar under the new covenant which requires us to surpass our own standard of love, forgiveness, etc. and emulate Christ.

I believe all these viewpoints are accurate, but not very precise.  So let me reframe these statements within the proper contexts.

People's Prayers: Prayers of the People: Finding Home ~ 4th Sunday in Lent  '19 Yr C
Return of the Prodigal Son, by Vladimir Zunuzin (2006).

Misconceptions about Forgiveness

There is a widespread idea that forgiveness is essentially the same as choosing to forget what happened and “move on”.  This simple expression of forgiveness may be sufficient for smaller offenses that arise due to inconsideration, ignorance, or immaturity on behalf of the offender.

Ephesians 4:1-6 and Colossians 3:12-14 state that Christians should take this approach towards one another.  Proverbs 17:9 says, “Whoever conceals an offense promotes love…”.  Proverbs 19:11 describes this approach as discreet and glorious!  (So this is one way to glorify God.)

I say that this simple act of grace should be commonplace within a body of believers.  Again, this is concerning small faux pas that everyone commits on a daily basis, e.g. spilling someone’s drink, stepping on someone’s toe, minor bad decisions made through misinformation, etc.  This all assumes that the offender carries no ill will.

But in response to larger offenses, especially willful offenses, doing forgiveness this way is like Gaslighting yourself – a self-imposed psychological denial that the wrongdoing ever occurred.  This is where this particular understanding of forgiveness loses traction because it turns the graceful forbearing defendant into a wimpy doormat who’s out of touch with reality.  If he doesn’t draw some sort of boundary, this flaccid response is little more than an open invitation to be used, discarded, and trampled upon, again and again, by all the careless, greedy cads of the world.

Self-portrait with Saskia in the Parable of the Prodigal Son - Рембрандт
The Prodigal son in the Brothel, AKA Self portrait with Saskia, by Rembrandt Harmenszoon Van Rijn (1635).

In addition to the common misconception of forgiveness described above (i.e. denial and avoidance), most people don’t even know what true forgiveness looks like.  People have the notion that forgiveness should necessarily restore the relationship to what it was before the offense.*  My experience tells me this is just not true.  Sometimes forgiveness requires you to cut that person out of your life.

And worse, there is a common misbelief that the measure of restoration that is achieved through forgiveness is indicative of the authenticity of the forgiveness.  That is a backward understanding of forgiveness.  In reality, the need for forgiveness is an indicator that the relationship is already broken.  Forgiveness may ameliorate the consequences and bring peace, but in no way guarantees a restoration of all that was lost through the transgression.  If you understand this correctly, then you will realize that Christ did something really amazing in that He accomplished both — He absorbed the consequences and restored our relationship to God!

We were alienated from God.  Jesus forgave all through His sacrifice.  But not everyone will cash in on that.  Some people hate Christ because He forgave them.

* The way that forgiveness is offered (not the intensity of effort) makes a big difference in the outcome of the relationship.  This is a huge topic deserving of a separate post.

The Prodigal Son, by John Macallan Swan (1888).

Reframing Forgiveness

A better approach to forgiveness (although this is not complete in itself) is to take responsibility for what has happened and “roll with it”.  This is essentially what Jesus did when He died for our sins — He took responsibility for it.  This approach is much more powerful and effective, but most people cannot accept this concept of forgiveness because it requires real work and sacrifice.  Yet, this is what it means to overcome.

The way I understand it, the reason why Jesus asks us to forgive others, is not for the offender’s benefit, either material or spiritual, nor to “change the world” as salt and light emissaries of Christ, but simply so that we will not get bogged down in bitterness, which is the enemy of faith itself; No faith, No forgiveness!  This is why Jesus said in Matthew 6:14-15, “But if you do not forgive others their sins, your Father will not forgive your sins.

Whenever someone has wronged you, you are faced with a choice.  As the saying goes, Don’t get bitter, get better!

Pierre de Chavannes (December 14, 1824 — October 24, 1898), France painter  | World Biographical Encyclopedia
The Prodigal Son, by Pierre-Cécile Puvis de Chavannes (1872)

Is Forgiveness Transactional in Nature?

The question of whether repentance and forgiveness are transactional in nature is not an easy one to answer.  In fact, this question was at the root of the Protestant Reformation.

  • Catholics insist that confession and penance must be made to the established church.
  • Calvinists would say that repentance is divinely orchestrated, and that humans have no control over this process.
  • Non-Calvinistic Protestants would say it is a conscious decision.

Ed Hurst wrote,

“I’m pretty sure the common Protestant expression “getting saved” does not mean the same thing it did in the New Testament.  I agree that spiritual regeneration takes place outside the time-space continuum, and that the defining moment for us as individuals is when we become aware of it.  It’s not a transaction.  Thus, my group emphasizes the image of feudal commitment from the heart, which is what faith meant in the Bible, and that it is its own reward.”

I believe that forgiveness is not transactional for a technical reason.  A transaction is a mutual, willful agreement of sorts.  But forgiveness and repentance take place in the realm of the heart.

The larger argument that repentance is necessary for forgiveness to reach its conclusion is only partly correct, depending on the context.  Consider the following truth statements.

  • Repentance invites forgiveness.  God always forgives.  Man only forgives sometimes.
  • Forgiveness invites repentance (when it is done right and it has the power of God behind it).  God can forgive in this manner, but not everyone responds.  Man can forgive in this manner provided that he has great faith.  Again, not everyone responds.

In short, making the choice to forgive, done between two humans, is where the spiritual ‘transaction’ of the heart begins.  Within this context, a ‘transactional’ forgiveness must be properly understood.  If a person wrongs you and then repents, then extending forgiveness to that person should establish your spiritual authority as the morally superior person, especially if you must assume certain responsibilities in doing so.

The Return of the Prodigal Son (Rembrandt) - Wikipedia
The Return of the Prodigal Son, by Rembrandt Harmenszoon Van Rijn (1661-1669).


The issue of forgiveness is much bigger than what most people recognize, because Repentance and Forgiveness are central to Spiritual Regeneration.

In summary, the purpose of forgiveness is…

  1. To glorify God.
  2. To avoid bitterness and preserve your faith.
  3. To increase your moral agency and fortitude.
  4. To teach you where and how to draw boundaries.
  5. To prevent you from succumbing to a victim mentality.
  6. To test your faith as an overcomer who cannot be easily defeated by an offense.

The proper expression of forgiveness with respect to the context can be summarized as follows.

  • Between believers, forgiveness of small offenses is commanded by Christ as an expression of love.
  • Between believers, forgiveness of major offenses is required if the offender repents.  This could be tritely described as ‘transactional’.
  • Between a believer and a non-believer, forgiveness can be ‘transactional’ if the offender repents, but if not, then the believer must embrace a more difficult form of forgiveness by accepting the outstanding responsibilities for the consequences of the offense.  Sometimes, this may require extreme measures, such as pursuing a lawsuit, making a change in one’s life plans, or rejecting all future interaction with that person.
  • God’s forgiveness is not ‘transactional’, simply because God operates from an eternal time-space continuum.  Non-Calvinistic Protestants have the notion that God’s forgiveness is not transactional, but the Calvinists may have a better view on this point, in that they recognize that repentance and spiritual regeneration (AKA the “born again” experience) is merely the moment when the believer realizes God’s forgiveness.


Posted in Boundaries, Discernment, Wisdom, Enduring Suffering, Forgiveness, Handling Rejection, Introspection, Love, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Purpose, Relationships, Stewardship, The Power of God | 4 Comments

Headship Restoration

A shout out to a fellow blogger examining Biblical Headship.

Readership: Christians

Introducing Rambo

A few months ago, I came across a blog called 11:3 Restoration, hosted by Pete Rambo.  I was impressed to find that he has been endorsing the Biblical Headship relationship structure, just as Dalrock, Deep Strength, Snapper, and I have been doing over the last couple years.  So this post is intended to highlight a couple of Pete’s contributions to this topic and to draw awareness to his work.

I wrote a brief message to him to ask permission to use his images, and to inquire about his faith background.  In his reply, he said he calls himself a ‘recovering pastor’, which is insightful (and somewhat relieving).  He also said,

“I am a seminary trained man who pastored for ten years before leaving the church and starting a home fellowship.  I believe in Yeshua/Jesus, the Messiah, and try to ‘walk as He walked’ by worshipping on the Sabbath, celebrating the ‘forever’ feasts of the Lord (Leviticus 23), and eating Biblically clean.”

I was excited to read his post at 11:3 Restoration, God v. Church/World re:Family Structure (Image) (2020 November 9).  Here, Pete has a diagram that is essentially the same as the one Snapper created a couple years ago, except that he has added three more diagrams of dysfunctional/unbiblical relationship structures!

As a comparison, here is Snapper’s diagram.

And here is mine.

The Essence of Petition

I was intrigued to find that Pete had a follow up post at 11:3 Restoration, How Should a Woman Pray for Her Man? (2020 November 16).  He uses his image above to explain why it is proper for a wife to ask Jesus to bless her husband, and why it is inappropriate for her to ask Jesus to punish her husband.

“If I were your servant and we had a king, could I go to the king and say, ‘I don’t like the way my master acts.  Can you discipline him for me?’

Or, same scenario, would the king come to me, the servant, to say, ‘I need you to give your master a message for me.  You are to tell him that I want him to do this or that.’

Of course not.  If the king wanted to address a subject, the master of a servant, he wouldn’t go through the servant to send the message, particularly if the message was one of correction.  Rather, the king would honor his own authority structure knowing he would not want to undermine his own authority.  It brings chaos.  (Esther 1:17-18)

IF, however, the servant went to the king and asked the king to ‘bless my master, teach him wisdom, show him your favor, expand his holdings because he is a good master and works hard…’ how would the king not want to honor the servant’s request on behalf of the servant?

Here is the very salient and valuable point.  The servant’s only authority comes from his master, therefore to ask for things that benefit the master is without undermine his authority is right and good.  To request or cry out otherwise is to undermine the authority placed over the servant, something the king will not see favorably!”

1985: When 'Rambo' Tightened His Grip on the American Psyche - The New York  Times

Rambo’s Book

Pete Rambo also published a book that just came out recently (2020 September 10), entitled Authority, Headship, and Family Structure (According to Moses).  I have not yet read this book, so I’ve clipped some excerpts from the summary below.

“Western culture has been on a steady moral decline for at least the last fifty years.  The causes can be debated, however the collapse of the family structure and the rise of radical feminism is unquestionably a major factor.  Today, masculinity is regarded as toxic and anything that hints at patriarchy is immediately attacked with a vigor that can only come from the fires of hell.  It is this extreme venom against masculinity and patriarchal structure, coupled with the increasing collapse of society, that should clue the average person in to the fact that there must be a deeply spiritual reason why the Enemy of our souls hates the authority structure God put in place even before the Garden of Eden.  Clearly, God has a purpose for ordering family and His people in a certain way.

This book is a study through the Books of Moses, coupled with the much broader message of Scripture, to demonstrate that God is very intentional and very consistent in His design for the roles of man and woman.  Further, specific attention is given to His structure for clans and tribes in the prophesied restoration of the dry bones of Ezekiel 37, the whole house of Israel.  Indeed, for those who desire the coming of the Messiah and long to see the Messianic Age, this book serves as a sort of field guide to building family, clan, and tribe as we await the full recovery and restoration of Israel.

Join me on this journey of discovery as we connect dots in Scripture, recover lost truths, and delve into topics that challenge the false paradigms we may have inherited from our fathers.  Ultimately, it is to our fathers of old – Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob – that Malachi the prophet bids us return when he counsels,

4 Remember the Torah of Moses My servant, even the statutes and ordinances which I commanded him in Horeb for all Israel.  5 “Behold, I am going to send you Elijah the prophet before the coming of the great and terrible day of the Lord.  6 He will restore the hearts of the fathers to their children and the hearts of the children to their fathers, so that I will not come and smite the land with a curse.”

Malachi 4:4-6 (NASB)

Do we know the statutes and ordinances, particularly as they relate to authority, headship, and family structure? If these are the Days of Elijah, we had better be grasping the Torah of Moses and all it says about how the sons and daughters of Israel are to act and interact.”

It looks like Rambo is hitting the target to blow up Feminism. (A lame metaphor, but I do like the hyper-masculine imagery.)

In conclusion, I urge readers to go check out 11:3 Restoration and see what Pete has to say on the topic of Headship.


A few other noteworthy posts on Biblical Headship and archetypical relationship structures are listed here.

Dalrock has a large number of posts addressing Biblical Headship.  Here are a few.  (Click on the preceding link to see all.)

Posted in Collective Strength, Education, Evangelism, Faith Community, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Influence, Leadership, Male Power, Purpose | 2 Comments

Protestant vs. Cathodox

What is the main difference between Protestantism and “Cathodoxy”?

Readership: Christians;

Under my post, What is the Authority of the Bible, and why is this Important? (2020 November 12), Cameron wrote,

“There are important things that the Bible doesn’t address directly, not things like fine points on abstract Christological doctrines – I mean things that affect people in real life.  Things that, if I could live for a thousand years and study the Bible every day, I could never decide on.  Things that God would want us to know.  I think if God intended the Bible to be used as Protestants use it, He would have written it like a catechism.”

As someone who isn’t a Protestant but has studied various kinds of Protestantism, I think this issue is often misunderstood by those of us on the “Cathodox” (my own neologism for Catholicism and Orthodoxy as a shorthand, since these two traditions, despite their differences, do share many of the same differences with Protestant Christianity) side of things.  The reason is that Protestants, on the one hand, and Cathodox, on the other, view salvation and the Christian life differently.

Most Protestants share a common belief in salvation by grace through faith/trust in Christ and his promises to forgive sins and grant eternal life by the power of his cross and resurrection.  There are important differences between Protestants on the details of this core issue (Calvinists as compared with non-Calvinists being the most important), but as among non-Calvinist Protestants, or even Calvinists who are not “strict” Calvinists, there is broad agreement about these “doctrines of grace”, such that they share a common prototype.  Beyond this soteriology (again, leaving aside orthodox Calvinists), the rest is typically considered “details”.  Perhaps any of these minor points might be important to the personal belief systems of individual Christians, or even groups of Christians, but are not strictly “necessary for salvation”.  This is because what is necessary for salvation is the response to the grace that gives rise to saving faith, which is trust in Christ’s promises of the forgiveness of sins and the gift of eternal life.  So Protestants tend to be much more comfortable with “disagreements” about any number of things, which are deemed to be “non-essential”, since most everything outside of that saving faith which is a gift of grace is seen as non-essential.

This is the case for most Protestant Christians today in 2020 in the U.S.  It isn’t that they see their differences as completely unimportant, but it’s that they don’t see them as leading, one way or the other, to being saved or not being saved, whereas a strict Cathodox understanding teaches that all Church teachings must be firmly believed, also intellectually, in order to be saved.  Protestants don’t generally believe that, and that’s also the case for more “confessional” Protestants, like the Missouri Synod Lutherans who hold to the Book of Concord or the confessional Presbyterians who hold to the “Westminster Standards”.

Almost Catholic, but … not quite

So this is why Protestants are, in general, much more comfortable than Cathodox with “all of the differences in scriptural interpretation OMG!” — because at the end of the day, despite these, most of them (again, leaving aside the strict Calvinists) agree that salvation comes about by grace through faith/trust in Christ and his promises of forgiveness of sins and eternal life.  Everything else is details.

Now on the internet of course the world is different, because the internet magnifies differences, sharpens disagreements, and creates opposing camps very efficiently.  And so on the internet one often comes across maximalist Protestants who seem to approach things from an almost Cathodox perspective in terms of what must be believed in order to be saved.  In addition, the Protestants with particularly quirky views about any number of things tend to be much more prominent online than in churches, because their quirky views aren’t that welcome in churches to the extent that these views are not consistent with the common soteriology that I described above.

Finally, one thing I have learned when looking at Protestantism is that it is quite varied and dynamic.  There are, for example, Protestants that place very high value on catechisms and confessional statements, like the confessional Lutherans (Missouri and Wisconsin Synods in the U.S.), the confessional Calvinists (PCA, OPC and others), and some of the Dutch Reformed with their adherence to the “Three Forms of Unity”, and require their clergy to adhere to these statements of faith and catechisms, which are intended to “rein in” incongruent interpretations as a serious undertaking.

In the U.S., Protestantism tends to be stereotyped as being either non-denominational megachurch evangelicalism (because this is the most politically visible), which is the least doctrinal form of Christianity that has ever existed, on the one hand, or blue-haired post-Christian mainline formalism, which is mostly not even Christian at this point and is probably best seen as “Post-Christian”, at least in many parishes.  But there are other forms of Protestantism, who use and revere catechisms and binding faith statements — they’re just outnumbered here by those who do not (and that isn’t necessarily good for either Protestantism or Christianity in the U.S.).

From the Cathodox viewpoint, the Protestant approach seems on its face to be impossible. It lacks the “unity of faith” that Cathodoxy requires, at least in theory, for communion to be a lived reality.  But Protestants view the entirety of the faith through a different lens, and view much less as being “essential to salvation” than Cathodox do, which is why all of the many splits and differences are typically much less troubling and concerning to Protestants than they are to Cathodox, who by comparison have a much more comprehensive and monolithic understanding of what is “essential” to the faith, and therefore require a much higher standard of doctrinal and liturgical “unity” than what Protestants have. Although, it has to be said, that in the current setting today, the practices of both Catholicism and Orthodoxy in many places are very much like Protestantism, with ten people in the same pew having ten different versions of the faith, but agreeing on a few essentials, despite what the “official teachings” of the Church are.

I think in the U.S. in particular, due to the pervasive influence of individualism on the culture in general, including the spiritual culture, we are all kind of Protestant in this regard, even if we are not actually Protestants.


Posted in Cathodoxy, Faith Community, Organization and Structure, Protestantism | 23 Comments

The 4 Big Lies of ‘Christian’ Therapeutic Moralistic Deism

The 4 points of Therapeutic Moralistic Deism that have infiltrated modern Christianity.

Readership: Christians;


There are (at least) 4 specific doctrinal/near dogmatic thought processes that have entered the faith and have made pretty much any brand you go to Therapeutic Moralistic Deism. This has affected churches of every tradition I am aware of, including RC and Orthodox. These four things have never been a part of the faith until, as far as I can tell, late modern times. All of them use scripture to back themselves up, and all of them are rationally incoherent.

  1. You must learn to “love yourself” before you can love others. (Usually “love your neighbor as yourself” is twisted to make it mean this.)
  2. You must learn to “forgive yourself”.
  3. Unconditional immediate forgiveness for anyone who sins, no matter what the circumstances, no matter how heinous the crime, no matter whether or not they have repented. Conflating the lack of doing this with “holding a grudge”– which is a clearly enumerated sin.
  4. God wants us to be happy.

I’ll review each one of these fibs.

7 Ways To Love Yourself (Especially When You're Heartbroken)
No mention of loving God nor loving your neighbor here.

1. Love Yourself

Starting with point number one, let’s take a look at the most common text(s) used to support this notion. Christ, in Mark chapter 12 is quoting the Ten Commandments (Leviticus 19) when he declares that the two greatest commandments are to love God, and to love your neighbor.

Now, follow me here, its super complicated. If someone asks me to list TWO things, I will not then go on to list THREE things, and hide one in such sophistry that nobody can figure it out until the 1960s.

Here’s a paraphrase:

Scribe: “Which commandment is the greatest?” (Asking for ONE thing)

Christ: “Well, smartass, there’s actually TWO (my emphasis). Love God, and Love your neighbor!”

Modern trained theologians, with their therapeutically warped sense of stupidity read into this THREE commandments. (Even though Christ Himself specifically states there are two.)

  1. Love God
  2. Love your neighbor

Where they get this nonsense is none other than my moronic profession (mental health) and superimpose it onto a simple passage of scripture. There is no commandment to “love yourself.” In fact, it’s worse. Here’s how the text reads, if you break it down the way a child learning English does. And you don’t have to know Greek or Hebrew to get this.

Love your neighbor IN THE WAY THAT YOU ALREADY LOVE YOURSELF.” (This is what “as” means.) The text presupposes self love, and states that if you would just love your neighbor like you already selfishly love yourself, the world would improve greatly. This is the exact opposite of what is taught. Everywhere. In every church you or I have ever been to.

A word about self love – Parental Alienation
Now this is a little more honest, but still not what Christ said.

2. Forgive Yourself

Next, let’s look at “forgiving yourself.” The best case I have seen for this is Isaiah 43:18 and similar passages which admonish us to not dwell on the past. This is good and right to do, for who can change what has already transpired? But “forgiveness” and “yourself” are transactionally unrelatable in the sense that is meant by this (more therapy bullshit) that has entered the faith.

Having an appropriate sense of what has already happened, learning from it, and growing are good things. But the only entities that can forgive you are (1) the humans you hurt, and (2) God. If you do not believe this, then you are making yourself into your own god and offering yourself “forgiveness.” It’s related to the “feeling” of guilt. Guilt is not a feeling, it is a state of jurisprudence. You either are guilty of something or you are not.

3. Unconditional Immediate Forgiveness

Now how about number 3? I have written elsewhere on the topic of unconditional immediate forgiveness. How many times does there have to be a school shooting then some stupid church hangs a sign out above their building, “We forgive you Adam Lanza (or whomever)?” It would take an entire post to explore this destructive belief and I am not going to do that. Ask about it in the comments and maybe I’ll write it all out, again. But the bottom line is, nowhere in the text (if you use the additive hermeneutic principle of interpretation) does the scripture, or God Himself require us to forgive the unrepentant. If so, then Matthew 18:15-17 and Luke 17:3-4 are in direct confrontation and contradiction of everything else the text says on the matter. (See former posts on text criticism and how to solve this dilemma).

Sin MUST be accounted for (repented of) as a prerequisite to forgiveness. Even God does not forgive without it. This does not make you “judgmental” (a word that only appears in post 1960s dictionaries). It makes you not crazy.

Forgive Yourself - Wisdom Hunters
Do not trifle with repentance. Go straight for the gravy. Doing otherwise would not be loving yourself!

4. Be Happy!

Finally, God wants us to be happy? Everyone believes this. But I say this. The entire point of the existence of the universe and everything in it (including man) is to glorify God. Do most Christians even understand what that takes sometimes? Search the text and find another reason for us to be here. Glorifying God almost always includes some sacrifice to your own happiness or well being.


From the poisoned water of these four ridiculous precepts flows the rest of the stupidity that is called “being a Christian” now — including how weak and ineffectual it looks to the outside world for causing real heart level change.

Lastly, let me add — it doesn’t matter which type of Christian you are. You can see what these things have done to the faith. Cultural Christians, as well as deeply religious faithful believers, on some level can understand this.

The cultural Christians (think Christopher DeGroot, Gavin McInnes, Theodore Dalrymple) would agree to this statement: What Christianity did for the world was it reconciled Gods infinite greatness with His love for man despite his infinite smallness. That gift made everything that followed possible. But each of those 4 points above cause a direct and felt erosion of its power to project humanity into the heights of our collective and individual potential. They do so by tipping the scale in the direction of the “God’s love” part, which is directly in the service of the therapeutic mentality and purpose of it now. After all, each of those points is designed to salve or dull the pain that YOU SHOULD FEEL when you screw up.

Go find a priest or other clergy who does not believe these four things. And who can carefully, precisely and articulately argue against them. There you have found the remnant.


Posted in Cathodoxy, Churchianity, Convergence, Discerning Lies and Deception, Enduring Suffering, Forgiveness, Fundamental Frame, Glory, Hamsterbation, Introspection, Love, Models of Failure, Psychology, Self-Concept, Solipsism | 9 Comments

The Objectification of Reproductive Potential must deliver an Ego Rush or else it is Chauvinistic.

Women desperately want to be objectified, except when they don’t.

Readership: Men;

I came across this sultry meme on 9 Gag.

This photo is obviously staged. She must be wearing a bra of some sort, or else her glands would indicate the presence of gravity. And if she is wearing a bra, then her nips would not show through so prominently. My guess is that she glued raisins to the outside of her bra. LMAO! So, this is an example of what women are willing to do to get attention and be sexually objectified.

There were a few revealing comments.

Manfrombritain wrote,

“Oh look, another thing [yoga] that isn’t about the thing [yoga] but is actually about female sexuality.  Big surprise.  Jesus Christ!  Women love being objectified!  Now they have freedom!”

Farfetchdme replied,

“I’m female and I totally agree with @manfrombritain.  It’s an easy ego push at the expense of single men and at enforcing the f*cked up beauty standards.”

My analysis of the photo and Farfetchdme’s comment confirms our long held suspicions — that wimmin are lying when they ‘object’ to being objectified.

So if that’s true, then why do wimmin ‘object’ at all?

Well, they only ‘object’ to being objectified by men who do not match their mental picture of an ideal stud. The reason that women are so indignant and embarrassed to receive sexual attention from unwanted men, is because it reviles her deeper WISH.

  • Women’s Existential Fear — It hits the nerve of failing to maximize her reproductive potential.
  • It’s a “False Flag” — The man’s interest and willingness to invest is there, but the Tingles are absent, à la no payoff. This is invariably interpreted on the meta-level as a form of attempted deception, or metaphorically speaking, ‘marital’ fraud.
  • Solipsism Shake-Up — It is a rude smack to her self-estimation of her own SMV.
  • Hypergamic Turbo-Thrust Failure — Receiving attention from any man who is considered “below her” standard is perceived as a logistical failure to ‘marry up‘.

Taken together, all this is extremely embarrassing to the female. The usual response is a counterattack — the charge of chauvinism or sexual harassment. Insert meme here.

Kakinjebek02 said,

“Sometimes I wonder if women with small b00bs become insecure because of big breasted women posting these kind of pics and not because of men making similar comments.”

Kakinjebek’s comment makes us realize that all the talk we hear about equality (e.g. fatty tattooed wimmin claiming to have a place on the cover of Sports Illustrated) is projected from the female mindset, and this naturally includes all the things that make females feel insecure and ‘unequal’.  That said, perhaps a good deal of this demand for equaluty arises from intrasex envy — women want to be considered equal to other women for the politically correct point of fairness, but actually, they want individual attention from high quality men just as much as they want equality with these men.

In fact, this illusion of choice is the story line of a thousand dime-store romance novels.

The quintessential femcentric fantasy — two tall, dark, handsome men admiring one blonde woman. And they must be tall, dark and handsome, mind you.

But if you ever ask a woman’s opinion on this, she’ll say wimmin just want to be ‘loved and adored’. [Translation: I wanna be worshipped with male attention until my ego pops.]

At the root of it, there is some truth to this claim.  Women of any variety just want to feel valued, loved, and secure.  Adam’s post, Doctors be like, how many likes did my selfie get?? (2020 July 28), makes this all too clear.  However, women mistakenly believe that if they can institute social equality, and attain greater control over men, then these feelings of insecurity will magically vanish.  But it won’t work out according to this expectation.  As we know, it’s only wishful thinking.

Men (in general) aren’t afflicted with feminine feelings of insecurity, so we seldom hear of unattractive men demanding women to treat them as well as they treat attractive men.  Besides this lack of internal motivation, if and when it does happen, it comes across as comical.  The reason is because it is simply unrealistic for a man to demand respect.  Either you get it, or you don’t.

Final Statements

In sum, Objectified Reproductive Potential must deliver an Ego Rush or else be deemed Chauvinistic.

A man’s attractive value is largely based on his productive potential. — His ability to work, to earn, to create, to plan, his ability to motivate and inspire others, especially the feeelz and tingles in women.

A woman’s attractive value is largely based on her REproductive potential. — Her youth, beauty, and fertility as signifiers, her readiness and availability to shag regularly and joyfully, to bear children, to nurture, to maintain a home, and to support her husband and family.

Whenever men and women get a positive feedback about their attractive value based on their ability to produce or REproduce respectively, it is an ego rush!  GNON is calling that one to become a progenitor of future generations!

The sharp indignation that makes the featherweight male quake in the knees with the fear of rejection only arises when the woman feels she is being shamed in the process.


Posted in Attraction, Discerning Lies and Deception, Female Power, Hypergamy, SMV/MMV, Society, Solipsism | 8 Comments

Experiencing Thoughts as an Internal Monologue

Do you hear voices inside your head?

Readership: All;

@ KylePlantEmoji

Fun fact: some people have an internal narrative and some don’t.

As in, some people’s thoughts are like sentences they “hear”, and some people just have abstract non-verbal thoughts, and have to consciously verbalize them.

And most people aren’t aware of the other type of person.

After seeing the above tweet, L. Allen White described his impressions in his post, Today I Learned That Not Everyone Has An Internal Monologue And It Has Ruined My Day. (2020 February 13). It drove him bonkers.  He had to rethink his whole world perception.

He posted a poll on Instagram in order to collect data on how many people have an internal monologue.  The results showed that 83% of people had an internal monologue, while 17% didn’t (N = 109).

Apparently, I am one of the few people who does not have a constantly running internal dialogue.  Although I do hear the voice of my conscience, or my anger, or my desire, from time to time.  I also hear God’s voice speaking to me when I pray.  I know my father has the same experiences as me, because we have talked about this in the past.

In general, I think in terms of concepts which are rather complex and not easy to put into words.  This usually requires a lot of words to accurately describe it and get my point across.  Many people don’t have the will, the interest, or the attention span necessary to go through that.  But if a person happens to be interested in the topic, I can talk for hours and never get tired.  As I’ve gotten older, I’ve become better at identifying which kinds of topics people might be interested in.

You may find it interesting that I am a popular lecturer by profession.  To do this, I just focus my mind on a concept and I start talking about it.  I don’t spend a lot of time in preparation, but if I deliver the same speech many times, I will acquire supplementary materials to add to my presentation that enhance my delivery, such as better scientific words, figures, and graphs, which I will compile into a PowerPoint.

While I am speaking, I don’t think about what I’m going to say.  Sometimes I don’t even know what I’m going to say.  It just comes out of me.  I have a general habit of speaking slowly, forcefully, and sometimes emotionally, which enhances my presentation.  At times I fumble for the right words but it doesn’t seem to detract from the overall impact.  Instead, it seems to grab people’s attention and it gets them thinking.  Many people have described me as a motivational speaker.

President Woodrow Wilson and Secretary of State William Jennings Bryan (ca. 1914). Wildly popular among the commoners, Bryan was famed for his moral rectitude, and his convincing and deeply moving speeches. He resigned from office upon learning that his exceptional skill as a motivational speaker was being used to promote political schemes of which he strongly disagreed.

I have found that writing suits me very well.  But I have to sit and think about it for a while to be able to put my ideas into words that another person could understand.  I have to conscientiously construct sentences and choose my words.  I use a thesaurus regularly.  I have to write these words down whenever they come to me, or else the succinctness and eloquence will quickly be forgotten.  I regard good writing as an artistic masterpiece of language, although whether others regard my own writings as masterpieces is subject to opinion.


Posted in Introspection, Psychology, Self-Concept | 12 Comments