Wimmin at the Well

Missionary dating is not what you might think.

Readership: High SMV Christian men;

Christian men with a high SMV invariably receive many IOI’s from various women.  But then, assuming he can read them, how should he respond?

If he simply turns her down or ignores her overtures, she’ll probably just skip to the next man.  Time’s a wasting!

It’s important for him to step up the game, but following this to it’s natural conclusion — sex — just isn’t the Biblically prescribed Christian response.

So what is a man to do?

Woman-at-the-Well-by-M-Belk

Ed Hurst left a powerful comment under the previous post, 8 Examples of IOI Word Semantics (2020 July 8).

“We live in a very sad world.  I think it’s important for men who follow Christ to be aware of how these things work [i.e. the communication of romantic interest through IOI’s], not because of “lost opportunities” but so that we may be redemptive.  It’s one thing to be oblivious to overtures, but it’s a powerful witness when you recognize those overtures and can say why you decline.  I’ve said often enough to women, “Flattering, but I’d rather not.”  It sometimes turned into a Woman at the Well moment.”

The phrase “woman at the well” refers to a story about Jesus’ interaction with a Samaritan woman in the book of John, chapter 4.  [Click on the link to read it, if you are unfamiliar with the passage.]

The text doesn’t recount their interaction in greatly extended detail, but I’ll put money on wagering that she probably gave Him the bucket list of IOI’s.  Remember, Jesus wore a garment without a seam (John 19:23-24).  This was the equivalent of wearing a silk Armani suit back in the day.  IOW, He always looked super sharp, and I’m sure she noticed that.

So how would a typical modern man respond?

Modern guys would stand there blinking in the sun, thinking about how thirsty they are, pondering the best travel route, and how to get back to work on time.  A chad might be checking out her cleavage and thinking about how to implement his day game strategy.  Any modern man definitely wouldn’t be wearing Armani in the desert.

But what did Jesus do?

After making some small talk, he basically made her out to be a slore by mentioning that she had no fewer than five “husbands”.  (I’m fascinated to learn that Jesus could somehow discern the exact number of men she had slept with.)  I’m sure he was rather polite in his verbiage, but anyway, she absolutely ate it up!  She thought this revelation was so cool that she told everybody in town!

Of course, this approach just wouldn’t go over in today’s politically correct culture, and it probably wasn’t too appropriate to talk about this back then either.

Woman at the Well Howard Lyon

The Woman at the Well, by Howard Lyon.

The Takeaway

This Bible story and Ed’s admonition lends a Word to high value Christian men — Open the eyes of your heart and read those IOI’s!  If you miss the fact that she’s interested, then you’re a dud.  But if you can pick up on that, then your range of options opens up.

Turning down her invitation to have sex puts you in the driver’s seat of the relationship, which is good and right.  But she will probably interpret this response as a rejection of the relationship and then ghost.  So at that moment, you have to communicate to her that your refusal is not necessarily a rejection, but that it is instead an invitation to have a better kind of relationship.  Have a heart-to-heart talk with her.  Explain why you want to wait, and how it can lead to a God-glorifying union.  There’s a chance that she might understand and believe, especially if she’s a Christian.  But if she doesn’t submit to your frame in this respect, then let her go.  You’ve just saved yourself from sin, heartache, and wasting your time on someone who doesn’t have God’s best for you in her mind.

It’s a prime moment for evangelism because her heart is open, trusting, and compliant.  Whatever move you make will go straight down to her heart and become part of her spiritual identity.

So, give those chicks who are coming on to you some signature Red Pill fare, and attach your Christian purpose to have a God-honoring marriage.  Keep it lite and non-judgmental.

Don’t just be another cad taking his turn on her thatch.  Instead, use these opportunities to do something for the Kingdom.

Related

About Jack

Jack is a world traveling artist, skilled in trading ideas and information, none of which are considered too holy, too nerdy, nor too profane to hijack and twist into useful fashion. Sigma Frame Mindsets and methods for building and maintaining a masculine Frame
This entry was posted in Attraction, Authenticity, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Discernment, Wisdom, Evangelism, Game Theory, Holding Frame, Influence, IOI's, Male Power, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Personal Presentation, Purpose, Relationships, Strategy, The Power of God and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

43 Responses to Wimmin at the Well

  1. AngloSaxon says:

    “(I’m fascinated to learn that Jesus could somehow discern the exact number of men she had slept with.)”

    Cos he’s God and he knows that stuff bruv.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ed Hurst says:

      Everything Jesus did was as a man of faith under the Covenant. He pointedly avoided using His divine privileges in favor of demonstrating what any man of faith could do. So the question now is: How do we discover the means to discerning such things through faith?

      Liked by 1 person

      • AngloSaxon says:

        I completely disagree.

        He raised the dead to life, I cannot do that, nobody else can do that.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I also disagree. Ed, If you figure out how to raise the dead by faith, I’d like my father brought back to life. Or if you decide to feed 5000 from 5 loaves and two fishes, send me an invite. The woman perceived that Jesus had done an act of prophecy, by revealing what nobody else would have known. I have the faith to believe that Jesus did real miracles. I also have the faith to be a martyr, but I don’t bend spoons or perform card tricks with it, and that’s OK.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        Jesus said…

        “I do nothing on my own but speak just what the Father has taught me”

        …and…

        “…the Son can do nothing by himself; he can do only what he sees his Father doing, because whatever the Father does the Son also does.”

        It’s not clear what ‘divine privilege’ means. At the well, Jesus revealed what he had been taught by his Father. All Christians have such divine privilege, but not necessarily in that specific way. Jesus was the representative (or image) of the Father. We are also created in the image of God and—by faith—subject to the same inheritance of the new covenant. (Genesis 1:27; Romans 8:28-29; Hebrews 1:3; Colossians 1:15; Hebrews 9:15)

        Like

      • Jack says:

        AngloSaxon wrote,
        “[Jesus] raised the dead to life, I cannot do that, nobody else can do that.”
        If you believe the Bible is true, then you have to believe that men can do miracles through faith in Christ. The book of Acts contains many such examples.
        https://bibleask.org/what-were-the-miracles-of-the-book-of-acts/
        Of note,
        Peter raised Tabitha/Dorcas from the dead. (Acts 9:39-42)
        Paul raised Eutychus from the dead. (Acts 20:8-12)
        Even in the Old Testament, which was a time before the Holy Spirit was imparted, there are stories of prophets who raised people from the dead.
        Elijah raises a widow’s son from the dead. (1 Kings 17:17-24)
        Elisha raised the Shunammite woman’s son. (2 Kings 4:34,35)
        In this discussion, we consider it to be a miracle that Jesus was able to discern how many husbands the woman had had. Some might even consider a man’s ability to read IOI’s to be a miracle.
        But if you can believe that Peter and Paul raised people from the dead, then reading IOI’s and sexual soul bonds seems like a piece of cake in comparison.

        Like

    • Jack says:

      Imagine if a man living today could talk with a woman for 15 minutes and know exactly how many men she’s been with – with certainty! Think of how that would dramatically alter the SMP and MMP. Going off of Jesus’ example, I believe it is possible. This is what fascinates me.

      Like

  2. Maybe her promiscuity was common knowledge around the area? Like a local scandal or something.

    Just a thought.

    Like

  3. lastmod says:

    Anything Jesus said or did was to please the Father. It wasn’t to make men, or women feel good about themselves. Nor, was it to puff them up about how “holy” they were or thought they were. He just told the truth according to The Father. It was example set in action, not just in word, but in deed….father to son. Teacher to student. Family and societal structure without charts, diagrams, game manuals, no bible, and no “tools” to help.

    Like

  4. Ed Hurst says:

    C’mon guys; if those things were a part of my mission, I would do them. I’ve experienced miracles of provision, healings, even time shifts. And I’ve discerned things I could not have known otherwise. I’m not going to boast, but miracles don’t come at our convenience. They come when God wants them. You don’t see them because you don’t approach it from the right perspective.

    Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “if those things were a part of my mission, I would do them. I’ve experienced miracles of provision, healings, even time shifts. And I’ve discerned things I could not have known otherwise.”

      Yes, this is what I was saying. For Jesus, those things were part of his mission to accomplish the will of the Father. Everything he did was part of that Covenant. Similarly, if God wanted you to raise the dead, you would do so…

      “He pointedly avoided using His divine privileges in favor of demonstrating what any man of faith could do.”

      …but what does ‘divine privilege’ mean?

      To say that Jesus could ‘avoid using his divine privilege’ makes no sense at all. The things he did were divine because he did the will of the Father. To suggest otherwise is to say that Jesus had privilege beyond that of (or apart from) his Father, which is absurd as there is no greater authority and privilege than that which the Father possesses. Jesus most definitely did not avoid relying on the Father, and indeed said that he could not do otherwise (John 5:19).

      As I read the book of John, I come to the unmistakable sense that absent the will of the Father, Jesus had no power at all, that is, there was nothing to avoid using.

      Like

      • Ed Hurst says:

        Well, not to make it a semantics tail chase, I was thinking of Philippians 2:7. It’s the sort of thing that led Him to face the arrest instead of calling angels.

        Like

      • AngloSaxon says:

        The verse before tells us that he was in the form of God.

        None of use are in the form of God, that’s unique to Jesus (and I suppose the Holy Spirit too).

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Well, not to make it a semantics tail chase, I was thinking of Philippians 2:7. It’s the sort of thing that led Him to face the arrest instead of calling angels.”

        This type of comment is quite helpful. In this crowd of (mostly) believers we’d do well to more frequently attach book/chapter/verse to various comments and claims, to avoid ambiguity and (possibly) prevent disagreement. As the ultimate authority, it would be sad if we couldn’t or wouldn’t cite the word of God.

        Anyway, do you think that Jesus’ ability to call angels something unique to him or, like knowing how many lovers the woman had, something that could (if it were the Father’s will) be available to his followers?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Jesus’ ability to call angels depended on His authority. His knowing how many lovers the woman had depended on His discernment. I believe it is possible for humans to have discernment within a certain matter, without having full authority of a different matter.

        Liked by 1 person

      • ramman3000 says:

        @Jack

        “Jesus’ ability to call angels depended on His authority. His knowing how many lovers the woman had depended on His discernment. I believe it is possible for humans to have discernment within a certain matter, without having full authority of a different matter.”

        You have made an error in your response to my question. Matthew 26:53:

        “Or do you think that I cannot now pray to My Father, and He will provide Me with more than twelve legions of angels?”

        Jesus’ ‘ability’ to call down angels depended on asking his Father, who would do all the providing on His authority. In this, Jesus was the same as any other Man of the Covenant. To God, calling down angels is no different than knowing how many lovers a woman has.

        “As I read the book of John, I come to the unmistakable sense that absent the will of the Father, Jesus had no power at all, that is, there was nothing to avoid using.”

        Like

  5. lastmod says:

    In The Salvation Army he was frequently referred to as a “man of sorrows” aside from his usual…The Christ. The Messiah, King of Kings, savior, wholly God and wholly man, and the like…….

    “man of sorrows” struck me at the time (2008 / 2009) because all I ever really knew about jesus before this was the Christmas story, some basic teachings in Sunday school as a boy on that rare ocassion our family went to church (raised culturally Anglican).

    I saw for a brief moment around that time that indeed, that jesus had to exist for men like me and many of the men that surrounded me at that time. Unemployed. Hustling a day job, scraping to pay the rent, happy if I had an extra few bucks on any given week. Watching fellow men like myself help each other in sobriety……dealing with bad breaks (by our own hand, or cusing our existence for lack of anything that was deemed “of value” to the world).

    I understood that Christ indeed was for all. Then after I was redeemed, I realized and understood by men and the world……inside the church (mine and others) that: Jesus just likes some people more than others and there is really nothing you can do.

    If one has an “important” gift, yeah…its a blessing to serve and lecture. If you have one of the useless gifts….you might as well leave before wasting your time. Let the dead bury themslves?

    Let the “blessed” wash the wounds and feed the hungry, and minister on the streets late at night.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      It is a challenge and also a mark of maturity to recognize that the things that give one a sense of self-esteem may very well be different from the things that God prizes about that person.

      Liked by 1 person

      • lastmod says:

        Well this post is written for high / higher SMP men…….and they are pretty much married, and do have options and choices.

        Like

  6. Ed Hurst says:

    Maybe I can save some electrons if I remind my fellow commentators here I generally reject the intellectual foundations of the West, and Western evangelical Christianity in particular. I am quite well educated about most of what I have rejected, and use some of the expressions commonly used among evangelicals, but my assumptions are rather different. I contend that the Hebrew intellectual outlook is the only way we will ever grasp the Bible, and that such a background is distinctly not Western.

    For AngloSaxon, I would say your attempt at precision in Philippians 2 misses the point. Jesus was God and man at the same time, even in the flesh, but we have to understand the implications of such statements on multiple levels, as was common among educate ancient Hebrews. Linear logic is inappropriate for understanding Scripture. Paul was a very Hebrew man writing mystical Hebrew thoughts in Greek. We can’t slice and dice how we understand what he wrote using Aristotelian logic.

    Jesus could have called thousands of angelic beings; the exact count doesn’t matter. Just a few could have done the job. His statement at His arrest was typical Hebrew hyperbole. His Father would have sent them, but it wasn’t what Jesus came here for. He chose not to tap into such authority because He wanted to show His nation what genuine faith could do, if they would embrace it. That was a major element in His mission. He didn’t once and for all surrender His divine authority until death; He kept bypassing it to show what faith could do for any of us who obeyed our mission calling.

    Jason, it’s not a question of your importance with God. That’s a very false Western idea. The whole concept of fairness and equality is a lie from Satan; it misses the point altogether. It’s a question of finding peace with Him, of discovering His purpose for you. Some of the spiritual gifts and miraculous powers we talk about are yours, if you could just find out where you are supposed to be in His Kingdom. But you are the only one who can get that answer for yourself.

    Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Well…you did say I had a SA background and that “explains alot” so, why waste your time

      Liked by 1 person

      • Ed Hurst says:

        You missed the point of that comment. It wasn’t denigrating the SA, but recognizing the unique influence of the SA on how people approach religion. Knowing you have an SA background explains some of what you say. Keep your background, but know that faith itself is much bigger than my religion or yours.

        Like

    • ramman3000 says:

      “I generally reject the intellectual foundations of the West [..] We can’t slice and dice how we understand what he wrote using Aristotelian logic.”

      On your blog you say something similar:

      “We reject the notion that reason and intellect are the pinnacle of human capabilities. While we recognize that most people abuse the word “mysticism” as something useless and irrational, we contend that God will scarcely bother with addressing Himself to human intellect, but calls to us from far higher faculties. Revelation is inherently mystical.”

      The idea that God is more-or-less unknowable except via mysticism is a Gnostic viewpoint. The Gnostics rejected the flesh/physical and held that revelation was everything. Denying the flesh is the defining mark of a false spirit, that is, antichrist (1 John 4:1-6).

      Do you confess, as I do, that Jesus is Lord Christ who came and was fully revealed in the flesh? Do you accept all that this entails (Hebrews 10:5; 1 Timothy 3:16; John 3:16; Philippians 2:5-8)? In particular, do you agree with Colossians 2:9-10…

      “For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form, and in Christ you have been brought to fullness. He is the head over every power and authority.”

      …that fullness of divinity dwells within the bodily form (i.e. flesh) of Jesus, and that through Jesus’ flesh, the Father—who is spirit and invisible—is revealed? Do you further agree that those in Christ also have that fullness within us?

      Do you therefore reject the Gnostic notions that God who is unseen is only revealed through mystical insight and not the flesh?

      Like

      • Ed Hurst says:

        I don’t agree with your definition of Gnosticism, but that’s another matter. Jesus came in the flesh, but the full meaning of who He is cannot be known by the flesh. Only by spiritual rebirth can anyone know God. Your Aristotelian categories are out of place, because no proposition can ever be “Truth”.

        Okay, can we stop fussing about this stuff here? All I meant was for folks to know where I am coming from. That way you can dismiss my comments or engage them as you feel led. I utterly refuse to debate my faith; I’m perfectly willing to answer questions so you’ll understand where I actually stand.

        Like

  7. Scott says:

    These are the kinds of conversations that made me almost lose my faith in seminary.

    Liked by 1 person

    • ramman3000 says:

      Is this why you joined an Orthodox faith?

      Like

    • Jack says:

      @ Scott,
      I am disappointed that no one has yet commented on the main idea of this post, but have instead delved into ontological arguments.
      Our discussions would be more insightful if we were to keep the personal application in mind.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        My concern is always for the onlooker. Christian or not. Endless discussions about how Christ knew how many husbands she had, or what a ‘husband’ is (in the story) have absolutely zero spiritual value.

        I am no closer to God for having read it. A layperson is even less so.

        Like

      • ramman3000 says:

        @Jack

        “I am disappointed that no one has yet commented on the main idea of this post…”

        But they did! Jason said this:

        “Well this post is written for high / higher SMP men…….and they are pretty much married, and do have options and choices.”

        Which, frankly, is a valid criticism. Scott’s criticism has (some) validity as well:

        “Endless discussions about how Christ knew how many husbands she had, or what a ‘husband’ is (in the story) have absolutely zero spiritual value.”

        And here is what AngloSaxon wrote:

        “Cos he’s God and he knows that stuff bruv.”

        Honeycomb, Sharkly, and Bee all liked this comment. That’s four people who all agreed that the premise of your post is ridiculous because Jesus’ interactions with women do not translate to anyone else, due to his divinity. I suspect some may find the notion that Jesus was worried about IOIs and dating to border on blasphemy, as evidenced by the vehement objection to Ed’s response.

        “…but have instead delved into ontological arguments.”

        Well, in light of the above criticism, of course they did! What did you expect?

        As for me, I mostly ignored your post because I thought it was ridiculous for a bunch of different reasons. If you’d like I could point out its various flaws, but I think I just did.

        Now, the questions of the New Covenant is far more interesting. What is the nature of that Covenant? Do all Christians of sufficient faith take part in the exact same legacy as Jesus did with the Father, or was Jesus uniquely different in a way that we can never emulate or experience. These are deeply spiritual and very valid questions.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. lastmod says:

    “My concern is always for the onlooker. Christian or not.” Scott let’s not gladhand too much here on that. I could debate that, but I won’t.

    As for the woman by the well…….I am expecting any minute now someone to say “Jesus was actually demonstrating rock solid Frame and Game by his action…clear as day for men to follow”

    Done with this thread unless my name is invoked 😉

    Like

  9. Scott says:

    Ramann

    In a way, my experience in seminary, where I ultimately chose not to take an endorsement from a denomination/governing body is related to my ultimate conversion (technically reversion) to Holy Orthodoxy.

    Inasmuch as that experience was a microcosm of the worst of the pitfalls of the reform view.

    When everyone is encouraged to be mini theologians, with no appeal to an earthly tie breaker of authority on interpretation and application, roaming the halls of seminary arguing with your fellow seminarians about every parsed Greek verb seems a legitimate way for Christians to spend their spiritual energy.

    Like a cell that splits, then those split, then those until there are millions, because each goes its own way no one ever stops to ask if this is what was meant to be. And once in a while, I run into one who says this is actually a feature, not a bug. At leas they’re honest.

    Liked by 2 people

    • ramman3000 says:

      I’ve seen this viewpoint of yours many times from Orthodox and Catholic. Thank you for clarifying.

      Like

      • Scott says:

        Ultimately I was unable to square my understanding of the churches role in canonization (and the implied authority that came with) and it’s role today as expressed in the reform view.

        Liked by 2 people

      • ramman3000 says:

        “Ultimately I was unable to square my understanding of the churches role in canonization (and the implied authority that came with) and it’s role today as expressed in the reform view.”

        Your viewpoint is a common one, which is why I asked.

        Upon examination, I always find this to (ultimately) be circular reasoning (i.e. begging the question), so I stopped arguing with people about it since you can’t find an endpoint in a circle. In my experience the difference is that the Orthodox/Catholic deny that it is question begging while the Reform freely admit it. It doesn’t resolve the difficulty, but I find the latter more refreshing.

        I’ve contented myself with other ways to resolve the difficulty, but I doubt my views would have many takers.

        Like

  10. Scott says:

    Well, I’m not sure I understand the circular reasoning part. But I do know that a line of questioning that I was unable to get clear, reasonable answers (that even the lowest IQ of Christian can understand) emerged and brought me into communion with Orthodoxy.

    Even protestants agree that the so called “visible” church played a crucial role in canonization. For anyone reading along, canonization is collecting, collating and discerning which texts are inspired and which would be discarded from what we call “the Bible”

    But what happened to that church and its miraculous ability and authority to make such claims from the middle of the third century until Luther? Did God leave Christians without an earthly authority for discernment for 1200 years?

    If endless permutations of sectarian beliefs created by the individual and his conscious reading of the texts sans left and right guide rails provided by the church was the intent, again, were all those Christians for 1500 years without the real McCoy?

    Every person on earth should be able to understand the basics of how to be a Christian. Which is more reasonable–

    The church, spawned from the apostles continued to grow and have authority and make more and more Christians the world over even with all its problems and corruptions, guiding the faithful into a communion of followers of Christ, marked by baptism –or–
    There is a secret truth within a truth that has existed above all the high church nonsense that one must find by learning Hebrew, Aramaic and Greek and finding the “right” commentary, and the “true” faith by re-interpreting and discerning new revelations that nobody in 2000 years thought of in some tiny backwoods snake handling church in Arkansas?

    Like

  11. Pingback: Handling an IOI requires a Miracle! | Σ Frame

  12. OKRickety says:

    Yes, I know this is not the point of the post (Scott), but it’s my understanding that Jesus’ tunic was the inner garment, not the outer. In other words, I don’t think it was equivalent to an Armani suit. In the NASB translation, it says they made 4 parts of his outer garments but cast lots for his tunic because it was one piece.

    I believe Jesus was recognized for his appearance but I don’t think it was because of his fine apparel.

    Like

    • Jack says:

      @ OKRickety,
      The passage does not specify what Jesus wore on that particular day. I’m only speculating. But it’s not unrealistic to assume that Jesus did receive IOI’s.

      Like

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s