The Cross of Our Age

Our placement in this place and time by God’s Providence tests how much we are willing to suffer sexually in order to follow our Lord.

Readership: Christian Men
Author’s Note: This post expands a comment I left under Lexet’s post, Charting the Red Pill World (2021 March 26). Recently, there has been a spike in commenting under this post, so I wanted to elaborate on this aspect of suffering a little further.
Length: 2,800 words
Reading Time: 10 minutes

Introduction

In the course of life, Christians have always been called to suffer in solidarity with Christ’s own suffering for us, and the Gospels themselves specifically talk about this. For example…

24 Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. 25 For whoever would save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. 26 For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?

Matthew 16:24-26, cf. Luke 9:23

And again we read in 1 Peter 4:

13 But rejoice insofar as you share Christ’s sufferings, that you may also rejoice and be glad when his glory is revealed. … 16 Yet if anyone suffers as a Christian, let him not be ashamed, but let him glorify God in that name.”

This suffering takes many forms in the daily lives of all of us, and is not confined to any one specific area or circumstance of life. However, in the current Western world, with its very pre-eminent centering of sex, and given the testosterone-driven male sex drive, many Christian men who wish to remain faithful to the moral law of God sexually are being urgently and loudly called by Him to intense, ongoing, lifetime suffering in this area, in one way or another, and with very limited options.

In the post cited, Lexet brought this situation to a fine point in writing that,

“Christians are limited in their choices by scripture. When it comes to sexuality, we have only 3 options: (1) live a celibate life; (2) play with fire and risk spending eternity on fire; or (3) marry.”

Yes. When we examine what this actually means, in practical terms, for Christian men living in the 21st Century West, we can see that the Lord is currently calling Christian men to embrace suffering in this specific area in some form, regardless of their life circumstances.

  1. Choice (1) is suffering, clearly.
  2. Choice (2) is eternal death.
  3. Choice (3) is also suffering for almost all men who undertake it with Christian ideas.

So unless you want to flirt with eternal death, you have to “pick your poison” of suffering.

The trouble is that this is not an approach to life that sits well with many Westerners of this era, and particularly many Americans, even Christian Americans, who are very wary of what they see as a “doom and gloom” approach to the issues presented by life. This dissonance creates a good deal of tension and frustration as people bang their heads against the wall trying to find a way to get what they want in life, in a way that is morally acceptable, but which doesn’t involve suffering either way.

After all, this is America. It’s a culture that has always thrived on optimism, whether called for or not. We do pain just fine“No pain, no gain!”, and “Pick your pain, discipline or regret!” We’re good with pain, as long as pain is tied to personal effort and personal achievement. As long as it is chosen pain, pain we voluntarily incur, pain we take on in the service of an end we desire. And we’re also fine with pain we see as just desserts, as the righteous come-uppance for foolish personal decisions. Either way, we’re generally comfortable with pain that we can trace back to our own choices — either healthy (“No pain, no gain!”) or unhealthy (just desserts).

We really suck, culturally, at existential pain, however — pain that just is, that is not our own doing, that can’t be overcome, that is inescapable, structural, existential — and suffering as an existential state of solidarity with the suffering of Christ.

Some Christian Sects are more open to Suffering than others

In the same post, Lexet posed the question,

“Why is the Catholic [Red Pill] the largest subset of the Religious [Red Pill]?”

I think that the reason why this is the case is because, as among Christian churches, the Catholics embrace the virtue of suffering the most openly.

Traditional Catholicism (not the gay-dominated Francis Church, mind you, but actual Catholicism, which exists in pockets scattered throughout the Catholic Church) has a very well developed theology and spirituality of suffering. It recognizes that existential suffering for the cause of Christ is a life path, and not a circumstantial state to be managed or avoided if possible. Therefore, men who are conservative or traditional Catholics will be familiar with the idea of suffering in solidarity with Christ, and some of them will embrace it more readily. Thus, they will tend to be less repulsed by the obvious conclusions I reached above that a Red Pill analysis of the current social landscape leads to for Christians — that for most men it’s suffering, either way. Some portion of Catholics will accept this and see it as normal, and not exceptional, but rather simply the way in which suffering is going to play out for many of them in this otherwise comfortable, protected age.

Other kinds of Christians, especially many Protestant Christians, come from traditions that do not feature anything like the old Catholic spirituality of suffering-in-solidarity (and many of the more conservative sorts of Protestants may be wary of the concept, despite its scriptural mooring, due to common taboos about “merit” and “works” and so on, or the fear that such a concept undermines the “once and for all” nature of Christ’s sacrifice on the Cross). These religion-specific reasons, coupled with the general American cultural distaste for existential pain, lead to many of these men viscerally rejecting the suffering implied by the Red Pill’s analysis as being “too negative” or because it “doesn’t offer a solution”. In fact, this is the constant, endless, refrain, like a resounding, erroneous antiphon that one hears from these types of guys. Catholics don’t have that issue, so they tend to be more open to TRP ideas, while being hostile to the PUA side of the tactics.

In his own analysis, Lexet described a few aspects of Catholicism that may tend to increase one’s openness to the concept of suffering-in-solidarity:

  1. Traditional — Lots of vocal conservatives who appreciate and promulgate tradition.
  2. Unified — Their identity is based on the monolithic Catholic Church.
  3. Based — God’s order and Christian living is emphasized. Simping is restricted to the veneration of Mary (no women clergy/pastors/teachers like Beth Moore, etc.)
  4. Sex Structured — The church has a theology of sex that is taught and is strict on paper (even though many do not follow it).

He also offered four counterpoints to explain why Protestants have an aversion to the prospect of suffering.

  1. Non-Traditional — There is no appreciation of any tradition, and while in the more strict circles purity culture is taught, said culture has many inconsistencies and tends to pedestalize women, which in turn, tends to further reduce the receptivity to any notion that men are suffering under the current socio-sexual regime.
  2. Multi-Denominational Factions – There is no central, unified identity that cooperates with each other, especially with conservative-minded Protestants, who tend to be much less denominational, much more independent, and therefore much less aligned.
  3. Postmodern — The vast majority of the Protestant churches trend left of center (a perspective which tends to identify social or material causes for suffering rather than seeing them as existential in nature).
  4. Sex Vapidity — Doctrines on sex are not taught and/or enforced.

Lexet added an interesting tangential note.

“Politically right wing Protestants of all stripes share a common link with Rushdoony’s dominion movement, which kicked off the American home school movement.

That’s where Wilson comes from, and that’s the same movement that influences so many of the family life’s, Focus on the Family, etc.”

Trust in Others Enables Trust in God and Empowers Us to Bear our Cross

Personal suffering is often used, by believers and non-believers alike, as a reason to blame God for all the evils in the world. Whenever one is faced with suffering, especially when that suffering can’t be blamed on someone or something specific, there is definitely a choice to be made. One can plunge into self-pity and become resentful towards God and the world, or else, one can patiently endure it as a test/trial of faith, and experience renewal and change as a result at some later time.

The ability to bear suffering in this way — to bear suffering that just happens to us, and can’t easily be “blamed” on someone or something specific, as Americans are wont to do — depends to a significant degree on one’s level of trust — trust in God and trust in one’s interactions with other people.

The Bible is pretty clear that we should not “place our trust in man”, so it is easy for a Christian to never realize that trust is of central importance. Aside from these scriptural warnings, there is a deeper issue about being able to trust in general, and that it is OK to trust certain people, maybe even vital. Trust is closely related to faith and confidence, and we need to work on this if our relationship with God is to improve to the point of being healthy and vibrant. To put it plainly, it is extremely hard for us to actually place our full trust in God if we at the same time are distrustful of most everyone around us who shares the image of God.

Trust, I think, is an area where we as Americans will tend to be pretty retrograde in.  The current version of our culture is very individualistic and therefore not particularly trusting.  That wasn’t always the case — there used to be more trust between people when the American lifestyle was less mobile, when people knew the people around them more intimately, and when most relationships endured over the course of a lifetime.  But that has seeped away as we have become more mobile and increasingly rootless, and of course more culturally, economically, and politically divided, and more fractured and more individualist over the last 50-70 years.  This has also happened with Christians (just like all the other cultural changes have, too), and it’s kind of crept up on people due to the high level of material comfort and the superficial pleasantries that are still customarily exchanged among strangers in America.

For many Christians, the collapse of the influence of Christianity on the broader culture has led to a kind of retreat from that culture — a tendency to create a parallel culture that is “faithful” and not “heathen”. What Christians miss is that in taking this approach, they are doing basically the same thing as everyone else in this culture is doing: sorting themselves into localized silos of the like-minded. This approach is not counter-cultural at all, it is actually representative of what the entire culture has done, more or less, since the 1990s. And it generally makes Christians less trustful of the people outside the “Christian” silo, to one degree or other.

While, for the reasons I note above, it is very tempting to American Christians in particular to take this approach, given our pre-existing cultural tendencies toward rugged individualism, which has now metastasized into the current hyper-individualist climate, to try to deal with the current chaos by rolling up the bridges and being “me and Jesus” — even if “me” is “my family” or “my church”, or “me, my church, and the people we’re evangelizing” … it’s still a limited group, a hiving off.  And that process of hiving off can be where we cut off trust, and thereby indirectly limit our ability to develop further in our relationship of trust with God. And as it turns out, the “me and Jesus” (or “we and Jesus” as the case may be) approach can isolate us to the degree that it impedes our ability to develop the depth of trust in God that enables us to suffer in solidarity with Christ within the setting of our social adjustments. Without these firm, long standing relationships which are conducive to His will for our lives, including experiences of His love and grace expressed through others, it is easy for us to grow spiritually priggish, lax, and dull.

This happens because the less we trust others in terms of what is happening around us in real life, the more of a problem this becomes in our relationship with God, and the element of trusting in Him.  This happens to us because other people bear the divine image, and therefore reflect God, in a particular and imperfect way, to us, and so when we are not trusting towards them (in a non-reckless way) we are holding back from someone who reflects, however imperfectly, God. This does spill over into our relationship with God Himself. Jesus specifically told us,

“Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.”

Matthew 25:45

In other words, when we do not give others our trust (again, not in a reckless way, but in a non-reckless way), we are holding back trust from God Himself, and this does impact our direct relationship with God as well.

In this way, the current suffering experienced by most Christian men in the way of relationships could be seen as an opportunity for spiritual growth, both in terms of their relationship with God but also, critically, in terms of their relationships with other people. Specifically, men who are having a harder time bearing this difficult Cross which the age demands us to bear will likely have an easier time doing so if they learn to trust God more, which, itself, will often involve opening themselves to trust others more. This could involve trusting people who will inevitably let them down, but this in itself is a part of the experience of living in the world. — The critical part, from a spiritual perspective, is not the letting down which we are apt to focus on, but the courageous act of opening to trust to begin with, and the decision to remain open to trust, for the sake of God and our trust in Him, and in recognition and acceptance of His clear teaching regarding the impact of our approach to others on our relationship with Him.

Conclusions

Suffering in the context of intersexual relationships is the Cross of our age, and we must bear it, as Christian men. The statement from God at this moment in time is clear and deafeningly loud: Our placement in this place and time by God’s Providence means that we are to be tested by how much we are willing to suffer sexually in order to follow our Lord. That is what the current scenario means for men having the following traits.

  • Christian men who desire to pursue sexual holiness.
  • Men who are not in the top 20% of SMV.
  • Men who don’t have the bag of personal traits (determination, drive, discipline, adaptiveness, etc.) to get and stay in that top 20% of Christian men.
  • Christian men who don’t satisfy the current “secular attraction requirements” of women to such a degree that they can successfully attract and retain a Christian woman as a wife in a successful, happy and fulfilling marriage.

These men, which is most of us, are called to suffer, and often quite a lot, in this aspect of their lives, no matter whether they opt in Lexet’s choice (1) or choice (3), as outlined above.

The positive side of the conclusions of this essay is that nurturing our ability and willingness to trust courageously can mitigate the grinding hopelessness of suffering sexually by adding a meaningful context of social support.

Related

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

60 Responses to The Cross of Our Age

  1. professorGBFMtm2021 says:

    Redpill alert!Jack is back with mel gibson!All christians are going to start pedestalizing women more as they have for the past 50+years as the prosperity gospel of material wealth supplanted hellfire&brimstone preaching!Prediction for the foreseeable future?PAIN&suffering everywhere across the west!Thats hard to neleave?Why am I the first to leave a comment?When I took a sabbatical for the past nearly 48 hours?

    Like

  2. Red Pill Apostle says:

    For Christian men, choice 2 is obviously ruled out, so we are left to pick between suffering behind door #1 and suffering behind door #3. Option 1 is guaranteed suffering for anyone with a normal sex drive, but you can focus that energy, with varying degrees of distraction, on other worthy aspects of life. Plus you can leave the toilet seat up without getting a complaint and that counts for something. With option 3 there is a chance for suffering, and woe unto the man that finds suffering behind door #3, but there is also the chance for contentedness through the parts of life that are greater than oneself.

    So we all get to strive after the suffering we endure. Logically, men are choosing between suffering and suffering with the possibility of contentedness. For perspective, even under the old system of marriage there was suffering, albeit probably less than in modern times, because any time two lives are joined there will be disagreement to be worked through. It appears to me that women of 80-100 years ago expected to suffer alongside their husbands as they built a life together, whereas currently, women live in a fantasyland of selfish expectations. So if the option then is to seek to marry, what might that look like and where does trust come into play.

    First, faith in God is paramount. The deck is stacked against men, so I would suggest to only pursue marriage if you absolutely feel that is what God is calling you to do. Second, avoid adverse selection. If you talk about marriage as being the relationship structure described in the bible, the typical modern woman is going to drop you, which is exactly what you want to happen with that type of woman. There will be a process of weeding through women, to cull the goats from the sheep so to speak, to eventually get to one that is looking for a biblical marriage. The process might be a longer one so see the first point in this paragraph. If it doesn’t work out then you’re at suffering option 1, which is where you would have been if you didn’t take your shot.

    Also, note that marriage is not something primarily designed to make you happy. Happiness may very well come from marriage, but the primary objective is to be the earthly model of God’s relationship with us, His church, in the broken world we live in. If you run through the instructions Peter and Paul give to husbands, they are a list of behaviors and attitudes Christ has toward us. Be loving, patient, not too harsh, washing her in the word …. being a husband gives men insight into how Christ treats us even though we caused him and cause him daily, to suffer for us.

    Liked by 4 people

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Just to add to your points about what marriage is designed to do, in addition to all that, it’s also designed to confine Sex. Since the beginning, I believe God recognized sexual temptation as a huge weakness for us. 1st Corinthians 6:9-11 give a list of the kind of people who will not inherit God’s kingdom (sexual immorality and adultery’s on that list). But in Chapter 7, the Apostle Paul goes on to explain that marriage is for those who lack self-control. That’s why married couples aren’t supposed to deprive sex from one another.

      Liked by 4 people

  3. Maniac says:

    Someone in a recent comment thread suggested that masturbation wasn’t explicitly banned in the Bible. I agree.

    Aside from that, I recently added chasteberry to my daily supplement regimen. Two capsules a day keeps the sex drive away.

    Like

    • cameron232 says:

      “Someone in a recent comment thread suggested that masturbation wasn’t explicitly banned in the Bible.”

      The idea that there has to be a specific, unambiguous verse condemning something or it is licit is a very modern way to rationalize un-Christian behavior. Christians use moral reasoning from Christian moral principles. Always have.

      Choking your chicken almost always involves the sin of committing fornication or lust in your heart. Most guys are thinking about (or looking at) some woman they aren’t allowed to have sex with when they do that.

      Jesus said: “For out of the heart proceed evil thoughts, murders, adulteries, fornications, thefts, false witness, blasphemies…”

      Everybody had weaknesses. I don’t judge others for their weaknesses I just don’t think we should tell self-serving lies about the Faith.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        There’s no such thing as committing fornication in your heart.

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        If you mean: “……hath already committed fornication in his heart” isn’t a Bible verse then I guess you’re right.

        The sin of mentally dwelling on having sex with a woman who isn’t your wife (whether she’s married or not) is called lust.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Rock Kitaro says:

        You make some good points. I do defer to Romans 14 in that regard, in that it really depends on the Christian’s convictions when he stands before God. If your interpretations of the scriptures lead you to that conclusion, then you should live by those principles.

        But on that note… and please, feel free to pick my comment apart because this topic has been something my conscience does struggle with. I keep in mind Jesus’s words that “if your eye causes you to stumble, pluck it out”, as well as the quote you mentioned. But… I confess I do rationalize it with my own personal codes like, “never lust after a woman who’s married, or in a relationship, or practicing homosexuality (lesbians)”. Also, I confess, that I don’t think about the actual act of fornication during the process. But just the stimulation by which I can alleviate myself. None of this, I’m proud of. This is probably the only place anywhere I’ve shared this. But I do think God knows my heart. It definitely is a weakness of the flesh, but I’d dare say it’s no difference from the weakness even a married man would feel around his beautiful wife during such heated passions. I’ve actually prayed for guidance about this constantly. I have read the Bible in it’s entirety, but I am open to know what you all think. Am I being too hard on myself (no pun intended) or should I do a better job or resisting (which, I don’t know about you guys, but even going on week-long restraints is nearly a herculean feat).

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        There’s about 3 billion men that have the same problem. We live in a hypersexualized world and are tempted (often on purpose) by half naked women from the time we’re boys. I don’t condemn other men for their weaknesses and failures seeing that I have my own.

        Here’s the Catholic definition of lust – it doesn’t hold authority for a Protestant but may be helpful.

        https://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09438a.htm

        Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        The Catholics say that masturbation will make you go blind. However, my Protestant parents never dared to tell me that, since they both needed glasses to read. 😉

        Liked by 4 people

      • jvangeld says:

        Cameron232 said,

        “If you mean: “……hath already committed fornication in his heart” isn’t a Bible verse then I guess you’re right.”

        It’s not. Matthew 5:27-28 says, “Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not commit adultery: But I say unto you, That whosoever looketh on a woman to lust after her hath committed adultery with her already in his heart.”

        The word Jesus uses here for “woman” is the same word he uses several verses later for “wife.”

        Matthew 5:31-32 says, “It hath been said, Whosoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorcement: But I say unto you, That whosoever shall put away his wife, saving for the cause of fornication, causeth her to commit adultery: and whosoever shall marry her that is divorced committeth adultery.”

        DeepStrength breaks down the words in this series of posts. https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2017/10/03/how-to-communicate-sexual-desire-in-a-relationship/

        I know that for me, I was stuck looking at internet whores when I believed what you believe. Now that I no longer think that seeing women and recognizing their allure is wicked, I have been able to drastically reduce my use of pornography. I have counted years between my relapses instead of days.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        Wait so you were looking at porn because you thought that was less sinful than looking at real world women?

        Seriously?

        Liked by 1 person

      • jvangeld says:

        Other way around, Nova. I thought that looking at the women around me was as wicked as looking at porn. So why not look at porn?

        Liked by 2 people

      • jvangeld says:

        And, with that self-revelation, I should take back my claim that I believed what Cameron232 believes. He probably isn’t as ass-backwards as I was.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        I am almost 50, and it hasn’t been until very recently, (like the last few days) that I have finally engaged in a critique of the philosphical/linguisitic fallacy known as essentialism.

        Zippy Catholic (RIP) used to write about this all the time and I think I am finally getting it. Late to the party, I guess, I have never really thought of myself as particularly bright–but stubbornly dedicated to understanding the complexities of life that surround me.

        Parsing words from ancient texts in an effort to discern the true intent of the author has been a net loss for those of us who long for a deeper understanding of Truths (and is an offshoot pursuit of essentialism)

        Bummer.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Jack says:

        Scott,
        Not sure I’m following you.
        How does essentialism relate to suffering?

        Liked by 2 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I think Scott’s comment is directed towards this little subthread discussion not the OP.

        Like

      • Scott says:

        Cameron is correct. If the idea of essentialism had not infiltrated the collective consciousness of pretty much every western society since Plato, these endless debates about what the precise definition of words in the Bible (or the constitution or fill in the blank whatever ancient text) meant to the user at the time would not be a thing.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Novaseeker says:

        If the idea of essentialism had not infiltrated the collective consciousness of pretty much every western society since Plato, these endless debates about what the precise definition of words in the Bible (or the constitution or fill in the blank whatever ancient text) meant to the user at the time would not be a thing.

        Hmmm. I doubt that, actually.

        I know the argument — i.e., that based on Platonic idealism (the true thing is the ideal essence of a thing which can be discerned by reflection) as filtered through Aristotle (that ideal essence means its “true definition” or something like that) we have inherited a way of looking at the world which seeks to find in things their essential character, and that this is also applied to language, such that language becomes not just something that is a rough transmission of thought at the time to something that has a discernable essential meaning. I get the argument, but I don’t think it’s very optional, in that alternatives do not seem particularly viable to perform a basic task of transmitting ideas and thoughts (which is what speech and words are) in a way that is reliable outside of a face-to-face context. I suppose it’s more of a problem of “text”, where that human interface context, which provides a lot of information about the intention of the words spoken, is missing, and therefore the words have to “stand by themselves”, but this is also the main advantage of text to begin with — that it does not depend on face-to-face transmission. If text were not supposed to have an actual/objective/essential meaning (i.e., a proper meaning), then its usefulness as a reliable means of transmitting what was actually intended to be communicated by the speaker (which is what the first texts were) is dramatically reduced and it becomes a question of what each reader sees in the text, given its lack of essential meaning.

        I also get the argument that this is what it is anyway — that is, text is always what each reader sees in it, grasps from it, and this is unavoidable with any text, and so the idea of an essential meaning in a text is always illusory. Perhaps that is so on the human level when it comes to being a personal “receiver” or “reader” of a text, but if we were to reduce the actual view of texts to this level as a general, or shared/public, matter, I don’t think we could have human civilization at all. It is rather impossible to consider how any civilization could function without reference to certain core texts which are taken to have certain accepted meanings which are seen as objectively true and therefore the “intended” or “essential” meaning of the text. Even societies which had no exposure to Platonic thought (e.g., South Asia, East Asia) had this, de facto, however differently it may have been conceptualized. There were of course societies which didn’t have texts at all (Iike some of the Native Americans) and this appears to have limited development in various ways that texts do not do — texts seem to permit scaling precisely by permitting the scaling of ideas, something which, itself, is premised on the text having an essential/objective meaning (even if that objective meaning is a subject of dispute/interpretation).

        When it comes to religion, of course the alternative to a text-based approach (which is what all of the Abrahamic religions had, including the one that predated Platonic thought) is the experiential one, and it is true that certain religions have prioritized experience, and its way of validating truth on the personal level and then the shared/collective-on-the-basis-of-shared-experience level, in the way that they primarily conceive of truth. Certain forms of Buddhism come to mind here, as do certain forms of Hindu practice. In the monotheisms, this strand, the mystical one, has always existed as well, but has always also been to one degree or other somewhat removed from the main traditions which have been very textual from the beginning. This has been the case whether speaking of Christian mystics such as Eckhart or the sufis in Islam and, to a lesser extent, the Kabbalists in Judaism.

        One view is that Christianity was meant to break that text-reliance (one can read the NT this way, I think, although it certainly isn’t the only way to read it and it has not historically been the dominant way) as it appears to have begun as a movement based on shared experience. But while some Christian traditions have preserved this better than other ones (namely the sacramental churches), this generally didn’t happen at the expense of a robust textual tradition which did tend towards the “orthodox” or “proper”/essential meaning of a text in one way or other. And it is truly hard to imagine what Christianity would be, as a faith, if it did not insist on an essential meaning to its own core texts, given the history of what disagreements about the meaning of the texts have led to historically (and that 1000 years and more prior to the Reformation). If anything, because Christianity is so doctrine-heavy as a religion (by far the most doctrine heavy of the majors), it’s hard to imagine how a non-essentialist approach to text would have resulted in the same religion we have, or perhaps any religion that actually perdured long beyond the initial experiential knowledge of the apostles and the men who knew them.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Nova-

        I was going back over some of the key posts by Zippy on this topic and it occurred to me that he was basically making the same argument as you are here. That is, something like “essentialism is the worst way of understanding the transmission of ideas, except for all the others.”

        He was critical of it, but between the three main types (essentialism, positivism and nominalism) it was the one he criticized least.

        Personally, I am averse to isms. They fray at the edges. But even my aversion to them can become itself. It would be called is anti-ismism.

        I don’t really see another way, but as I said we are drenched in this conceptualization. It just seems weird to me how much energy I wasted in places like the seminary trying to understand (and argue with fellow seminarians about) what Jesus “meant” in a text written in a language nobody really speaks anymore, over two thousand years ago in a culture none of us could possibly relate to by someone who was around him while he was alive, but probably didn’t write until many years later himself.

        When I see it in places like blogs, or Bible studies, or preachers trying to exposit, my eyes glaze over.

        Like

      • Jack says:

        I have been confused about certain passages in the Bible. There are so many contextual nuances that are not explicitly stated. But over the years, I’ve had epiphanies, and they often happen like this.

        There is something I’ll be struggling with for a while, and I’ll pray about it until I can form my own understanding of the thing. Then I’ll remember one of those passages that I had been confused about, and it is obvious that it’s talking about the same thing I had been struggling to understand, only it’s described in different words. Only at that point do I feel confident that I understand that particular passage. Unfortunately, some things are impossible to understand just by reading the Bible. Some things have to be lived through and fought for, before you can appreciate the wisdom of the Word.

        I’m not sure which approach this would be, because it has elements of all three (essentialism, nominalism, and positivism).

        Liked by 2 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        I don’t really see another way, but as I said we are drenched in this conceptualization. It just seems weird to me how much energy I wasted in places like the seminary trying to understand (and argue with fellow seminarians about) what Jesus “meant” in a text written in a language nobody really speaks anymore, over two thousand years ago in a culture none of us could possibly relate to by someone who was around him while he was alive, but probably didn’t write until many years later himself.

        When I see it in places like blogs, or Bible studies, or preachers trying to exposit, my eyes glaze over.

        Yes I agree with this as well.

        When it comes to parsing scripture, it becomes kind of like the chase for the “golden goose” of “what it really and truly meant, that and nothing else, period”, which is kind of beside the point for a scriptural text.

        I think that every functioning religion will have that — the canon view of what the text is, and different “schools” within that faith will have their own “canon” view. And that’s necessary for the religion to cohere, as I say above.

        But I’ve always been drawn much more to the mystical side of faith in general, where text is typically seen as a starting point for the experiential aspect of the faith, and not in a positivist, nominalist or essentialist way — as a starting point from which one’s own spiritual experiences are a riff. Of course, that can end up with a walk in space, but provided one is ensconced in a mystical tradition, with proper guidance, this risk, while never eliminated, is greatly lessened. Hesychasm is one example of that, but there are others within Christianity, of course.

        A final point on text — the Jewish approach to this issue is interesting in that it is (or was) dialogical. The Talmud, which is the main text of rabbinical Judaism, is essentially a set of commentaries on the Hebrew scriptures, and commentaries on those commentaries, but the interesting thing about the Talmud is not its status as a scripture commentary (every faith has those), but rather how it is formulated — that is, as a series of arguments and counter-arguments, which is then left essentially open-ended. There is “halachic law” contained in the Talmud which is considered binding, but there is also a lot of it that is open-ended and has an attitude that the meaning of scripture is not set in stone, is open to interpretation, and is worth discussing with a view to what view is most defensible, sensible and so on. There is therefore some degree of openness to interpretation that hasn’t obtained, by and large, in Christianity. This is probably due in part to Christianity being so doctrine-heavy relatively speaking, but it is interesting nonetheless, and a counter-point to the “one true interpretation” approach that tends to dominate “canon” Christian hermeneutics.

        Liked by 1 person

    • Scott says:

      “Two capsules a day keeps the sex drive away.”

      Without mine I would never get out of bed in the morning.

      Like

    • Sharkly says:

      Maniac, that chaste berry(vitex) can reduce your androgen levels. It might make you flabby and give you moobs. I’d be careful taking that for any extended period of time.

      Liked by 1 person

  4. redpillboomer says:

    “It appears to me that women of 80-100 years ago expected to suffer alongside their husbands as they built a life together, whereas currently, women live in a fantasy land of selfish expectations. So if the option then is to seek to marry, what might that look like and where does trust come into play.”

    Well put! The phrase ‘fantasy land of selfish expectations’ is a great way of saying it. It would make for another good way of vetting women. I’m talking about the ‘good girls’ out there, not the the girls toting along with them the proverbial ‘More red flags than a Chinese Communist parade.’ If a man gets even an inkling of any kind of ‘fantasy land of selfish expectations,’ they better think twice about that girl. We’d have to unpack on here what that might look like in the ‘good girls’ vs the ‘bad girls,’ but it would be worth an examination. With the ‘bad girls’ we pretty much know what the ‘fantasy of selfish expectations’ looks like, i.e. “Even though I’ve been riding the carousel for the last dozen years with an N-Count you need a calculator to tally up, now that I’m 32 years old and ready to settle down, I deserve a man like…” …fill in the blanks with all the inflated expectations Ms. CC Rider now wants in a husband, aka Mr. Beta Bucks; followed by a wailing chorus of, “Where have all the good men gone?”

    Liked by 3 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Boomer – In the world of risk profiling for insurance there is a concept called adverse selection. Simply put it’s having an aspect of your product or service that attracts clients with traits you’d rather avoid. Selection, is the opposite, which is having features of your product or service that attract the type of clients you want. You are correct that it is going to be harder to weed out those women that appear to be “good girls” but aren’t good wife material. Fortunately, I am intimately aware of all the “good girl” red flags that become readily apparent once the acute case of blue pill recto-cranial-inversion is cured.

      Understand that that being in Deti’s top 20%, on paper at least, is not a magic pill that cures all relational ills. I have a STEM degree from an elite university (top15 nationally academic rankings), was a D1 college athlete, was awarded an academic scholarship to complete my graduate work, earn well above the median household income and have maintained my fitness to the point that my abdominal muscles show even now in my mid-40s. I also married a virgin prior to her college graduation date (very early 20s) who grew up going to church every Sunday. And you know what? None of these characteristics kept my marriage from being clinically sexless with a wife who was absolutely brutal in her argumentativeness, justification for really bad behavior and general nastiness but only towards me. Here are my hard earned lessons for those “good girl” red flags when considering a younger girl for marriage. Also know that I am still married to the woman and that things are much, much better. But it took a scripturally based red pill approach to correcting behavior and an iron will.

      –Does her dad want her to have a career? Is he concerned if she marries that she won’t go to grad school? Or, is he counseling her hat being a wife and mother is good and that family comes before career?
      –Does she look for ways to help proactively or does she have to be asked?
      –Does she expect her father to do things for her, because that is what men do, or does she work along side him as he helps her?
      –Study the Bible together and see if she really knows scripture. Has she meditated on God’s word and thought about it’s application to her life, or just been in church picking up pious platitudes?
      –Tell her you are against having a big wedding ceremony and reception because you have dreamt about a simple service and using the money saved as a down payment on a house. She’ll be distraught at the idea of not being princess for a day, but she either wants you or the expensive fantasy. If this is a deal breaker for her, she didn’t really want marriage with you enough, she just wanted to show off her new status as wife.
      –Tell her the frequency you want sex and what acts you want to try. If you get hesitation or any type of pushback aimed at shaming you for even thinking about these things, you know the answer. You’ve been warned. Conversely, if she is open to trying things and is enthused about daily sex, you just may have found a girl worth rolling the dice on.
      –Explain God’s marital hierarchy of authority and what that means in a marriage to her. If she responds with something like “I’m not a doormat” or “that’s old fashioned” or “the world doesn’t work that way anymore”, then proceed at your own risk. She thinks marriage is two people with equal authority and this does not end well. Ever.

      I could keep going but the general idea is to look at a prospective wife to assess how she behaves with regard to the areas of control, submissiveness, expectations and desire. The man needs to be careful not to behave in such a way that adverse selection comes into play. For example, the trad con blue pill guy that pedestalizes women will probably attract women who are daddy’s princess and all the bad things that come with that. A man also needs to assess his natural strengths and abilities that God has given him. If they are qualities that a man would need to be a good husband to a particular woman, then life should be easier. If he has to develop areas that he is not naturally strong at in order to be a good husband to a particular woman, then it’s going to be a harder road.

      Liked by 5 people

      • lastmod says:

        and do this between the ages of 25-27, spin plates, have plenty of options that don’t exist, but are everywhere……….grow your career, save tons of money, be a “leader” in your church, make time to restore 1960’s muscle cars, read the Bible everyday, be involved in your church…..make sure you go to bed exhausted…..and NEVER have premartial sex, but if you do….it’s “okay” and then call the woman who had sex with you “easy, non-wife material” and since you helped contribute to her N-count……..that’s her faulty, not yours. Make sure you workout daily, know God’s plan for your life, have a high paying job…

        You will meet someone, if you don’t you “pedestalize women and you can’y read IOI’s which happen to men all the time, make sure you know how to understand and comprehend “women secret language and cues”

        Very simple….you all did this……oh? you didn’t? You were just natural alpha’s? Well….sh*t, we all just have to be that. It’s easy. Most men can get into the top 20% with no problem…..they just have to want it 😉 and if they can’t “they obviously like being a blue-pilled, beta, cuck, chump who pedestalizes women”

        RP men actually the ones doing the pedestalizing. They pedestalize the sex-act over anything, and are always talking about how to get more, play game, try, attempt…do to anything to get her to say “yes”

        how is this red pill?????

        Liked by 1 person

      • Sharkly says:

        “If she responds with something like “I’m not a doormat” or “that’s old fashioned” or “the world doesn’t work that way anymore”, then proceed at your own risk.”

        No, Eject! Eject! Eject! Those are deal breakers. You will rue your foolishness if you continue into her selfish clutches. If she starts out already openly iffy about submission even before marriage, you’ll be the one submitting to all her usurping the moment she gets you hitched, or else you’ll be in a quick divorce, unless you can get her to completely change against the whole world’s influence.(which is not very likely)

        Liked by 2 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        Sharlky – You’ve met my wife? 🙂 Although she is changing little by little.

        lastmod – Strong in you the butt hurt is.

        Like

  5. lastmod says:

    “These men, which is most of us, are called to suffer, and often quite a lot, in this aspect of their lives”

    LOL!

    Here? In the Red Pilled Christian ‘sphere??? You guys have it all figured out. Again, broken into “steps” and “this choice, that choice or another choice” Men must trust… …trust who? God? Their fellow men on in the church? It’s full of Betas evidently… and they are ‘nice guys’ and are untrustworthy.

    I have been told by men in this sphere, and that I knew in church that when I left the faith I suddenly “was never saved to begin with, and didn’t know God.”

    Your defense of Catholicism is sickening as well. In my city, a heavily Latin one……hookers out on Saturday night, Sunday morning front pew.

    The Christian ‘sphere AGAIN justifies sin for those that are the loudest, use the biggest words and talk down to people (most of you) and then gets all “holy” with the unwashed masses of men….and women can’t even be redeemed according to just about all of you.

    Pictures in a previous post rating women’s physical beauty when every one of those photos has been shopped, highlighted, and touched…..some of the comments of the most “self-righteous” of you even surprised me…..besides, in all those pictures…everyone of these “wholesome” women has had work done. I know all your wives are much more attractive than the women as well…by the way you all talk about how many IOI’s you get daily…it just really sucks to be as handsome as you all…………….

    But if the rest of us “just suffer for Christ, or God, or Bible verse(s) that you all cannot even agree on the meaning or context of” well…..this will just make us better, and there is no marriage in heaven. All better!

    When I was disowned by many of my so-called christian brothers when I questioned my faith, when I see the outright contradictions protrayed in these comments, and postings, the staggering intellectualism of a supposed “simple, humble faith.”

    Well…….it seems right you would take stances like this post. Besides……I thought the cross to bear was feminism….or was it living in a chivalrous world created by weak, beta cucks (that you can’t seem to dislodge…makes me wonder who really isn’t too smart here)

    Whatever.

    When I threw “god” out of the picture of living my life…….I suddenly got a promotion. I began to DO things again. This “god” you have made in YOUR image (some red pilled adonis who hates everyone and everything……except you, your best friends and your families evidently…or people who are just natural alpha, and don’t even know it yet, but could be, and have an INSTJ personality type, have masculine habits, and really good provision, and a STEM degree, and, had lots of premartial sex since orthodoxy doesn’t care about that, and, and, and, and, and……………

    You look as bad as feminists.

    Aaron Renn is a jerk by the way. His book ruined downtown Fresno. Smart cities my a$$, an Ego the size of god himself is more like it….

    anyway……your stances, and attitude HELPED drive me out of this faith. Now I made the choice, fine…but I would never want to spend eternity with any of you….

    But since in my faith tradition I didn’t have communion….I wasn’t going to heaven anyway.

    Like

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      For the life of me, I don’t understand why detractors get so hung up on this concept of “even you guys can’t agree…”. It’s like… don’t they understand the beauty in that? It’s an amazing thing to not have to worry about whether or not you agree with the collective, but know that you’ll be judged as an individual. This “individual responsibility” is very freeing.

      And I do think its a shame that there are those who tell others, “you were never saved to begin with”… even if they don’t tell the individual directly, for one person to simply say that about another… I think that’s risky. We’re definitely supposed to judge (discern) for ourselves whether someone’s doing what’s right or wrong based on what we’ve learned in the scriptures… but I don’t think its our place to judge (condemn) another as to whether or not they’re saved. Even with the Scriptures listed at 1st Corinthians 6:9-11, I can tell people that the scriptures say adulterers won’t inherit the earth, but individually, only God knows what’s in your heart and he makes that final decision. I can only make the judgement as a human as to whether or not I want to associate with you because of your lifestyle.

      I disagree with a lot of what you’re saying, but I appreciate you posting your thoughts.

      Liked by 3 people

  6. SFC Ton says:

    Sky6 is mostly silent so how do you know you’re suffering for Christ vs just plain suffering?

    Liked by 5 people

    • cameron232 says:

      If you have a choice between obeying Christ and not obeying Christ and your choice is “obey Christ”, and you suffer for it – well that’s what’s being described here and how you know it.

      Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        The worse experience of my life was marriage/sexless marriage.

        And the Almighty never showed up with firesupport.

        This isn’t a casual topic, I didn’t make a casual statement.

        You can be flippant, most of your kind is, and it’s all your time has to offer but it won’t score you any points with men who have real life in the trenches experiences.

        You want to know why Christianity is dying? It’s because all you have to offer is platitudes and pissy attitudes to common everyday problems.

        Liked by 6 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        17 years of being sexually rejected and 7 of those were clinically sexless (2-3 times of starfish sex a year) and having my kids used against me because she was not interested in resolving anything, she just wanted to hurt me (the last part is an actual quote). Some of us are intimately aware of the pain, self doubt, apathy, sleeplessness, stress to the point of being physically ill … how this hits your professional life, affects your relationships with friends and can rob your life of joy.

        Yet, through what is a time in life I would never do again, nor wish on anyone, I see God working in my life. I see that I treat Him daily like my wife treated me, openly hostile, belligerent, haughty and to date He hasn’t nuked me with a cosmic fireball, no matter how much I deserve it. What I see is that He does the opposite. He not only stays His justice, He chases me down as I constantly run from Him. It is the understanding that there is nothing redeemable in my life outside of Him and as such I deserve the suffering part all the time, But I don’t get what I deserve and that is the measure of God’s goodness to me.

        So how do you know if you are suffering for Christ or for being a dumbass? If you are following God’s instructions for his creations and are getting pounded for it, you’re there. Also, I used to think of Hell as eternal scorching fire. Now I think of Hell as eternal relationships devoid of God’s grace. The scorching fire is less scary.

        Liked by 9 people

      • cameron232 says:

        The brevity of my statement shouldn’t be mistaken for being flippant – not being flippant at all. That’s what Nova is describing in the OP and that’s the direct answer to your question.

        Christianity is shrinking because most people don’t believe Christianity is true.

        Liked by 5 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Ton – The Bible is our instructional guide for living that is applicable to all aspects of our lives. God has given us scripture as His means of communicating to us. So while we may not have the thundering voice on Mount Sinai or the burning bush, we do have the written manual. The tricky part can be applying that manual to life (wisdom) when we are sinful, broken people. I know that application is a constant struggle for me and is something I pray about frequently.

      Liked by 4 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      The main thing is when most talk about accept suffering they don’t want to admit their pointing that only in mens direction!Women are not called to suffer too?Hence why GBFMtm started up on roissys in early2010!What does people think GBFMtms problem is with GAMEtm&courting?Men need to be better,you mean better betas,right?I always agreed with rollo tomossi on that one!What about all these domestic non-angels?As a man you can have everything that makes you alpha&good by the worlds standards&it still dos’nt matter!I’m still looking for that unicorn woman I hear alot about&that church that dos’nt allow wimminz to easily destroy men&their childrens lives!Anybody here know any such church like nobody ever told DAL’ about as he asked for at least 4 years!But that church&rare woman are both out here?Where?The war for the true redpill started along time ago,as it morphed from mgtow to GBFMtm to then blackpill!

      Liked by 3 people

  7. Eric Francis Silk says:

    “One of you tells him, ‘Go in peace; stay warm and well fed,’ but does not provide for his physical needs, what good is that?” — James 2:16

    You don’t tell a sick or poor person to fatalistically accept their state.

    Suffering is not always necessary. The suffering do not have to just accept their suffering as if it were foreordained.

    The church has a great interest in alleviating material poverty but no care for Misère Sexuelle, sexual poverty.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Rock Kitaro says:

      Hi there! Your point about how “suffering is not always necessary” and “the suffering do not just accept their suffering”… Would you mind elaborating on that? Because I think I know what you mean… but not sure. Like… as a Christian, I do suffer in many ways, but I’m at peace with it. I still smile and laugh and hold my head up despite living in this world that’s dominated by Satan because I know I have the hope of a everlasting life, and it warms my heart to know I’m striving to do what’s good in God’s eyes. That brings me fulfillment.

      Is that what you mean too?

      Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        You don’t have to passively accept suffering in life. Your circumstances are not your destiny. You can and should do what is necessary to solve, or at least alleviate, suffering. For yourself and for others. I’m not a Buddhist, who believes that suffering is caused by negative karma and so a person’s suffering is always bought on themself. You can sometimes bring it on yourself through bad choices, sure. I’m also not a Calvinist who thinks that God foreordained everything, including human suffering.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      A part of the reason for that is that while the Gospels (and the OT) talk all the time about helping the poor, they don’t talk at all about helping the sexually frustrated.

      Now, I know you say that this is because there were no sexually frustrated men at the time, but the fact is that the two things are just very different. Sex isn’t the same kind of “need” as material want is — it’s a nice-to-have but not a need-to-have. Someone can live a full life and not have sex — that’s what Paul was doing, that’s what Jesus did as well. Someone can’t live for very long at all without food and drink. And the absence of food and drink is easily rectified by those who have excess amounts providing for those who do not have any — and starvation is prevented. Sex doesn’t work that way … it can’t just be doled out. Men who have “excess” access to sex can’t just re-distribute their sexual access to men who don’t have any, because there are women involved — it isn’t something the men with excess can give.

      So it isn’t similar to material want in some very basic ways.

      Liked by 4 people

      • lastmod says:

        No one here is Jesus, nor Paul… nor are the millions of Incels worldwide. Again, it’s easy for the “guys” here to say “one can live without sex, Paul did…Jesus did” and then spend all day telling men how to get it, and if you can’t….

        “Tough luck, this faith is about suffering!”

        or

        “You must enjoy being a blue-pilled, beta-cuck, AFC, pastorbator worshiper, who doesn’t want to put in the work!”

        Liked by 3 people

      • cameron232 says:

        I agree with them that the Church has a place alleviating sexual poverty (in the sense of promoting the conditions that allow men successful marriages) I just don’t agree with changing the definition of what’s considered sin.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Eric Francis Silk says:

        Of course they aren’t exactly comparable. I’m making a very broad analogy.

        As for Paul and Jesus, they chose that life. That’s an important detail that people don’t really take into account when they bring up their example.

        I’d compare it to being isolated from other people. There are some people that live as a hermit if need be. Some may even prefer it that way. But for the vast majority of people it wouldn’t be a very healthy way to live. You won’t die without it, but almost all people need human contact. Some need more, some need less. Everyone is different.

        Liked by 3 people

      • SFC Ton says:

        I don’t often agree with Lastmod… maybe years in between those events.

        How many are called like Paul? Yes he suffered but he also saw Christ and heard from God all the time. Which is hugely different than what most men go through.

        What I appreciate the most about Paul was/is a man who God directly tapped into admitting to struggling with sin. Saw God, heard God, God worked signs and wonders through him and he was still a sinner.

        It’s a pretty bleak statement telling.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Novaseeker says:

        “I’d compare it to being isolated from other people. There are some people that live as a hermit if need be. Some may even prefer it that way. But for the vast majority of people it wouldn’t be a very healthy way to live. You won’t die without it, but almost all people need human contact. Some need more, some need less. Everyone is different.”

        Sure, but satisfying the need for human contact doesn’t involve committing a sin. It’s the core problem that keeps coming up.

        Sex is a need, yes, not the same as food, but it’s a need, more similar to the need for human contact. But sex also has a lot of moral rules around it for very good reasons.

        I realize that your argument is that the benefit of these rules, morally, is outweighed by the personal harm done to people who are shut out from sex because of them, but (1) this isn’t proven (and seems unlikely because the proposed solution of permitting pre-marital sex without sin creates all kinds of other moral problems) and (2) even if it was proven, for most people it is a temporary effect, because most people do get married, whether they have sex before marriage or not. Even today. Marriage rates have not crashed, but the ages have been pushed back. This means that people marry later and are celibate for longer, yes, but it doesn’t mean that it’s a permanent issue for most people (and there will always be some people for whom it’s a permanent issue, no matter what ruleset you have).

        Liked by 1 person

    • lastmod says:

      Nor do you debate a persons worth or virtue, or if they are saved, or if they read a certain prayer and celebrated the saints while they drown a lake (literally or metaphorically). Fire fighters don’t “demand” a certificate of insurance before they rescue people from a burning building….or verify that a man has paid his rent before conducting a rescue.

      Men in this “reclaiming sphere” of manhood, justice and righteousness would have to have a committee meeting, go over the rules, debate and advocate over said rules for a few days before a decision could be reached on “what to do to help the person” and of course the person needing the help is already drowned, or burned alive……

      Then they would say,“Oh… umm… he’s dead… but IF he was saved, had communion, had a biblical marriage, had this, had that… he’ll be dancing-with-jesus-for-eternity! We’re let off the hook……. The Bible tells us we can’t help everyone…”

      Liked by 2 people

      • Sharkly says:

        Sometimes virtual friends really can’t help that much. Sometimes the person needs to come to their own decision to either make changes, or come to accept and find contentment in spite of their situation. Lastmod, I respect your past sacrifice for the Salvation Army, and your current suffering, and I know it is likely worse than I can fathom. Quite a few folks have tried to make suggestions for you to try in the past, but you don’t like their suggestions and seem to take offense at them. So, besides just respecting you as a man and sympathizing with your past and current struggles, how do you imagine others here should relate to you? The rest of us here are trying to sort things through ourselves, and we can’t do too much more than make suggestions we feel might help. We can’t alleviate most of your suffering. This world is evil and unfair, and I recognize you’ve had a very tough road. And to some degree you inspire me. However, I think you’re struggling to have the faith that God is good and loves you, because of your painful situation, and the evil that you see all around you, even here. I guess my bit of advice would be not to judge God based upon His fickle followers, and our ungodly world. I’m glad to hear about your promotion.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. SFC Ton says:

    No pain no gain works/ is easy because it is typically true

    Almost every succesful man on the planet got there because of some sort of no pain no gain mind set is rewarded.

    That does not carry over effectively/ demonstrably on the spiritual front

    Liked by 2 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Ton – We’ve merely lost sight of the gain on the spiritual front. It’s still there because God’s promises are good. Hebrews 12:4-6 is just one reference of no pain, no gain on the spiritual front. What we have lost in the West, from the mid part of the 20th century until now, is the concept of something more important or bigger than ourselves. Understand that I am a chief offender in this.

      Think about what has come about because our wives both sucked, or in my case, didn’t. We are a couple of men on a blog hashing out difficult biblical truths and trying to find the best way to apply them to life on the ground as to both avoid sinning and being ground into bits.

      So for as what do to, we as men should do our best to be husbands like the Bible describes. That means loving and patient with the weaker sex, along with the understanding that she will be swept away in emotion and it is for this reason we insist that she fall in line with God’s authority order in marriage. This includes the biblical concept of submission, where the husband sets the direction and she uses her abilities to help him get there and her body sexually.

      If you are a single man wanting to marry, you best approach women with the mindset of insisting this is how the marriage relationship work. It is the best chance you have in today’s world for a successful marriage and there is absolute hell to pay for not doing this.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Novaseeker says:

      It does carry over, but that carrying over doesn’t yield “real world results” always. Often it doesn’t yield real world results at all, in terms of brass tacks kinds of things that people value in the real world. It does yield spiritual results, but these are harder to discern and also take longer to come to fruition.

      Liked by 2 people

  9. Rock Kitaro says:

    Man…right away, I can tell you that reading the Bible in its entirety and learning how my spiritual brothers and sisters of old (Old and New Testament) had suffered, yet persevered by putting their faith in God no matter what…it definitely strengthens my faith and helps me to endure all that “suffering.”

    The first half of this post focuses on that suffering and rang so true to me because it’d be soooo easy to end all that suffering by simply letting go of the Christian standards and giving into temptation. At any time, I can twist and manipulate the Scriptures to mean whatever I want it to mean to justify my actions, but I know the truth…in that I know God knows the truth. My intentions, my motives can never be hidden for him. Which actually brings me more comfort because it’s assuring to know he sees the suffering we go through. It isn’t easy.

    As far as differences between Protestants and Catholicism and who can handle suffering the best (most)…i dunno about all that, to be honest. I’m not a Catholic, but even as a Protestant who belongs to no Christian church or denomination, one would think there is some alleviation to the pain and suffering if you “know” there are others like you, especially if you’re actually aware of them in the same group of congregation. I’m sure there are men like me out there, but I haven’t met them. We are Christians with No Homes (confined to no one single church) and that’s not for lack of trying. I’ve met with Lutheran Pastors, became writing buddies with a Mormon pastor, studied Methodists, and was raised Baptist and Jehovah’s Witnesses and I’ve yet to find one denomination where I agree with everything enough to say I am them. Which makes me feel like there’s something wrong with me, that I’m the hard-hearted rebellious one. Alone.

    Even when I talk to my older brother, who’s a married Jehovah’s Witness, we know there are beautiful single Christian women out there who are primed for marriage. I know the main reason I’m single is because I don’t put myself out there where the women are. He encourages me to go to their services to meet one, but then what? Subject our children to the same conflicting theocratic messages I grew up with? Where the wife is a staunch JW who believes the organization is tantamount to God’s representation on Earth, while I believe in going straight to the source and everything derived from the Bible is open to interpretation, an interpretation the individual is responsible for believing with conviction in their heart, not because someone told them to believe it, but because they did their homework and choose to.

    Again, I do believe there are people like me out there, theocratically speaking. But discipline wise, I am much dismayed. Too many give in to temptation and the herd mentality, wanting to please humans more than God. I don’t have a problem trusting in humans…but I’d rather not depend on them for my peace and happiness. I used to. Even with my closest loved ones, my happiness and self-worth was determined by their approval and acceptance of me and my accomplishments. And unfortunately, I was born in a family where everyone thinks they’re the center of the universe, as if we were all created to cater and serve them…myself included. It wasn’t until I realized this that I was able to shake myself free and change. That was 5 years ago.

    Liked by 3 people

    • professorGBFMtm2021 says:

      Rock your family sounds like most of my extended family&even my redpill family here on the manosphere!Looking for happiness&self-worth from people is never a good idea,no matter who they are,but you knew that already!

      Liked by 2 people

  10. feeriker says:

    “As for Paul and Jesus, they chose that life.”

    And even Paul himself said that it’s not a life for every man, or even most men. That’s why the urging of Christian men generically to follow Paul’s example of celibacy is foolish. Human males aren’t hardwired for celibacy. Those who can live such a lifestyle are the rare exception, NOT the rule.

    Liked by 3 people

  11. Pingback: Waiting Too Long to Make the “First Move” – Fear and Validation | Stage In The Sky

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