Rules and Trust

…are somewhat opposed.

Readership: All
Author’s Note: This post was co-written by Jack and NovaSeeker.
Length: 3,750 words
Reading Time: 12.5 minutes

Introduction

The discussion under Parental Divorce Ruins Daughters’ Future Marital Commitment and Confidence (2021 February 24) captured much of the conversation about the importance of rules, and how the rules can no longer be followed with a positive outcome, but only a lot of suffering – which kind of sums up Eric’s main contention.

Of particular note, this conversation between Deti, NovaSeeker, et al., offered several viewpoints about how the rules are now ambiguous and impossible to follow.

This discussion also contained a couple ideas that I think are important issues that tie into The Christian Conundrum (2021 March 1) and The Christian Marriage Dilemma (2021 February 26). These are…

  1. Internal Traits — Flexibility, adaptability, determination, charisma, and other personality traits, etc. Scott’s approach to marriage is an example of this.
  2. External Environment — About rules and expectations. My approach to marriage is an example of this.

People tend to internalize the external environment, making it part of their identity. This can then lead to an identity crisis when the external environment doesn’t match up to their internalized concepts, which are often shaped by personal ideals. For Christians, this would be doctrinal stances and moral rules.

All in all, I see the conundrum issue coming down to a conflict between ideals and realities, and this is a topic that continues to come up in the sphere over the years. Some people just can’t deal with too much of a difference between the two.

The Covert Contract of following the Rules

For Christians, there is a tendency to think that they can get what they want out of God, life, etc. by following rules of conduct and morality in an effort to fit the ideal, thinking that this is what it means to be a “good Christian”, obedient to God, etc. But all our own efforts to pursue sanctification, holiness, and the blessings in life are never enough. This approach never fully connects with God or reality, and it fails to hit home with people. This is kind of like the Pharisees in Jesus’ day, or the older brother’s approach in the story of the Prodigal son, or Javert in Les Miserables, as I discussed in More on the Framework of Options (2021 March 22). The point of this post was that Clinging to the “Rules” can cause a lot of confusion and legalism, and it misses the larger point of connecting with God and loving others.

Guys in the Christian Manosphere are guilty of this too. We have a desire for good wives, but women are just not up to par. (Women are saying the same about the men.) So then women are dismissed (vetted out) because they don’t fit the Christian mold. It’s a very mechanical, rules-based approach. Not much has been said about how to connect with reality and make an impact (other than through overt sexual relations).

This is where the rubber hits the road, so to speak. 

It’s definitely a case where there are ideals, on the one hand, and a reality, on the other, that don’t match, and that one way guys are trying to deal with that is by trying to screen/vet/improve/narrow things so that they can get them to line up as much as possible so as to manage outcomes.

I don’t think that’s a great approach because a lot of guys can’t attract nor even notice IOIs, and so they won’t be able to do it, plain and simple.

I see this as being the challenge underlying the conundrum. I think the answer will be very difficult for us to put into words, and rather unpalatable to a lot of people. I think Dalrock saw this coming, and this may be the reason he bowed out of blogging at his zenith. I think some “Churchian” leaders are conscious of this conundrum, but they conform to the culture too much and fail to tackle the issue properly.

A more fundamental problem with this whole mindset can be identified like this: Even if a guy can manage to do all of the things that the Christian Manosphere has been proposing (e.g. maintaining frame, exercising charisma, having an attitude of detachment, working out, looksmaxxing, following your mission in life, going to places where marriageable Christian women hang out, reading IOIs, vetting, etc.), he ends up still is trying to square things that are not going to be squared in most situations.  In reality, most situations are going to require more flexibility and less rigidity — less “models” and more prioritizing of what is actually most important, keeping one’s eye on that ball, accepting that a “go for everything” approach will only work in cases of truly lucky people and that for everyone else it’s going to be a matter of making some prioritized compromises in order to get the broader benefits of a stable, lasting marriage and children, which are also loaded with spiritual benefits.

In other words, I think a common approach here is to cut off one’s nose spiritually to spite one’s face.  In other words, to take the issue raised by commenter Eric, one may take a hardline approach about fornication, but that can lead to no marriage, and the foreclosure of a life that God maybe intended for you in order to bless you in certain ways, and in order to do certain things he had in mind for you to do under “Plan A”.

An alternative to the hardline approach is to realize that some fornication prior to marriage may be a necessary concession to a messy society in order to gain the benefits of a marriage that will bless you — it may be that you have to prioritize less having absolutely pure hands prior to marriage and prioritize achieving a stable marriage to actually fulfill your mission in life.

If it just happens to be God’s will for a certain person to be married and have a family, and years pass without this happening, his conscience will tell him that he’s not been obedient to God’s particular calling for his life.

Of course, that’s a hard course for Christians to endorse openly.  The conventional route is to discourage that course and do anything but be realistic about it, and, if you want to be a real hard@ss about it, tell people they need to suck it up, after all they could be getting fed to the lions!  But it does seem like the churches, de facto, have kind of taken this approach by turning a blind eye to the fornication that is taking place.  Perhaps if there were more open discussion of it, people could openly discuss across generations how it would be best for people to minimize the number of pre-marital relationships for various practical reasons (bonding being the main one), while not emphasizing so much being absolutely pure before marriage.  But trying to put this into a formula that “serious” Christians will accept on paper …. gosh that’s almost impossible to think about, isn’t it?

Sex is an Expression of Trust

I’ve written a lot about trust and humility, and how it relates to sex, but judging by the comments, I don’t think people really understand the connection. Nevertheless, I think this perspective can yield a lot of fruitful insights, so I’ll go over it again here.

When a woman invites a man to have sex with her, it is an expression of her trust.

When women open themselves to sex, it’s kind of like the female equivalent of opening their fly — they are opening themselves, literally, to a man, and they are very, very vulnerable to him when they do that.  They are vulnerable to his rejection, of course, but even if he doesn’t reject her, she becomes vulnerable to him physically in a very visceral and direct way. She is opening herself to let him inside her body and also into her heart, in a way that is inherently submitting to his physical dominance of her. Speaking both figuratively and literally, she is opening the kimono — her guard is down.

This is utterly different from how men experience sex, I think, because our physical situation generally, and as it relates to sex specifically, is the opposite of this.

Her experience of rejection is not like how a man experiences rejection, which is painful enough, but it’s a rejection of the big move she makes (from a woman’s point of view) to let her guard completely down and make herself ultimately vulnerable to a man. It’s experienced like a slave kneeling at his master’s feet, only to be kicked in the head.  It is intensely shameful.  It’s also why a man never, ever gets a second chance after rejecting a woman.

On the other hand, if the man responds by having sex, then it solidifies the trust as mutual, and this opens the door to all kinds of new possibilities for the relationship.

I think this is even the case (albeit less so) for more hedonistic sex and/or power play sex — the woman is always making herself at least somewhat vulnerable.  The different contexts determine really just how widely she opens her fly, so to speak, in terms of more or less vulnerable, but there is always some existential vulnerability, even for a seasoned prostitute, when they make themselves submit to a man’s sexual physical dominance over themselves.  That “opening” is greater if there are feelings flowing than it is if it is purely manipulative, or even if it’s just hedonistic, but it’s still an opening, and there is still always some level, even if it’s only a basic one, of trust involved.

The thing is, trust is enshrouded in the ego which makes it difficult to read, and a woman’s invitation to have sex isn’t always predominantly about trust. Sometimes the woman is just having fun, or making some kind of a power play. When it is not about trust, or when trust is broken for some reason, then it all goes bad. Even when trust is there, the relationship can go south if commitment is not firm.

This is a very big deal for women, because of their existential stance of vulnerability that virtually all of them experience the world through — when they “expose themselves’, in this way, they are exposing their great weakness, their vulnerability, so they feel very sensitive about how men treat that.  If he doesn’t respond by having sex, he is breaking that trust and that’s why she rejects him. This is one reason why women go bonkers when men reject them after they make themselves open sexually like that.

I do think it also has implications for sex prior to marriage in a context where the culture is as sexual as ours is.  That is, how can you really know whether a woman is going to truly open herself to you sexually — which really is a gauge of her openness and trust of you generally — without actually having sex with her?  I doubt it, in this culture.  In the past, when female sexual purity was the norm, this was not an issue — women were giving their trust to one man only, it was not the case of trying to figure out which one to trust more than the others, or a process of her learning what that trust feels like, and comparing the experience between different men, as it is today.

Case Study – A Sexual Conviction

I want to share this story from an anonymous contributor which says what a lot of Christians are afraid to say.

“I guess I could say that my present marriage is more happy than not. I had sex with her within 15 minutes of meeting her for the first time, so my own experience seems to match Scott’s experience and it also confirms the truth of what Jim is saying.

About a week after we met online and had been texting regularly, she told me, “I need sex! Come F-ck me!” So I got on a bus in the middle of the night and arrived at her house at 6:00 in the morning. Clothes came off as soon as I got in the door and we stayed in bed for the next three days. Afterwards, she told me, “I know you’re a real man because you’re not afraid to F-ck me.” I think there’s a lot to be learned from that one statement.

Red flags galore, and the first few years were hә11, but it worked out. I didn’t know anything about the Red Pill at that time, and I didn’t care about sexual purity because I was already divorced myself.

No one would ever say this, but I wonder if “conviction” could mean “I need to F-ck him/her RIGHT NOW!!!” I think I could relate to that, but obviously, there’s no doctrine to support this.”

In the context of the current SMP/MMP, a man would need to have sex with a woman to experience whether it was similar to what happened with this guy and his wife.  The trouble is that most men in this culture aren’t good at looking for that — instead they often tend to look for willingness, sexual expertise, and interest, but not really the kind of open-ness, vulnerability, and trust that she is expressing in the sex act.  So no matter whether they are engaging in sex or not, men aren’t actually evaluating the right aspects of sex, and are instead fixated on things that can be performed well enough by a skilled prostitute, who is only making herself minimally vulnerable, open, and trusting in the act of sex.

Let’s go down that road, just for the sake of discussion

So let’s assume that a man takes the approach of compromising with the cultural norm in finding a wife. So then what should he be looking for? What should his mind be set on?

I think it would be the typical things that we have been putting forth as feminine virtues (e.g. submission, teachability, respect, the attitude to help and serve…) and also factors that form solid relationships (e.g. Headship/IOIs, similar socioeconomic tier, SMV equity, shared life experiences, mutual life goals and purposes, shared values, compatible personalities, maybe similar intelligence…).

Look at this verse. The practical interpretation is highly debated.

“But if any man thinks he is behaving improperly toward his virgin, if she is past the flower of youth, and thus it must be, let him do what he wishes. He does not sin; let them marry.”

1st Corinthians 7:36 (NKJV)

Could this verse imply that there is an “exception” to the rule “the first time around”, as long as it leads to marriage? There must be a better way for us to understand this.

Somewhat in jest, maybe the hardcore Calvinist perspective might be something like, “If you had sex, then God must have allowed that to happen for some reason.” I’m not sure where that reasoning would lead, or how far it would take us.

Following the Rules is necessary in the absence of Trust

The Covenant Law describes the form and function of metaphysical realities and how God operates within that context. The Covenant Law is not legalistic rules, but a lot of Christians think so. If one loses touch with God, life in the Spirit, and the Covenant Law, then religious life is reduced to rule keeping.

Sin is when one decides for himself what is right and wrong instead of observing Covenant Law, and being sensitive to the context and the leading of the Spirit. This can be confusing when people decide for themselves what is right or wrong based on their own concepts of Covenant Law. The idea that “keeping the rules = righteousness” is one embodiment of sin (AKA legalism) that St. Paul continually warned us against.

From the worm’s eye view, it is also confusing because righteousness is an end result of faith, but it isn’t an end result of keeping the rules. How one achieves righteousness through faith might be rather messy in the beginning and in the details. The Bible is full of such examples, Moses, David, Abraham… They made some BIG mistakes, but somehow, God incorporated those decisions into His purposes.

Another thing is that when one starts to live by faith, it tends to go against the grain of both social (i.e. family) expectations and doctrinal “rules”, but try telling this to someone who thinks “breaking the rules = sin”.

Moreover, as long as one looks at things through the context of “rule keeping”, he’s not living by faith.  There’s very little trust involved, except the expectation that others should be keeping the rules at least as well as you do – and we know this expectation invariably leads to frustration, disappointment, heartache, and bitterness.

Conclusions

The “trust” approach makes a distinction that comes down to keeping a close focus on what it is we are doing as Christians.  We are followers of a person, worshippers of a person, a trinity of persons, a communion of persons.  The scriptures are there as guidance for us, because we are very much in need of guidance, but they are not what we are following or worshipping — we are following a Trinitarian communion of eternal persons.  It is them for whom we live, and them for whom we are destined … not the words they have given us for guidance.

This perspective can help to keep the eye on the ball as it were.

There is a great tendency in Christianity among more “orthodox” believers (and it is common to “orthodox” “religious” types of all faiths, really, not just Christians) to try to find a “security blanket” of “truth”, a “rock” to which they can cling in an often chaotic and troubling world.  The three great branches of the Christian faith each have their own version of that — Catholics have the structural church and its hierarchy and magisterial teaching (structures and words), Protestants have the words of the Bible in a specific interpretive canon which they see as definitive (words and an accepted spin on words) and Orthodox have the length of the historical witness and continuity (tradition, continuity of rite).  Each of these “rocks” is actually not the Trinitarian persons we are supposed to be following, worshipping, and loving.  They are in some cases *lenses* to them, portals to them, guidance from them, and, unfortunately in many cases, proxies for them.  Again, each major branch of Christianity is subject to the same basic tendency, but expresses it in a different way — and other faiths have the same issue in them as well.  There is everywhere among more “orthodox” believers this strong temptation to find one of these “rocks” which are tangible, manifest, visible, graspable, and then to cling to that, rather than the actual, much scarier, journey with the three eternal persons who, like any other persons, but even more so, are complex, and require a lifetime of “getting to know”, by means of interaction, following, loving, praying, communicating, and so on.  So instead there is a tendency to cling to the manifested rocks, and they often become proxies.  In the worst case, they can become the primary focus of one’s faith.

Such is the case for the rules-based people.  Now, I do not mean to say that we can trash moral rules.  We can’t.  If we do that, we lose the faith.  Christ does explicitly say that if we love him we will follow his commandments and do His will.  But … He also breaks His own rules for higher purposes, and chides the Pharisees who cite Him as a rule-breaker.  And he also often summarizes the moral rules in a very simple way of loving God and neighbor — so as to emphasize, yet again, the “big picture” here that the faith is about love for persons — the persons of the neighbor and the persons of the divine Trinitarian communion.  That is the law, period.  Everything else is secondary to that.

Now of course the “orthodox” rule followers will immediately object that this runs a huge risk of apostasy, and point at the Episcopal Church as an example.  I don’t disagree with that.  We can’t go there.  But at the same time, we do have to keep our eye on the ball, and avoid becoming rules-followers, seeing rules as ends-in-themselves, worshipping words or rules or structures more than loving the people we are told and called to love.  Critically, we need to realize that if we do not do this, we are still running very serious risks — namely the risk that we are worshipping and following and loving proxies for God rather than the divine persons, the risk that we are the Pharisees chiding Christ for violating the Sabbath, and being chided ourselves by a God whom Mark describes as “angry”.

Honestly it seems in the Gospels that few things anger Christ more than the rules sticklers, because his point is that we can be rules sticklers all we like, but if we are judging anyone by the standard of the degree to which we follow the rules, we are all massive failures. So that isn’t what we should be doing. It leads to a hubristic sense of self as a good rule-follower when, in the eyes of God, the difference between ourselves and the ones we see as massive sinners is, indeed, minuscule.

As between the two approaches, I find the “trust and follow the divine persons” approach more compelling than hitching myself to the local “rock”, whether that is scripture, tradition, hierarchy/magisterium… and all of the arguments about those are arguments about who has the better “rock”, to be honest.

I do not think, however, that there is an easy way to convince those who are inclined to be rules followers of this.

I have only gotten there by an extensive study of all three branches of Christianity (and extensive personal experience in two of them) and an increased emphasis on personal spirituality, contemplative prayer, and these kinds of things.  I was also a person attached to my preferred “rock” once as well.  It is very hard to wean oneself from that — I am not sure it is possible to wean someone else from it.

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 Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Courtship and Marriage, Culture Wars, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Freedom, Personal Liberty, Game Theory, Headship and Patriarchy, Holding Frame, Influence, Introspection, IOI's, Legalism, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Moral Agency, Purpose, Relationships, Running the Gauntlet, Strategy, The Power of God, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

99 Responses to Rules and Trust

  1. Sharkly says:

    Apparently the rationalization hamster got out! Where do I start?

    “In other words, to take the issue raised by commenter Eric, one may take a hardline approach about fornication, but that can lead to no marriage, and the foreclosure of a life that God maybe intended for you in order to bless you in certain ways, and in order to do certain things he had in mind for you to do under “Plan A”.”

    God will hold you accountable for any sexual immorality, and it is not ever his will for us to engage in any sexual immorality and lawlessness.

    1 Corinthians 6:9 Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind, 10 Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God.

    15 Know ye not that your bodies are the members of Christ? shall I then take the members of Christ, and make them the members of an harlot? God forbid. 16 What? know ye not that he which is joined to an harlot is one body? for two, saith he, shall be one flesh. 17 But he that is joined unto the Lord is one spirit. 18 Flee fornication. Every sin that a man doeth is without the body; but he that committeth fornication sinneth against his own body. 19 What? know ye not that your body is the temple of the Holy Ghost which is in you, which ye have of God, and ye are not your own? 20 For ye are bought with a price: therefore glorify God in your body, and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    Note: Sex causes a joining or sexual union to be formed, if the parties are intending or consenting to be wed, then they have already consummated that arrangement and are married (joined by God).

    Exodus 22: 16 And if a man entice a maid that is not betrothed, and lie with her, he shall surely endow her to be his wife. 17 If her father utterly refuse to give her unto him, he shall pay money according to the dowry of virgins.

    “… righteousness is an end result of faith, but it isn’t an end result of keeping the rules.”

    Actually righteousness is both the end result of faith and of following God’s rules. And it actually is the Word of God that is to be our Rock, and the anchor of our souls.

    Matthew 7:24 Therefore whosoever heareth these sayings of mine, and doeth them, I will liken him unto a wise man, which built his house upon a rock:

    Trust in the eternal Law of God, not the rationalizations of the sexually immoral. Their own Orthodox churches are more “hard@ss” than they can apparently handle. If they loved Christ more than that poontang, they wouldn’t fail in submitting to Him. They’re just passing off their own pussy-grubbing weakness and lack of self-control as a legitimate Christ-following alternative. I’m not saying I haven’t had my own faults, however, they can call my faithfulness and purity, “hubris” all they want, I won’t be ashamed of the Word of God, and I intend to be wise and build my life upon it, and you should too.

    1 Corinthians 10:13 There hath no temptation taken you but such as is common to man: but God is faithful, who will not suffer you to be tempted above that ye are able; but will with the temptation also make a way to escape, that ye may be able to bear it.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      “Note: Sex causes a joining or sexual union to be formed, if the parties are intending or consenting to be wed, then they have already consummated that arrangement and are married (joined by God).”

      What are your thoughts on Jacob and Leah’s formation of their union in Genesis 29? Jacob was expecting to marry Rachel, gets bamboozled into having sex with Leah first (I have no idea how he couldn’t tell the difference) and presto! they’re married. The intent was not to marry her specifically, but with the act of consummating, they are still considered married. Jacob didn’t even argue the point that absent intent that it wasn’t marriage. He was just perturbed that he’d been played by the bait and switch. It would appear the act of sex forms the covenant.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Sharkly says:

        I hadn’t really thought about Jacob/Israel and Leah before. They got married prior to Mosaic law, but it does seem that it generally fits a later pattern with unbetrothed Israelite virgin girls, of: “If you bone her you own her”. Unless of course her prior owner, her father, doesn’t agree to it. But you still owe him, for taking her, and making her damaged goods. I really haven’t studied old testament fornication well enough.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “Jacob was expecting to marry Rachel, gets bamboozled into having sex with Leah first (I have no idea how he couldn’t tell the difference) and presto! they’re married.”

        Marriages didn’t used to happen at a temple or a synagogue, they were usually at the family’s home. The guests were often feasting and drinking. When Jesus attended the wedding at Cana of Galilee, they ran out of wine. It wouldn’t surprise me if Jacob was either very drunk or even drugged as part of Laban’s plan. Laban may have told Jacob that the peace-pipe was part of their marriage tradition too, just as he belatedly informed him the eldest daughter had to be married off first according to their tradition. Perhaps they also told Jacob that the wedding veil didn’t come off until after the marriage was consummated. You also have to wonder what was going through Leah’s head as she stealthily stole her prettier sister’s husband? The naughtiness of that deed probably really got her juices flowing. And you also wonder how Rachel felt about her father’s plan? Like Lot’s daughters, there were some twisted sisters back then. Some things never change.

        Like

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      Fornication, IF it’s a sin, is a very minor one. Sexual relations are not inherently wrong, it only becomes a sin in the wrong context. There is a good reason why, for instance, Dante depicts sins of lust as receiving the least severe punishment in Hell. Of course Dante isn’t the Bible. I’m using that as an illustration of historical views on the issue. All of the other categories of sin are much more serious.

      I think everyone would agree that there are circumstances where it is morally acceptable to lie, to kill, to steal, etc. In those circumstances there is some other moral principle that outweighs the normal commands against those things. I’m suggesting that there may be circumstances where simple fornication could be acceptable.
      For some reason its easy for people to see other moral issues as multidimensional but when it comes to sex they just can’t take that step.

      When would fornication be acceptable?
      What moral ends or principles could outweigh the normal command against fornication?

      Those are the questions we should be asking.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        I don’t want to find out how bad the least bad punishment in hell is – no thank you. I won’t risk that for p_ssy”

        Liked by 3 people

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Eric,where you been?You know thats what I was trying to tell you before ,right?That every man thats not rich&famous is on their own(As was said in a certain pre-UFC MMA film in the late1980s!)!I have lived that,just as sure as guys like deti&sharkly,hence why your ethical new order stuff sounded so strange to me.The manosphere can’t even agree on patriarchy so how would everybody outside of it?
        P.S.Its a non-ethical murderous jungle out there with quicksand traps everywhere!Fighting is the only way out of it!

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Eric, Fornication is deviating from God’s parameters for sex. Fornication is always a sin, there is no way around this as there are no moral ends for breaking God’s standards. Sexual union when you are married, on the other hand, is part of the earthly model of Christ and the church on top of being a great way to burn calories, have a little fun and build intimacy with your spouse.

        Using expounding on this using killing, since you mentioned it, as an example, killing is not always wrong, but murder always is.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Killing isn’t always wrong but murder always is.
        Sex isn’t always wrong but illicit sex always is.

        Murder is really just illicit killing.

        So, who defines what is normally licit and who decides on the exception when the norms aren’t adequate?

        Are there no moral principles that could outweigh the command against fornication? Why not? Isn’t it better to allow fornication than to allow the decline in marriages to continue?

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “So, who defines what is normally licit and who decides on the exception …”

        God gave the Law. They are His rules. He gets to be our judge. But much of it is already spelled out in His word. The 7 laws that were given to Noah and his sons predate the Jewish laws given to Moses and apply to all their descendants on the earth, all the time. One of those seven commandments is to avoid all sexual immorality. Sexual immorality is a capital crime, not a minor one.

        Like

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        The Noahide laws you are citing only specifically prohibit adultery. I will admit that there is some debate on whether fornication counts as a violation, just as there are some who argue that the 7th commandment prohibits fornication along with adultery.

        Fornication is not a capital crime according to the Mosaic law. So why would the Mosaic law be less strict than the Noahide law in this instance, but in no other instance.

        Finally, yes, sexual immorality is prohibited. Without first establishing what constitutes sexual immorality then that’s not a useful statement. You’re begging the question, in the original sense of assuming the conclusion.

        Like

  2. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Why do I keep hearing of rules here(I s this anything like dal’s ”rules of the road” post?Theres one main rule everyone follows &thats the law of the jungle!;Popes,patriarchs,churchians,secularists,hos etc.have been following this for a long time! Mine&everyone elses interdenominational(Including secularists&churchians,but I repeat myself!) approved interpretation of life?:WE ROCK,YOUNG,WILD&FREE(That includes marriage by sex,”blood covenant” or ”if a man is joined to a harlot the two,HE says, become one flesh”!)!
    P.S.EFFIN’stinking rules of non-polite society(They’ll put you in hell everytime!) by whose authority were we given to follow any of them,ozzy&harriet nelson or ward&june cleaver!?
    ExtraP.S.See my holiness as usual!?
    Jack P.S.What was up with that sick ”jay”(A relz christian reads the bible&prays everyday?I&him would have had many fisticuff encounters&discussions!) guy you use to know?Nobody is suppose to judge gods true servants as st.paul said in romans14:13,but that might be considered sola scriptura by some huh,but I trust people dudes&dudettes!?
    See the fun I always have?

    Liked by 1 person

  3. cameron232 says:

    Whatever you think of Catholicism (“whore of Babylon worshipping, pedophile priest-pagan-Mary-idolaters”) this approach won’t work for Catholics. It’s DOA. And Catholics take the Church as the (mystical/holy) body of Christ a lot more literal – not separable from trinitarian following.

    When you commit a sin with full consent of your will and sufficient reflection, you lose sanctifying grace – gone. While it can be restored – this means you risk eternal damnation. If you want to risk this for p_ssy well that’s not a good trade assuming you actually believe Catholicism. Hell hurts a lot more than p_ssy feels good and it lasts longer. And it’s yet another sin anyway – the sin of presumption of God’s mercy (using the Church’s ministry of reconciliation to get away with sin). Fornication is a grave sin and Jesus the rule bender is quite clear about that at least as the Church understands the gospels.

    I don’t know if it’s DOA for the Orthodox – I’ll let Nova answer that. The Orthodox are more open to pastoral mercy although Francis seems to be moving in that direction (please God, let Cardinal Sarah be the next Pope!). At least the Orthodox have the balls to state their principles unambiguously, Francis!

    This could work for Protestants and it definitely could work for wrath-of-Gnon christians like Jim. This is more or less what Jim believes – Jesus’ spirit of the law is defined as what works to affect cooperate-cooperate equilibrium as described as the goal of the OT law. Notice Jim doesn’t like Catholicism (at least one of his sons is Catholic).

    Unfortunately, the world is unfair and rule-breakers will sometimes get lucky.

    Like

  4. elspeth says:

    “This could work for Protestants and it definitely could work for wrath-of-Gnon christians like Jim.”

    No, actually. It couldn’t work for Protestants. “If you love me you will keep my commandments” isn’t in any way ambiguous.

    I will add this tidbit. My husband, unlike me, didn’t really grow up with any sense of fornication as something bad. He -and his brothers- were encouraged to have a good time, for a long time, and then settle down…eventually…with a good girl. My husband came to repentance and has a clear conscience because he sinned in ignorance.

    I on the other hand, was raised under “the rules”. I knew them well and had no real excuse for making the decision I made. I willfully and consciously made the decision that I wanted my husband more than I wanted to do what was right. After 27 years of marriage, I still have occasional moments when I have to repent of my lack of remorse for my actions. It’s not daily or even yearly, but it happens (maybe at a certain place where we were together or dancing to an old song that we listened to when we were together pre-marriage, stuff like that), and I have to pray again. It’s kind of like the guy who said the Jesus, “I believe. Help my unbelief!”

    It is not a fun spot to be in, and maybe some people are able to square that circle, repent and have a clean conscience forever and ever amen after sinning their way into the life they desired. Maybe it’s a female thing. Guilt is always lurking around the corner for an opportunity to latch on to some of us. But for all the rationalizations offered here, you’d better be certain you know what you’re doing when you willfully disregard what you know is right for the thing your heart desires.

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      Yeah well they’ll just argue about what that those commandments really are and what they mean, not about whether or not we should keep them. What does fornication even mean? Apparently, some protestants say what is commonly called fornication is in fact your wedding ceremony (and the “fake” wedding ceremony of exchange of consent/tokens of consent was created by the pagan Roman church’s additions). All argued in meticulous detail from the KJV Bible with no possibility of a deciding authority.

      I suppose the literal Protestants (the Church of the Augsburg Confession- Lutherans) could claim to define these things by the weight of Christian history – I think their understanding of norma-normans/norma-normata might allow for this. No Lutheran here to confirm.

      I guess I should have just wrote “wrath of Gnon christians” to avoid C. vs. P. controversy.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron, As far as what the commandment not to fornicate means, ask the question the opposite way as a though exercise. Instead of wondering about this from the perspective of what acts constitute fornication, which, in our sinful minds is a question that tends to focus on what we can get away with before sin starts, consider what the bible teaches about purity. Sexual relations are designed exclusively for married people. Anything outside of that is fornication.

        If you wonder what is considered sexual relations, well, there are some areas in the bible where our own consciences come into play, but I don’t think this is one of them. I will consider this from my situation as a married man who is commanded to love his wife like his own body. If I were to make out with another woman or get a little handsy above the waist am I honoring my wife and keeping the marriage bed pure? The answer is simple.

        We may not like God’s standards, because they are impossible for us to follow. I break them every day, many times a day and I am convinced that I do this in ways of which I am not even aware. This is where faith, grace and forgiveness come in, because the standards are easy to understand, but the application of them in life are not.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        RPA,

        This discussion, a continuation of discussions that have taken place here recently, is about men having sex with their future wife before the wedding ceremony as a strategy for getting a good wife in the Spirit of the Law. The Catholic/Orthodox view is that this is fornication. The Protestant view? Historically, yes, on the weight of it but not necessarily. It has been argued (from the KJV and in meticulous detail) that this is not fornication but the marriage ceremony itself.

        Anyway, my main point wasn’t so much to attack Biblism as to say leave Catholicism out of this line of thought because it won’t work with the Catholic understanding of things.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Cameron – Thanks for history of where this post and discussion come from. I think the key part of what you wrote is “future wife”. This would imply a certainty of commitment to marriage and sex is then the sealing of the covenant. If the situation is one of “could be a wife” then you are diving into dangerous and potentially sinful waters.

        Christian men are in a tough spot in modern times. There’s no magic bullet for avoiding a bad marriage, but we do know God’s ways as laid out for us, at least as best as human minds can understand them, and avoiding sin tends to be the way to go.

        Liked by 3 people

  5. cameron232 says:

    OT, by my crude calculations (assuming proportionality of the data categories which probably isn’t true) ~40% of young women (and even more young men!) are open to open relationships. Another chunk of the population utterly unsuited for marriage (although it overlaps with other unsuitable chunks from our perspective -e.g. the ~1/8 of zoomer girls who are LGBTQ). The higher proportion of men can be rationalized as incels who are open to ANY relationship – something better than nothing.

    https://www.unz.com/anepigone/support-for-open-relationships/

    Like

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Without the death penalty for adultery there is no relz marriage as far as gods law is concerned!
      P.S.Is my point clear now?Talking about ”fornication&adultery in the heart” when people don’t even know what the law of god says!Show me all the people who agree with god!
      RulesP.S.Wheres all the outrage for 91 year old hugh hef effing a ”virgin” 19 year old girl?She was’nt too young&other stuff many claim to care about?
      See why I’m the fighting”professor of advanced whupassology now?
      But everybody else plead your cleaness to god,that works!
      Why does it matter who the pope is?
      Anybody want to take on the traditional gojira of redpill?
      WeddingP.S.How is ”parents big specialday bibical?The uber-rich says so thats why!
      I don’t listen to the fornicating uber-rich as it seems others do,but carry on as everyones daughters go without husbands&children!Is not the day of isiah4:1 at hand?All law-keeping parents will consent to polygyny soon to have grandchildren as the don’t give a F@ck incel stuff gets even more larger while people argue over fornication,adultery&sola scriptura!
      NO.9P.S.”I thought I could hear,HEAR someone call out my name(Professor,professor!Or if you like GBFMtm2021!)!Dreams!Dreams of me!What more can I say”?
      Is this all too mysterious to understand or do adults need their ancestors help?
      CameronP.S.Where have I come forth saying bad stuff about catholics?I just wanted to know is pope francis the vicar of christ or not?

      Like

  6. elspeth says:

    “It has been argued (from the KJV and in meticulous detail) that this is not fornication but the marriage ceremony itself.”

    That’s the thing though, Cameron. The settled doctrine among Protestants is NOT that sex=marriage. That is fringe theology, ‘spherian Internet chatter, and a doctrine I’ve most heard from proponents of polygyny.

    You will not find ANY official Protestant doctrine that argues that position. Yes, you can find people who argue that position online, but you won’t find it being preached in any church of note. Period. We lean heavily in agreement towards Presbyterian/Reformed Baptist theology, so there’s that caveat.

    But still, having spent my entire life from birth in Protestant churches, I can assure you that I never heard that philosophy taught at all until the last 10 years or so, and them mostly online. I have heard one real life so-called minister say it (someone we know quite intimately), but we don’t take his theology seriously at all.

    Sex automatically equals marriage is not a thing. Even in the OT, which is used as the basis for the idea, there are verses that clearly state a father can nullify the “marriage”, which is reasonable doubt of the teaching.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Aquinas covered it quite well in summa theologica in my mind but that doesn’t count any more than Dante – not the Bible.

      Yeah, I agree it’s nowhere near the majoritarian view. It appears in history though, not just among spergy internet kooks. I’ve also encountered it among some Anabaptists and Church of Christ restorationists. Church of Christ has no official documents but the closest they have to official come close to this teaching and individual congregations are, well, congregational so they can teach what they want.

      The Church’s statements on consent-based marriage only go back to around 400 AD. Aquinas covered it. The big 12th century debate in the whore-of-babylon was whether consummation was required in addition to consent.

      Most historic protestant confessions don’t say because the Catholic understanding was inherited and wasn’t questioned. Confessions tend to state positions about what’s under dispute.

      Practice in Protestant countries tended to often come close – the shotgun wedding – forced “consent.”

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        “Even in the OT, which is used as the basis for the idea, there are verses that clearly state a father can nullify the “marriage”, which is reasonable doubt of the teaching.”

        Oh don’t worry they have that covered – they’ll explain it to you with a mountain of text, argument and Bible verses.

        An even better illustration of my point about limitations of scripture would be adultery, divorce and remarriage (not a fringe teaching) but that’s a debate for another day.

        Like

    • cameron232 says:

      By official Protestant doctrine I assume you mean confession. That tends to be the closest to official protestant doctrine.

      Like

  7. Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

    By their fruits you shall know them. If the fruits of a strict, legalistic approach to fornication mean that Christian men don’t get married and women are left to run around and f_ck around, your approach is wrong, because it bears bad fruit. In the context of a society where women are well controlled, such as the Israelites or pre-Victorian England, then f_cking a woman without the permission of her guardian is easily solved with a shotgun marriage. That was the norm for marriage for a very long time. “With this ring, I thee wed.” Today, the recourse to feral women living in an open air whore house looks more like, “go forth and conquer, tame it, and be fruitful.”

    Any interpretation of Scripture that leads to men and women not pairing up is wrong. If your brand of Christianity withers and dies because you fail to provide men with wives and force women to obey their husbands, that is the revealed will of God. By their fruits you shall know them. If your fruit rots on the vine, why should anyone bother to listen or obey?

    Liked by 3 people

    • Sharkly says:

      “Any interpretation of Scripture that leads to men and women not pairing up is wrong.”

      No, you’re wrong in taking your assertion too far. For example: In 1 Corinthians chapter 7 the apostle Paul teaches that marriage distracts a person from God, brings trouble, and he encourages folks to abstain from marriage if they can without falling into immorality.
      1 Corinthians 7:7 ~ “I wish that all were as I myself am. But each has his own gift from God, one of one kind and one of another. 8 To the unmarried and the widows I say that it is good for them to remain single, as I am. 9 But if they cannot exercise self-control, they should marry. For it is better to marry than to burn with passion.”

      Liked by 1 person

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        That was when they thought the Apocalypse was imminent within their lifetimes. The key there is that they must be able to avoid falling into immorality. Well, we can see clearly that that isn’t the case. Once it was obvious that the Church was going to need to endure for the long term, Paul said that priests must be married men with obedient wives and well behaved children. Besides, leaving aside St. Paul, God commanded that Man be fruitful and multiply. Thus, pairing up. That’s is a direct command from God, the prime commandment.

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “That was when they thought the Apocalypse was imminent within their lifetimes.”

        The Bible is inspired by eternal God, not based upon temporal misconceptions.

        The command to be fruitful and multiply was given to Adam, and to Noah and his sons, when they were the only people on earth. When they later asked Jesus Christ, what was the prime commandment, He didn’t repeat Wulfgar’s misconception. LOL And Jesus Himself never married, or was defiled with women (Revelation 14:4), because he needed to be the perfect and spotless Lamb of God (not one flesh with a sinner/defiler), to take away the sin of the world. The apostle Paul’s advice to avoid marriage if you can, is good advice now, just as it also was in that time of persecution of the Corinthian church. If men can remain both celibate and holy, it is a gift from God, the apostle Paul said so in the verses I already quoted above.

        Justifying fornication based upon your own need-to-breed and an imagined absence of virgins, may be a handy way to try to get the foolish to condone the sin of fornication, but, if you’re smart you can figure out what you need to do to remain holy. God will provide a way. Maybe you’ll just have to bless a young virgin who ain’t quite as hawt as your fantasy. I’ve heard you can get ’em by mail order from poorer nations, or you can go there and negotiate for one with her father. As a “rich Westerner” you can offer them more than the local men.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Maniac says:

    “An alternative to the hardline approach is to realize that some fornication prior to marriage may be a necessary concession[.]”

    I’ve thought about this too. It’s sort of like the whole “try it before you buy it” thing when it comes to cars. Sexual compatibility is real and it means something.

    Liked by 1 person

  9. Eric Francis Silk says:

    You get the point, no? I used it to illustrate that, traditionally, fornication is very low in the hierarchy of sins and their severity.

    On the subject of Aquinas, his argument for why fornication is a sin assumes that a child will result. It’s a sin, in his reckoning, because children need a mother/father to care for them and the parents need to stay together permanently in order to save up an inheritance for the child. He was aware that intercourse doesn’t always result in a child, that there are infertile people, and other exceptions. He didn’t think that mattered. Sexual intercourse is per se oriented toward conceiving children and laws are for the regulation of what is generally true.

    Before Aquinas, most writers didn’t even bother with a defense of why fornication is a sin. It was simply a matter of positive law. God declared it a sin and that was that.

    Conspicuously absent from any those these writers is anything resembling some of the modern argument against fornication: you’ll make breakups harder if you have sex, you’ll develop a “soul tie” (which isn’t a biblical concept to begin with), you’ll be damaged goods, etc.

    Needless to say, I don’t really agree with Aquinas’ argument here.
    Aquinas does argue that prostitution should be legal and tolerated (albeit still a sin) so as to avoid worse sins. Thats another argument you don’t see many modern churches making.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Maybe, but for the men you are quoting, the most important distinction is mortal vs. venial – the eternal consequences far outweigh the temporal.

      Like

  10. cameron232 says:

    Gnon-ianity no more Christian than Churchianity.

    Like

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Cameron,who said this?”What god has joined together let no man(No larping anonymous dads either!) put asunder!”Wheres all those millions of catholic&official protestant doctrine that refutes it? DalP.S.Everybodys hero DAL’laughed at annulments did you know that?
      ModernP.S.You are not following latter-day doctrines with annulments&your defending of adultery known as divorce?

      Like

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      I’m surprised at how far the term Gnon has traveled outside of the ecosystem in which it was originally coined. I was heavily reading Neoreaction blogs all the way back in 2012-2013 when I first encountered the term.
      That should also explain a lot about where I’m coming from in this conversation.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure – Jim likes it but he’s mentioning Jesus more and more explicitly now but he still means Gnon

        Like

    • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

      This is false. Jesus Christ said, “by their fruits you shall know them.” Thats is to say that by observing the consequences of actions you can find whether the action was right. God’s will is revealed through the natural law and the logic of the universe as much as by scripture. That is why Christ is the Logos.

      Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Sure Jim.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Christ was saying that what’s in mens hearts is evidenced by their sin – not their success at reproduction.

        Aquinas knew a thing or two about natural law and didn’t think morality was a function of reproductive success.

        Like

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        You dont have to measure it by reproductive success. What results in more marriages? Your approach, where you just shut out 40% right from the get go, or mine, where I take one of those girls and tell her that she is absolutely not going to have sex with anyone but me? Which results in less feral women? Which will result in a more stable society? Which is more in line with the prime commandment?

        “Be fruitful and multiply and fill the earth and subdue it, and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the heavens and over every living thing that moves on the earth.”

        God also said that men would rule over women. Sitting at home celibate isn’t ruling over women, being fruitful, or subduing the world. Its a cop out. That got pointed out to me, and now I have to point it out to you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        What’s being proposed is fornication as a strategy to get a wife not telling a woman she will have sex with you and only you. In the good old days girls fathers were responsible for protecting them until she married – we should go back to that- I know Jim will approve.

        Liked by 1 person

      • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

        Jim cameron,who fornicated with a woman before doing a ceremony us or you jim?You accuse others of doing what you did,not us, other jims!You would do such things under the care of even pope jim francis?P.S.You proposed fornication before us or the 3RS of GAMEtm., jim!You&your ”jim boys will be jim boys” doctrine of gnon, that denies women their right to matrimony!PapalP.S.Wheres your license at to speak on matters of faith?Are you pope jim francis?How you know that all of the manosphere is’nt the jim manosphere?You realy don’t beleave christ’s commandments in the NT do you?You worship on saturday,right jim?Why do you tell other jims to sin jim?

        Like

      • Wulfgar Thundercock III says:

        Yes, having sex with women until you can convince one to stick around is one in the marriage category and one out of the feral woman category. It’s not ideal, but it isn’t as if I can go to a woman’s father and arrange a marriage anymore. Would it be better to have that system? Obviously. Do we have that system. Obviously not. Sitting around on your hands is not a solution. It’s not even moving towards a solution.

        Sitting on your hands while women run around like a bunch of savages isn’t helpful. Telling yourself that doing that is holy is just flat wrong. It’s the same sort of pious stupidity that is behind the Jews destroying their food in a siege to force God to save them. Instead, He let them die for being so stupid. They were no more obedient to God’s commands than you are now.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “This is false. Jesus Christ said, “by their fruits you shall know them.” That is to say that by observing the consequences of actions you can find whether the action was right.”

        LOL Jesus did not say that the ends justify the means, that’s lawless. And “by their fruits you shall know them” means that if they are of God, they won’t be lawless or be telling you to violate God’s law, but to obey God’s prohibition of things like fornication.

        Liked by 2 people

  11. cameron232 says:

    OT: Women cray-cray, liberal women even more cray-cray, but liberal men more cray-cray than conservative women.

    https://www.eviemagazine.com/post/over-50-percent-white-liberal-women-under-30-mental-health-condition

    Like

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Headline: Over 50% of white liberal women under 30 have mental health condition
      Sub-headline: Remaining white liberal women under 30 yet to be diagnosed

      Liked by 3 people

  12. anonymous_ng says:

    Hmmm, a couple of random thoughts.

    I read in the Sunday section of the Philadelphia Inquirer many years ago a short article by a very liberal preacher that we need to stop making same sex eroticism out to be a super-sin. Sometimes I think the same about extramarital sex.

    Without jumping into a crazy theological debate, aren’t we all sinners at every moment of every day? Because if there were ever a time when we aren’t sinners except by the grace of God, then in that moment, we would be justified by our own works etc.

    Since we are always and at all times sinners, and since there are plenty of other things we do that are sinful, why are we so over focused on extramarital sex as some sort of super-sin?

    No, we aught not sin that grace might abound, but I’m not going to crucify someone for their sexual sin while piously trying to assert that because I’m not engaged in that sin, I’m somehow more righteous.

    I’ve been out of the pickup game for many many years, but occasionally, I do a quick web search to see what the OGs are up to, and it’s interesting that most seem to have moved from coaching pickup to more generalized life/lifestyle coaching. I wonder if that’s a result of so much pickup info being available for free, or because of the general societal change.

    Incidentally, I always find it humorous how the neg became the public face of pickup. As I recall the story, Mystery who was doing his thing in NYC invented the neg only to be used with the super turbo women, the ones who were so attractive they were continually being approached by guys and as a result had their bitch shields up at all times. The neg was to crack the bitch shield and to show that the user wasn’t just another dude throwing her up on a pedestal. Somehow, that nuance got lost. Or, I heard the story wrong. IDK.

    Back to the topic at hand.

    “Honestly it seems in the Gospels that few things anger Christ more than the rules sticklers, because his point is that we can be rules sticklers all we like, but if we are judging anyone by the standard of the degree to which we follow the rules, we are all massive failures. So that isn’t what we should be doing. It leads to a hubristic sense of self as a good rule-follower when, in the eyes of God, the difference between ourselves and the ones we see as massive sinners is, indeed, minuscule.”

    “As between the two approaches, I find the “trust and follow the divine persons” approach more compelling than hitching myself to the local “rock”, whether that is scripture, tradition, hierarchy/magisterium… and all of the arguments about those are arguments about who has the better “rock”, to be honest.”

    IMO, the second approach sounds far too much like “spiritual, but not religious”, leaving one open to all manner of heresy, but maybe that’s just because I tend toward being a rule follower. I figure that’s part of why I was drawn to the military.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      Your heresy is called Antinomianism. Even Luther understood that one.

      Like

      • anonymous_ng says:

        I’m not trying to argue with you here, but I don’t really see where what I wrote equates to not having to follow the law, but perhaps I don’t understand Antinomianism properly.

        What I was trying to convey is that it seems in our society, we overvalue some sins while turning a blind eye to others. So, looking at pornography is a sin, but being a proud, bitchy, gossip is not. Having extramarital sex is a horrible sin, but refusing to have sex with your husband is not at all a sin.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        What I was trying to convey is that it seems in our society, we overvalue some sins while turning a blind eye to others.

        This is certainly true. And the social emphasis on some misdeeds more than others creeps into the church as well, because we all live in the same culture after all and are all influenced by it.

        Of course, “correct” believers will point out that of course all those things are sins, and so on, but the fact remains that even in the church some sins are focused on much more than others are — some which are equally serious are not mentioned at all, like gluttony or greed or what have you which are running rampant all over the place, including in the church. The cultural emphasis is what it is. It’s why all of this can be very flawed because the cultural “seep” is unavoidable.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok sure- we should refocus on usury too – no doubt.

        I thought we were talking about pre marital sex. Extra marital sex usually means adultery. No matter – Jesus said fornicators and adulterers won’t see the kingdom of heaven. And some others too. So we’re going to take that seriously. Going to oppose the idea of fornication as a good path to Christian marriage which seems to be what that is about.

        Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Ahh – part of your comment was quoted from the OP – was responding as much to that as to your comment I guess.

        Christ was against the Pharisees obsessing about hand washing and not performing acts of mercy in their pious observance of the Jewish sabbath – He wasn’t trying to empower people to fornication though His counsels against this and against hypocritical judgement.

        Liked by 2 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        Usury is at least as destructive as what folks talk about in these parts

        Liked by 5 people

  13. Adam says:

    This whole thread is chock full of people attempting to justify their bad behaviour.

    Liked by 7 people

  14. Elspeth says:

    Having extramarital sex is a horrible sin, but refusing to have sex with your husband is not at all a sin.

    I actually appreciate that this was pointed out. I need to remember it for the conversations I have with wives surrounding some of this stuff. Sexual sin doesn’t stop existing once you get married. Sin of omitting what is due is sin also.

    It’s why all of this can be very flawed because the cultural “seep” is unavoidable.

    You’re right about gluttony, greed, and other damaging sins that go unnoticed. Mainly because so many people engage in them, but the emphasis on sexual sin (in some churches but not all by a long shot) is based in the genuine danger that sexual sins can lead to consequences which reverberate over generations. It could lead to murder (abortion), incurable diseases, out of wedlock children and all of the well documented risks that go along with that.

    The focus on sexual sin isn’t only about cultural seep. It’s about the very nature of sex itself, it’s primal characteristics and effects on our bodies and souls, as well as its necessity to continuation of the species. If I decide eat myself into an early grave, yes, people will grieve, but the consequences I inflict are mostly onto myself. What’s more than that, the damage mostly dies and is buried with me. More than likely, it will motivate those after me to be better stewards of their own health.

    Look no further than the black community from the 1960s onward to see the ultimate results of unchecked, unrestrained, no rules sexual behavior. And there really, truly is no way to relax some rules based on the felt needs of certain people without relaxing other rules based on the felt needs of others. That is,in fact, EXACTLY what we have been dong for the past 60 years with disastrous results.

    Whatever issues the church is having with regard to holding the sexual line in practice, it would only be worse if she decided to relax on orthodoxy. And of course, the very question seems to imply that man has the right or authority to relax or add to the inspired word of God based on cultural wind shifts and the suffering that blows in with them.

    Liked by 3 people

    • cameron232 says:

      very well said.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      What a great commentary on the modern results of what Paul was talking about in 1 Cor 6:18-20. I believe sexual sin is so damaging because sex is an act designed to foster deep intimacy. When it is misused, which is anything outside God’s design, sex erodes the very intimacy it was meant to create.

      I can attest that in marriage, when 2 become 1, sexual sin against your spouse very much damages you. If you want your spouse to be at best apathetic about your very existence withhold sex for an extended period of time. My wife will probably never know the extent of the damage. I don’t know if I will ever feel like I am able to be fully open with her or trust her again. Close to 2 decades of real relational and emotional intimacy did not happen. So sexual sin is singled out specifically because God wants what is best for us and it seems to be a special kind of wrecking ball for our relationships.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      I’m not advocating for unchecked, unrestrained, no-rules sexual behaviour.

      What I’m advocating is for the church body to step back from completely forbidding all sexual behaviour for unmarried people.

      If the church doesn’t have the authority to relax the rules then who does? Who decides on the exception?

      Liked by 1 person

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        God.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        God doesn’t answer requests for new rulings or clarification on existing rulings. So, no, that isn’t the answer.

        God has given us a body of written law, but no written law can anticipate every emergent crisis. So, somebody has to decide.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        Ok – as soon as you say somebody has to decide ( I agree) you’re talking the bishop churches not the bible churches.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        Eric —

        In Protestantism noone really has this authority, right? I mean individual “denominations” have their disciplinary rules, which they vote on, being good Americans and all that, but noone has the authority to change the rules for the entire church, beyond the level of the denomination. And some denominations already give their more-or-less approval to this behavior anyway by means of either pretending it isn’t happening (a favorite past-time of the “conservative” ones) or acknowledging that it is and kind of not worrying about it (like, say, the Episcopalians and other mainlines).

        So, I’m not sure what you’re asking for. Surely you know that you’ll never get Protestant Christianity as a whole to agree on anything in particular, whether it relates to the sexual scripts or anything else. But if you’re looking for some places that are more relaxed on the sexual scripts, they do exist, and even the conservative places that aren’t officially relaxed on the sexual scripts often turn a de facto blind eye to their violation by pretending that these violations are not happening in their midst.

        I don’t see how it’s reasonable to expect anything other than that from Protestant Christianity in these matters.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Elspeth says:

        The question then, is there a snowball’s chance that the bishops in Orthodoxy or Catholicism or Anglicanism will EVER suddenly decide that, “Yeah. Maybe we ought to relax the ‘rules’ n fornication as a reaction to crashing marriage rates. That might make things better!”

        Will the churches who actually have hierarchical structures actually do that? Of course not. Why? Because the God-breathed canon of Scripture has settled the matter.

        It’s not just “a rule” for rules’ sake. It points to something higher. So in reality, beating up on Protestants isn’t particularly fruitful. He is welcome to go to another Church, but sending Eric to Orthodoxy or Catholicism isn’t going to get him what he wants either

        He doesn’t, at the end of the day, actually believe Scripture as we have received it, is God’s mind on the issue. He sees the Bible as a living breathing document, subject to cultural interpretation. Like the Constitution 😉

        Liked by 1 person

      • SFC Ton says:

        If that’s how you want to play the game, then play the game the way you want and stop trying to get other folks permission.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        It has really been an uphill battle to get the point across that I DON’T see the Bible as a living breathing document. As a document, by definition it can’t live or breathe. As I am so fond of saying: books can’t make decisions.

        Inspired by God or not, its still a finite book either way. A finite body of written law cannot anticipate every possible crisis that may happen. Someone has to judge in the midst of the crisis.

        Funny you should bring up the US constitution. I’m not an American for what it’s worth.
        Strict constitutionalists like to think that Sovereignty lies in the constitution not with men, while forgetting that men wrote the constitution to begin with. In practice, ascribing Sovereignty to a written document just means that Sovereignty lies with those who decide how the document is to be interpreted. Ever wonder how it got to the point where the US Supreme Court makes law?

        The role of written law is to set and regulate the legal norms. But it can’t anticipate a crisis where the norms can’t be applied. There is no norm applicable to chaos. Sovereignty, which stands above and outside of the law, can decide on the exception. In other words Sovereignty can suspend the legal norms and do whatever is necessary to fix the crisis.

        God inspired the Bible and God is outside of natural law. On the matter of positive law or biblical law we have a a pretty clear cut example of a crisis posed by the Sexual Revolution and its consequences. The existing legal norms are not adequate to address it.

        So, who decides on the exception here?
        If it’s God then God’s silence is deafening.
        We have an undeniable crisis but no guidance from God on how to deal with it.
        God doesn’t respond to requests for new rulings on this matter.
        Does the Church share in God’s Sovereignty when it comes to positive law?
        If it does, then the Church can Decide to suspend (not abolish, suspend) the legal norms around sex.

        Like

      • cameron232 says:

        You keep asking the question but don’t try to answer. Are you asking us? You seem to suggest the church not the bible may have to decide. Will you respect the churches decision if it doesnt give you the answer you want? If not what good is sovereign authority of men?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Good question. I suppose we will cross that bridge when we get there. It’s going to be difficult enough to get people to understand what Deciding On The Exception means and to get them to agree that the church can theoretically do it.

        Like

      • Novaseeker says:

        “It’s going to be difficult enough to get people to understand what Deciding On The Exception means and to get them to agree that the church can theoretically do it.”

        The most obvious analogue is what the churches have done with the issue of divorce, which has been to more closely track the cultural practice, albeit using different reasoning to do so. The churches have all been careful so that, while they have all tolerated a lot more divorce and remarriage among their members (however it is theoretically understood) as the culture has embraced widespread divorce, their theoretical/theological understanding of what they are doing, and what marriage is, either remains intact (in the more conservative places) or have outright come up with a different view of what marriage is (in the non-traditional places).

        So, for example, in places where “adultery” is seen as an exception to the no-divorce-and-remarriage rule, the understanding of “adultery” was expanded to include things that don’t include, strictly speaking, intercourse with another person, but include things like ignoring one’s spouse due to overwork, masturbating while watching pornography, and other things that are seen top indicate a “violation of the spouse’s duty of loyalty and attentiveness”, which is much broader than what was previously understood by “adultery”. In other paces where people who are divorced for “non-biblical” reasons and yet are still not “dis-fellowshipped”, or are not excluded from becoming new members or what have you, churches just ignore the discrepancy between teaching and praxis, but the key is that in both cases the churches have kept their official commitment to the same teaching, in theory, and have not changed it in their own minds (like, say, the mainlines have).

        Catholics have similarly kept the same processes and same understanding as prior to the sexual revolution intact, but have simply granted more annulments since the sexual revolution than they ever had in the entire prior history of the Church — a difference in praxis which arose because of a new understanding of the actual requirements for “consent” (and what kinds of things can vitiate it) than was previously used, whereby many more couples flunk the consent test and therefore legitimately fall under the rubric of having declarations of nullity become available to them. So there was an adjustment in praxis which has largely accommodated the cultural changes around divorce in the broader culture, while the actual teaching and process has remained intact. Orthodoxy has also followed a similar path in that while Orthodoxy does not follow the praxis of annulments, and has permitted second marriages for many centuries at the discretion of the bishop, there are nevertheless many more of these granted today than there ever were due to the rise of the culture of divorce — yet the teaching, the understanding, and the process has not been changed.

        So looking at divorce you have an accommodation in pragmatic practice but not an accommodation in teaching or understanding per se, outside of the progressive Christian mainline. It would stand to reason that any accommodation to other aspects of the sexual revolution, again outside the progressive Christian mainline churches, would also need to keep the teaching intact in a very meaningful way — which I don’t see as possible relating to extra-marital sex beyond what is already being done quietly by almost all the churches — that is, almost no church turns people away because they are fornicating unless they are egregious about it even today, almost no church does an FBI check or PI investigation to see whether candidates for marriage are fornicating or not, and so on — the approach is mostly “don’t ask, don’t tell”, and so that is what most people do. I would submit that on the official level, again outside the mainline, this is the most that you are going to get.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        I’m not advocating for unchecked, unrestrained, no-rules sexual behaviour.

        What I’m advocating is for the church body to step back from completely forbidding all sexual behaviour for unmarried people.

        Which will lead to “stepping back from completely forbidding” other sexual behavior, which will lead to “stepping back” some more, which will eventually lead to unrestrained, no-rules sexual behavior.

        Besides, you already have what you claim to want.

        God doesn’t answer requests for new rulings or clarification on existing rulings.

        Then the answer from God is “no”. You already knew that. You just don’t like the answer.

        God has given us a body of written law, but no written law can anticipate every emergent crisis.

        Did God “anticipate every emergent crisis”?

        It has really been an uphill battle to get the point across that I DON’T see the Bible as a living breathing document. As a document, by definition it can’t live or breathe.

        No. Everyone understands your point. It’s just that your point is wrong.

        Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is living and powerful, and sharper than any two-edged sword, piercing even to the division of soul and spirit, and of joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

        You say “it can’t live”. The Holy Spirit says it “is living”. You can’t both be right. So, who’s right, Eric? You, or the Holy Spirit?

        Will you respect the churches decision if it doesnt give you the answer you want? If not what good is sovereign authority of men? ~ Cameron

        I suppose we will cross that bridge when we get there. ~ Eric

        Translation: no. He won’t.

        It’s going to be difficult enough to get people to understand what Deciding On The Exception means

        Everyone already understands what it means, and more than half of “Christians” already agree with you. So, why are you not talking to them?

        Liked by 4 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Hi Oscar. I was wondering when you’d show up…

        Have you read Political Theology yet?
        Can books make decisions?

        Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “God has given us a body of written law, but no written law can anticipate every emergent crisis.”

        God’s writing anticipates, the end from the beginning, everything. Christ is the head of every man. (1 Corinthians 11:3) His spirit indwells His own. Seek and ye shall find!
        Otherwise you’re stuck relying on men. And I’m a man, and I already told you fornication is always wrong, and a capital crime, otherwise it wouldn’t qualify as fornication.
        If we as a culture returned to God’s prescribed capital punishment for real sexual immorality (not the stuff that we are not told is a capital crime, like “lust”). God would reward us with a sexually moral society, God’s law has always worked well when properly and faithfully executed. It isn’t God’s fault we live in an adulterous generation, we have left His ways, not His eternal ways went out of date.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        @Sharkly

        Simple fornication isn’t a capital crime, even by the strictest reading of the Mosaic law.

        At any rate, we are simply not going to be returning to a society with arranged marriages and capital punishment for adultery anytime in our lifetimes. We’re certainly not going to get a society like that if marriage rates and birthrates continue to fall. Well we might, but that’s going to be a Muslim society.

        So what do you propose we do to improve conditions as they are now?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        Some fornication was a capital crime under Mosaic law, but more importantly people who fornicate after coming to the knowledge of Christ, no longer shall inherit the kingdom of God. (1 Corinthians 6:9-10)

        As for recommendations, I toss them out like candy. Some folks do go to more patriarchal societies and buy a young bride. Relocating may be helpful. As the situation changed my Mennonite and Puritan ancestors relocated many times to countries where they could better live out their faith as they believed. Also teach your kids and others the truth, be bold, stand up, speak up, and use all your influence to turn those around you to righteousness. Expect to suffer. Be prepared to fight for what you believe in if unrest or war breaks out. Back up other men’s authority in front of their wives and kids. Respect other men publicly for what you find respectable in them. Do NOT empower women unnecessarily. Be defiantly masculine. Start trying to get churches to repent of their ungodly Feminism. Publicly mock Feminism and wokeness. Read the Bible more. Pray more. Pray for the return of Christ and the establishment of His holy patriarchal kingdom. Repent more. Ask God for wisdom and the answers you want to find out. Etc.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Joe2 says:

        @ Eric Francis Silk

        Matthew 16:19 “I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.”

        I understand that binding and loosing is a Jewish phrase giving authority to someone to determine whether something is allowed or forbidden. That is to say “to bind” is to tie, be in bondage, or be forbidden. While “to loose” means to set free, break up, or allow.

        Do you think this verse addressed to Peter has any applicability regarding the church having the authority to provide exceptions to completely forbidding all sexual behavior for unmarried people?

        Like

      • Oscar says:

        @ Eric

        Hi Oscar. I was wondering when you’d show up…

        Life exists outside the internet.

        Have you read Political Theology yet?
        Can books make decisions?

        Do you plan at some point to answer my questions? If you do, I’ll answer yours at that time.

        Simple fornication isn’t a capital crime, even by the strictest reading of the Mosaic law.

        But, we’re not living under the Mosaic law, and fornication will keep you out of God’s Kingdom….

        Ephesians 5:5 For this you know, that no fornicator, unclean person, nor covetous man, who is an idolater, has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and God.

        …. and it’ll get you judged by God.

        Hebrews 13:4 Marriage is honorable among all, and the bed undefiled; but fornicators and adulterers God will judge

        Apparently, that’s not enough for you. Most likely, because you have no fear of God.

        So what do you propose we do to improve conditions as they are now?

        I’ve already proposed that we join, and/or build faithful Christian communities, just as Christians did from the start. But, you have a problem for every solution. That’s on you.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        @Oscar

        “Do you plan at some point to answer my questions?”

        What questions? Honestly, at this point I’m tired of arguing with you because it’s getting really repetitive. I already know all your arguments. Now try justifying them.

        What theological works can you cite to defend your position?
        Define a State of Exception. Do States Of Exception apply to biblical law? Why or why not?
        Can a finite book address every possible set of conditions? Can books make decisions?
        Who decides on the exception when there is no adequate biblical guidance?

        Like

  15. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    So,JESUS is’nt the lord of the sabbath&marriage.right?
    But he is the lord of ”big special days”& divorce?
    Neo-reaction?What do you think everybody’s heroes of roissy,roosh&rollo plus dalrock basicaly was?
    Redpill&GAMEtm is okay with all the law-abiders here&in RL?You hypocrites!Why don’t all the respecters of the law see about the southern poverity law center(S.P.L.C.)&what they say about everyone of you ”enlightened” red-pillers,who saw the light with the 3Rs of GAMEtm instead of jesus!
    P.S.None of you have a problem with keeping the modern law of divorce,while you spit on your supposed lord that said ”let no man take apart what god has joined together”!Some of you ,would make good members of any local churchian body of beleavers with your gnon ,you have replaced the image of god with!
    This comment is’nt millions of words like your modern heroes of the faith,huh?
    Some of you will keep refusing to see the truth,no matter how bad it gets out here,right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Eric Francis Silk says:

      “Roissy,roosh&rollo plus dalrock” was/is the classic manosphere. When I say Neoreaction I mean Curtis Yarvin, Nick Land, and their followers. I guess it isn’t surprising that there is overlap in the audience.

      Like

  16. SFC Ton says:

    Ain’t nothing neo about any of my beliefs

    Liked by 3 people

  17. Oscar says:

    Christ does explicitly say that if we love him we will follow his commandments and do His will. But … He also breaks His own rules for higher purposes

    No. He didn’t. He broke the traditions of the rabbis, which they’d added on top of God’s laws, and were themselves unlawful.

    But at the same time, we do have to keep our eye on the ball, and avoid becoming rules-followers, seeing rules as ends-in-themselves, worshipping words or rules or structures more than loving the people we are told and called to love.

    So, we’re not supposed to be “rules-followers”, but we are supposed to follow the rule to love our neighbors as ourselves. Makes perfect sense.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Jack says:

      “So, we’re not supposed to be “rules-followers”, but we are supposed to follow the rule to love our neighbors as ourselves. Makes perfect sense.”

      If we are only loving others because the rule says we must, then this is not really love, is it? This is just following the rule for the sake of following the rule. Even if we consider basic disciplines and rule enforcement to be an expression of love, it’s going to come across as rather cold and hollow. This is why I wrote that there must necessarily be some element of trust for love to be full. Like Elspeth said,

      “It’s not just “a rule” for rules’ sake. It points to something higher.”

      Like

      • Sharkly says:

        “Even if we consider basic disciplines and rule enforcement to be an expression of love, it’s going to come across as rather cold and hollow.”

        But being a man isn’t about being governed by the perceptions of others. If a kid needs discipline, but does not like discipline, they still get it because that is loving and in their own long term best interest. So too with other adults who depend on us men to uphold a godly society. If you always have to be liked, you’re way Beta, and missing a critical feature of masculinity. Church leaders are to be grave men, the Bible tells me so, not these people-pleasing wannabe stand up comics that Protestant churchian leaders devolved to become. They don’t preach “sinners in the hands of an angry God” anymore. Effective hellfire & brimstone have been banished in favor of metrosexual seeker-friendly positive-feelings-oriented prosperity-health-&-wellness flattery. Our current society is the resulting fruit of that method. Basically churchian leaders are allowing lawlessness to reign in their churches instead of enforcing church discipline, because they fear somebody might see them as being cold or meanspirited or not woke enough. They’re whoring after the world, with their seductive flattery, instead of turning many to righteousness and the fear of God. Fear God, and keep his commandments: for this is the whole duty of man.

        Liked by 3 people

      • anonymous_ng says:

        @Sharkly –

        “They don’t preach “sinners in the hands of an angry God” anymore. Effective hellfire & brimstone have been banished in favor of metrosexual seeker-friendly positive-feelings-oriented prosperity-health-&-wellness flattery.”

        I believe you have pointed out a real truth here.

        During my post-divorce prodigal time, I pondered the essential questions of life like “Am I going to use illicit drugs?” “Is everything we believe relative?” “Why do I believe what I believe?”

        From that I concluded that the essential division playing out in our society today is that between those who’s starting assumption is that man is inherently wicked and fallen, and those who’s starting assumption is that man is inherently good.

        Returning then to the question in the churches of why the children leave, I offered my opinion to the priest. It’s because they’ve been told about the goodness and love of God, with no understanding of it’s necessity.

        These children are still raised with the cultural message that man is inherently good, that all wickedness is the result of nurture, not of nature, that God being a good God would never send man to the pit.

        If man is inherently good, what need is God? Church and God are just fairy tales for children, a way to control people etc.

        Sadly, the priest was no more open to what I had to say than the greater society, and there are still no messages in the liturgy about the fallen nature of mankind and what we deserve absent the saving grace of Christ.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Sharkly – You are quite right on the church universal allowing societal norms to dictate doctrine. It’s the subtle changes and choosing to emphasize some of God’s attributes over others. I often forget that the wrath poured out on Christ was supposed to be for me, and nonchalantly go about life. It is because I don’t have to bear God’s wrath that I forget that attribute of Him, notably the force with which He detests and deals with sin, and my fear of Him is diminished such that I take for granted the cost of my sin.

        A short while ago my mom relayed a story about their church that gave me hope that at least some pastors are willing to hold to God’s word. The first part of the story is common knowledge in the red pill sphere. A married woman with children got bored with her dutiful husband, found a man that gave her “The Tingles” and the affair led to her moving in with Mr. Tingles. Ho hum, happens all the time. The second part is what got my attention. The church actually went through the steps of church discipline, culminating in a church body meeting where her actions were told to everyone and the body rescinded her membership due to unrepentance. This is the first time in my life that I have ever heard of discipline being carried out in response to a member’s sin.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Oscar says:

        @ Jack

        Whether you’re following the rules for the rules’ sake, or you’re following the rules for some other reason, the fact remains, everyone is a rule-follower.

        You, Jack, are a rule-follower. The question is not whether we’ll be rule-followers, or not. The questions are who’s rules we’ll follow (God’s, our own, someone else’s), and why (for the rules’ sake, because we love and fear the Lord, because we feel like it, etc.)?

        Everyone is a rule-follower. The argument that we shouldn’t be rule-followers amounts to an argument that we should follow a rule that says “don’t be a rule-follower”. It’s self-contradictory nonsense.

        Liked by 3 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      “These children are still raised with the cultural message that man is inherently good, that all wickedness is the result of nurture, not of nature, that God being a good God would never send man to the pit.

      If man is inherently good, what need is God? Church and God are just fairy tales for children, a way to control people etc.”

      In the Western way of thinking about faith and religion this makes sense. This is because in our culture the key question is always “What do I get from this, personally, what does it do for me?”. In that context, people are more likely to believe in religion if they also believe that mankind is fallen, that the world is basically and fatally screwed up, and that people need to be saved from this by a higher power than themselves, because they are part of what is screwed up. So in that sense this is correct.

      I’d point out that there are other faith systems present in the West that don’t hold this premise — like Judaism and Islam, neither of which adheres to a concept of a fallen world, or a fallen humanity, at least in anything like the way Christianity does. The degree to which these religions are successful in retaining their people in the Western context is not, therefore, primarily based on the idea that humanity is not basically good but is basically bad, and that God is needed to be good, but is instead based on a continued cultural/identity tie with the faith, coupled together with continued belief in an eternal creator, such that, when taken in combination, Judaism or Islam is “My people’s way of acknowledging the eternal creator”, and the related customs and practices are seen in that vein. (Note I am not talking about the “true believer”/zealot element in either Judaism or Islam, but rather the rank and file American who is also one of those two faiths). The Jews and Muslims who “fall away” in the West (and there are many of them too!) do so generally when they either get attenuated culturally (i.e., begin to prefer American culture and identity to their familial one) and/or lose belief in the existence of an eternal creator. It doesn’t seem to have much to do with the “I need God to be good” issue, which is a key point for Christians because even for Westerners who still believe in the existence of an eternal creator, the identity point isn’t generally present (other than for perhaps some ethnic Catholics or Eastern Orthodox), so it comes down to that intellectual/ethical question.

      Basically Christianity faces a different hurdle because it isn’t a religion of identity for most people in the West any longer. (It was … until it wasn’t.) All religions face the basic hurdle of belief in a supernatural, eternal creator. Christianity faces the additional hurdle of the concept of original sin, which is unique to Christianity in terms of belief (Jews follow the OT, but they don’t read it to include Original Sin), and no longer has the identity card to call as Judaism and Islam do, for those who still bear those identities and who haven’t opted out of them in favor of the deracinated cosmopolite post-modern Westerner identity.

      Liked by 1 person

      • cameron232 says:

        Yeah the EO have national Churches equal but autocephalous. But that’s not “inclusive” in the western way of thinking.

        The Catholics have a bit of this in the Eastern Rites, the (former Anglican) Ordinariate and now Black Catholic churches (not a separate rite) eg in Pittsburg.

        Like

      • Elspeth says:

        Just wanted to send you Good Friday blessings, Nova!

        May this Good Friday brings faith in Lord and peace within your heart.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Thank you, Elspeth.

        Like

  18. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Anon ng, everytime I do a thought experiment or comment, I’m a fornicator, but when jims speak of boner tests &polygamy,its okay? For everyones OT law-loving folks, only polygyny was allowed not this polygamy that moderns speak of! Every time anybody speaks of options they better say to whatever jim of gnon, that they are a fornicator!
    P.S. ”GBFMtm came not fornicating or speaking of boner-tests,but is told hes a jim fornicator”? This is why the Manosphere will always be just a phantom menance to churchians&bluepillers&jim francis for that matter!
    Extra P.S. I have never told anyone to break any commandments or blame that “I wasn’t a christian”, if I broke Christ’s commandments like others here have! Does god’s law allow the excuse of not being a christian? Paul in protestant romans doesn’t seem to suggest that but the opposite! I don’t quote chapter&verse because its too explicit for non-believers in Christ! People didn’t think gojira was going to go inland today from the sea, ready to fight all the false jim beleavers in gnon? Any jims want to speak of jesus to me?

    Like

  19. Ame says:

    having little time to read everything – so have not read it all . . . but this seems applicable:

    1 Corinthians 6:12-20
    “12 All things are lawful for me, but all things are not helpful. All things are lawful for me, but I will not be brought under the power of any. 13 Foods for the stomach and the stomach for foods, but God will destroy both it and them. Now the body is not for sexual immorality but for the Lord, and the Lord for the body. 14 And God both raised up the Lord and will also raise us up by His power.

    15 Do you not know that your bodies are members of Christ? Shall I then take the members of Christ and make them members of a harlot? Certainly not! 16 Or do you not know that he who is joined to a harlot is one body with her? For “the two,” He says, “shall become one flesh.” 17 But he who is joined to the Lord is one spirit with Him.

    18 Flee sexual immorality. Every sin that a man does is outside the body, but he who commits sexual immorality sins against his own body. 19 Or do you not know that your body is the temple of the Holy Spirit who is in you, whom you have from God, and you are not your own? 20 For you were bought at a price; therefore glorify God in your body and in your spirit, which are God’s.

    these questions seems to be asked:

    Does my personal experience validate or invalidate whether or not God’s Word, the Bible, is true?
    What is my Standard?
    Is my Standard solid or malleable?
    If my Standard is God’s Word, the Bible, is it solid or malleable?

    if you don’t believe the Bible is the unchanging, always applicable, always relevant, always True, Word of Holy God, then whatever standard you have is malleable.

    if you do believe the Bible is the unchanging, always applicable, always relevant, always True, Word of Holy God, then you have to choose to believe His Truth is your never-changing, solid Standard, regardless of whether or not your personal experiences seem to validate or invalidate that Truth.

    if you think the Bible is malleable, then you are using your own standard and manipulating the Bible to fit whatever you desire at any given time.

    Liked by 5 people

  20. Red Pill Apostle says:

    We as people forget that God’s standards are unchanging, true and relevant even in our “unique” modern times. It is in our idolatrous arrogance that we think “we’re different than all who have come before us” so we need to replace God’s eternal principles that are no longer applicable, when in fact the sin is the same. It always has been, and it always will be. Ecclesiastes 1:9

    Think about the idea of God’s standards no longer being valid from both sides of the rules/grace coin. If God’s principles and standards are not longer valid, that means that God’s word is no longer true. If His word is no longer true then His promises to us are in question. If He’s breaking HIs own promises, how is He any different that any of us and at this point is He really even God?

    The answer is, fortunately for us, that He is unwavering. His principles for living are for our benefit, because as our maker He knows what is good for us. His promises true and we have those as the foundation for our lives. These are some of the best documented truths in human history.

    Liked by 3 people

  21. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Still,no challengers to THE defender of the faith, once delivered?What I’m a bad person that has no agape?I don’t live by the worlds standards like others dreaming of their white picket fences&mayberrys, I live in the real manowar world!Why no new”rules of the road of fornication” post today?
    P.S.I’m ready to rumble!! ArsenioP.S.I hear artisinaltoad’s ninjawives are looking for a new church to go to,so they can become better,worldly wives!Plus to get advice on his extra enlargement penile condition from godly,manly traditional preists&preachers of the devil,theflesh&theworld!They tried the 3rs of GAMEtm already,but still wanted a second opinion!
    I thought everybody knew I came to chew bubblegum&kickass,2 months ago?&I’m all out of bubblegum&I wear my sunglasses during the day& at night!
    Manowar did’nt make that clear to you!?I’m a bibicalMANOWARtm!You?
    See why nobody should bring up redpill,GAMEtm or ”rules of fornication&adultery” to me?Unless your ready to fight!
    Best version of stand by me, coutly love song?Screaming jay hawkins version, of course!Thats the version for true romantic men like myself!We look ”good” to all bluepillers,redpillers&manginas like jordan ”pathetic weasle” peterson as we strut&don’t give a damn to their face!That loser,manly professor wannabe peterson!See if he could ever catch up to my speed or knowledge!
    ”Sometimes you have to take a chance,its the thrill of the dance”!
    See how my advanced ”riddles”(This comment is hard to figure out?) still can come out of nowhere!?
    Theirs one thing everybody wants to know how much does pathetic weasles like jordan peterson bench,right?
    People should’nt sing it,but bring it!
    I hope its okay!

    Liked by 1 person

  22. thedeti says:

    Let’s play etymology!!

    The word “adultery” refers to a very, very limited set of sexual circumstances. The word’s forms include “adulterated” and its antonym, “unadulerated”.

    The act of adultery at its base is to put something into something else that isn’t supposed to be there. Something that’s “adulterated” is impure, because something that shouldn’t have been put into it, was put into it. Conversely. something that is “unadulterated” is pure, because nothing’s been in there that isn’t supposed to be in there.

    Adultery in the sexual sense always depended on the status of the involved woman being married, because she can’t be “adulterated”. A man cannot be “adulterated” because naturally, you cannot put something into him. You can, however, put things into women – things that are supposed to be there, and things that are not supposed to be there.

    A married woman commits adultery by having sex with a man other than her husband. She has committed adultery by admitting a man she’s not married to into her body – his body has “adulterated” hers because his body isn’t supposed to be in there. The man she had sex with has committed adultery by putting himself into her when he’s not supposed to be in there.

    A man (married or not) commits adultery by having sex with a woman married to another man. Both have committed adultery.

    A married man having sex with a woman he’s not married to commits adultery only by having sex with a woman married to someone else. But a married man having sex with an unmarried woman is not committing adultery; he’s fornicating. He cannot be adulterated – nothing is being put into him that shouldn’t be there. He is sinning, yes; but he’s not committing adultery.

    Here’s something controversial: A man cannot be adulterated. He can commit adultery – God condemns both the act of allowing the putting, and the act of doing the putting. If he’s doing the putting into a woman married to another man, he’s committing adultery. But he cannot be adulterated because in a literal sense, nothing is going into his body.

    Unmarried men having sex with unmarried women is fornication. Both are guilty of fornication. (Virtually EVERYONE in today’s society between age 16 and age 60 has fornicated.) We can argue over whether fornication is a lesser sin for whatever reason. But fornication is still sin. St. Paul tells us that fornicators will not inherit the Kingdom of God. Maybe adultery appears in the Big Ten and fornication doesn’t because adultery does more damage to families than fornication does. I don’t know. But fornication is still sin. God is pretty clear that ANY sexual conduct outside marriage is prohibited.

    You can commit adultery, repent, and be forgiven. You can fornicate, repent, and be forgiven. But we can’t say that they are not sins, or that they are sins only in certain contexts. They’re sins against the body – our own, and the bodies of others. They are sins, period.

    I guess I draw a parallel between “can we please fornicate because the times are different” and the situation where Jesus talks about divorce under the Mosaic law. (Matthew 19):

    Jesus told the pharisees: “You know that God joins together one man and one woman, and they become one flesh, What God joined together, no man can separate. Moses allowed you to divorce your wives because of the hardness of your hearts. But from the beginning it was not so.” The disciples replied “If it is this way between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”

    Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Those who can accept this should accept it.”

    But Paul also says “if you cannot contain, (If you just HAVE to have sex), then marry. For it is better to marry than to burn (in hell because you fornicated and committed adultery).” This command is to everyone – men and women. And the truth is that almost all people, men and women, just HAVE to have sex, because the sex drive is that strong.

    God did not allow divorce. Moses did. God won’t suspend his laws for us. Second, Moses “allowed” this only because husbands and wives were sinning. They were mistreating each other and it was better for them in the natural, temporal world to live apart than together. But it was clear that this was not God’s intent at all. (God is God, He does not change, He is the same yesterday, today, and forever.) I am sure it was His hope that repentance and reconciliation would happen. Or, if not reconciliation, then repentance, and people living in their singleness in humility and contrition, I suppose.

    So God will not allow fornication or adultery. Maybe other leaders will “allow” it, but God will not. If other leaders allow it it will be only because of our impudence, insolence, and rebelliousness. It will be only because of the hope of repentance, a hope that your fornication and adultery will not have made a complete mess of things, and a hope that things will work out in spite of ourselves.

    While God doesn’t allow our sin or look the other way, He has mercy and extends grace. He tarries. He stays His hand. He could unleash His wrath on us any time He wants. But he chooses not to, knowing that some will repent. Because the truth is that regardless of God’s law which we all know, almost all of us have fornicated. I know I have. Mrs. deti did. Almost everyone I have ever known has fornicated. Some still are; many repented. For many it has worked out OK. A lot of people I know have committed adultery. A few still are; many repented. For most it has worked out OK.

    This is not a “go ahead and fornicate, then repent cuz God will always forgive you” thing. At the end of the day I don’t really know what I’m saying, other than as a practical matter, many people fornicate, that has always been the case, it usually works out OK, but it has consequences reaching far into the future, and God won’t allow it even if people do.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Ame says:

      Deti can preach!

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        Thank you.

        Whether a woman can be adulterated depends on her marital status. An unmarried woman cannot be adulterated. She can fornicate. But she can’t be adulterated. Only married women can be adulterated. This is because a man has claimed her as his own A married woman “belongs to” her man. God joined her to her husband. Therefore, the only “thing” that’s supposed to be “in” her is her husband.

        An unmarried woman belongs to no man. God has not joined her to any man. Although she can fornicate and this causes all sorts of problems for her, we can’t say she has committed adultery or that she has been adulterated. It follows that an unmarried woman cannot commit adultery. She can fornicate. But she cannot commit adultery.

        (I am not of the school of thought that sex creates marriage. In addition to consummation, there has to be a public declaration, a meeting of the minds and hearts, and a “heart change” that is a work God does in the married man and woman. You can have sex. You can do the physical sex act. You won’t be married without the public declaration, the mental assent, the meeting of minds and hearts, and the heart transformation.)

        The only way a man can commit adultery is by having sex with a woman who is married to another man. A man can commit adultery, but he cannot be adulterated.

        Coveting (lusting) is forbidden only when you’re talking about that which belongs to your neighbor. You are not to covet (want what you’re not supposed to want) things that belong to others in the natural. You are not to covet anything that belongs to your neighbor – including his wife. This is what Christ meant by committing adultery in your heart – you want that which you’re not supposed to want. The sin is in the coveting.

        An unmarried man can, however, want, desire, pursue, an unmarried woman and seek to have God join her to him. An unmarried woman can want and desire an unmarried man and seek to have God join him to her. This is not lust, this is not coveting. This is how men and women get put together and how the species is propagated.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Deuteronomy 22:23 If a damsel that is a virgin be betrothed unto an husband, and a man find her in the city, and lie with her; 24 Then ye shall bring them both out unto the gate of that city, and ye shall stone them with stones that they die; the damsel, because she cried not, being in the city; and the man, because he hath humbled his neighbour’s wife: so thou shalt put away evil from among you.

        It appears that the virgin who is betrothed, is already considered to be the man’s wife, by God. As her father or guardian has already pledged her to the bridegroom. Since all unbetrothed women do belong to their fathers, or another male guardian in his absence. “My body, my choice” is a lie and a Feminist excuse for satanic child sacrifice.

        1 Corinthians 7:36(ESV) If anyone thinks that he is not behaving properly toward his betrothed, if his passions are strong, and it has to be, let him do as he wishes: let them marry—it is no sin.

        For those of you who need help reading between the lines of our bowdlerized Bibles: when the man with strong passion is permitted to “do as he wishes”, chicka chicka bow wow, letting him consummate their marriage, it ain’t sin. And that is a New Testament prescription that is certainly applicable for us today.

        Psalm 127:3 Lo, children are an heritage of the LORD: and the fruit of the womb is his reward. 4 As arrows are in the hand of a mighty man; so are children of the youth. 5 Happy is the man that hath his quiver full of them: they shall not be ashamed, but they shall speak with the enemies in the gate.

        Children belong to their father, until he releases them like arrows, aimed to where they should go. His baby, by God’s choice. A mother’s authority over her children is due to her being presumed to act as an agent of their father. Jacob did not have to obey his mother Rebekah when she counseled him to deceive his father Isaac and get the birthright and blessing from him, because in that instance she was not acting as his agent, but was instead counselling Jacob (the supplanter) to fool his father and claim his firstborn brother’s birthright, which he felt he had bought entitlement to for a bowl of lentil soup. Clearly Esau didn’t feel that their trade was valid, but a father’s word is final, and the rest is history.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Sharkly,

        “For those of you who need help reading between the lines of our bowdlerized Bibles: when the man with strong passion is permitted to “do as he wishes”, chicka chicka bow wow, letting him consummate their marriage, it ain’t sin. And that is a New Testament prescription that is certainly applicable for us today.”

        Most people would agree with this statement. However, you are making some vague assumptions which may not apply in the context of the current SMP/MMP. These assumptions include at least one (or more) of the following…
        1- that the man and woman are already married.
        2- that the man and woman are engaged (AKA “betrothed” to be married), but in this case, it would still be premarital sex, which is a no-no according to the rules. (But you could argue that St. Paul was pointing out an “exception” to the rule in 1 Corinthians 7:36.)
        3- that sex = marriage. (This argument actually has a lot of Biblical support, but the implications are totally unacceptable to modern people. Thus, most people, even Christians, refuse to entertain this argument.)
        4- that the wider society recognizes at least one of the above and will thereby regard the couple as being married and hold them accountable as such.

        These conditions don’t really apply to the current SMP/MMP, so here is where we come to the crux of the arguments surrounding the conundrum. You need to develop your viewpoints a little farther and clearly define what “marriage” is, in order to offer transferrable knowledge.

        Liked by 1 person

  23. thedeti says:

    Adultery in the sexual sense always depended on the status of the involved woman being married, because she can’t be “adulterated”.

    Should be “because she CAN be adulterated”. Poor proofreading.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Pingback: Infiltrators – Adam Piggott

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

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