Metaphysical Literacy

The worldly wise man is the Biblical fool, and double vice versa.  Can you identify this difference in yourself?

Readership: All; Men;
Theme: Redemptive Headship and Masculinity
Length: 850 words
Reading Time: 5 minutes

The Metaphysically Illiterate Man is the Biblical Fool

The worldly concept of a fool is one who driven by impulsive emotion and has a lot of illogical mish-mashed ideas in his head, whereas a wise man has a well-ordered logic well informed by experience, or “street-smarts”.

The Biblical concept of a fool is one who has a lot of logical ideas in his head, “wise in his own estimations”*, but which have no basis or application in the present reality, whereas a wise man has spiritually informed and finely attuned appreciation of the nature of things, such that he can almost predict how things will go.

* Scripture References: Proverbs 3:7-8; 26:4-12; Romans 12:16

Identifying People’s (i.e. Wimminz) Spiritual Constitution

The most noteworthy and conversation-worthy subject that can allow a man to practice developing metaphysical literacy is in “reading” people — anyone really, but women are especially entertaining.

Whenever you go out in public, and whenever you have a few minutes to spare, sit down somewhere and have a coffee or a rest. As you’re sitting there, studiously watch the bypassers going on about their lives. You’ll learn some things, and get a few laughs too!

As you become more familiar with watching people, you’ll see their personality and constitution being reflected in their eyes, facial expressions, hand gestures, and the way they walk, dress, talk, etc. After practicing this for a while, you can look at a person’s photograph and pick up the patterns.

Because reading women is a critically important skill for men sizing up / vetting women, Σ Frame has had several posts studying various features and phenomenon related to physical and metaphysical indicators of character. Here are a few.

Our analysis of “reading people” has not been limited to women. I wrote an entire series on identifiable traits in men: A Summary of Faux-Masculine Archetypes (the theme for May 2022).

I encourage readers to develop an eye for this sort of thing. I think it’s helpful for men to discuss what they see in people IRL, in photographs of people, and in videos of interactions, and thereby hone their “reading skills”. In real life, this is extended to applied discernment — what information one can “read” in people and in an environment can add greatly to their wisdom in making appropriate decisions and actions.

Developing Metaphysical Literacy

The two concepts of foolishness mentioned above are somewhat of the opposite.  However, making the transition from one to the other is a bit of a trick.

To make the transition from being a worldly fool to a Biblical / spiritual fool, one needs to trust Christ to redeem him from all his sin and foolishness.

To make the transition from being worldly wise to Biblically / spiritually wise, one must let go of his reliance on rational logic and develop discernment.

Everyone is a bit of both foolish and wise (by various estimations), so the task is to determine what is most lacking and fill in that piece.

But even comprehending this difference is, in itself, another challenge that comes at the meta-level.

Consider this example. One commenter wrote,

“I am skeptical of claims by internet commenters that they can read people from pictures (and video if you like). This claim to being body language experts.”

thedeti responded,

“I don’t agree. I think this is a skill that is essential to have and that can be learned. The Will Smith/Jada Pinkett thread was a good one for the photos Jack included. I’ve seen the way Mychael looks at Scott in some of their photos. You cannot fake that. It’s automatic and the women themselves don’t know they’re doing it. The Manosphere Ladies’ Auxiliary denies this because it’s in their interest to do so. I again refer to you to that subreddit, GirlsMirinreddit.com/r/GirlsMirin. Women can’t fake that. It’s innate.

You can tell a lot from body language, facial expression, the use of the eyes — all of it yields enormous amounts of information. You fail to learn it at your peril. You fail to detect it at your peril.”

The first challenge is for men to believe it is even possible. Yes it is!

Epilogue

There is a stark contrast between being Blue Pilled and being Red Pilled / aware / discerning.

Scott et al. have made it clear that it is of crucial importance for men to be able to read IOIs, IOC, microexpressions, “body language”, and non-verbal cues. CH, Gunner Q, and even Rollo (on occasion) have argued that “physiognomy is real”. Rollo stated that Blue Pilled men can’t “read the room”, whereas for Christians, discernment is an important hallmark of spiritual maturity.

The Red Pill has informed us of the nature of women and the SMP, and this knowledge shakes a man out of the illogical mish-mash about wimminz, thereby allowing greater Biblical wisdom to be exercised.

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 Boundaries, Choosing a Partner or Spouse, Communications, Conserving Power, Decision Making, Discerning Lies and Deception, Discernment, Wisdom, Fundamental Frame, Holding Frame, Indicators of Contempt, Indicators of Interest, Intersexual Dynamics, Introspection, Masculine Disciplines, Maturity, Personal Growth and Development, Models of Success, Mysticism, Personal Domain, Power, Relationships, Sanctification & Defilement, The Power of God, Trust, Vetting Women. Bookmark the permalink.

68 Responses to Metaphysical Literacy

  1. Red Pill Apostle says:

    It naive to think that men can learn to read women’s behavior and body language once they become aware of what to look for while at the same time thinking women can’t fake the same behaviors once they are aware of the signals they are giving. Actresses get us to believe their performances and good photographers can pose the look they want between a man and woman. We’ve been told enough stories of women keeping up appearances while setting up the divorce to believe that the average woman can fake it well enough over a period of time.

    What I think is quite hard is to be consistent with an act over time. In a photo or short interaction it is much easier to circumvent filters, even with men who are aware of the signals. Over time though, the truth will come out because it requires an amount of emotional control and focus to force your actions to be inconsistent with your thoughts/feelings/beliefs that not many people can sustain.

    Liked by 8 people

  2. redpillboomer says:

    “Scott et al. have made it clear that it is of crucial importance for men to be able to read IOIs, IOC, microexpressions, “body language”, and non-verbal cues. CH, Gunner Q, and even Rollo (on occasion) have argued that “physiognomy is real”. Rollo stated that Blue Pilled men can’t “read the room”, whereas for Christians, discernment is an important hallmark of spiritual maturity.”

    Discernment is a skill that is IMO picked up over time with maturation and PRACTICE. Being an older guy on here, I’m aware that I have that skill to a degree just based on my decades of life experience and how I processed it all, i.e. lessons learned. However, even I’ve come to recognize that I need to practice, practice, practice discernment, or whatever euphemism you prefer to call it: Connecting the dots, Reading between the lines, Hearing what’s in the unsaid, etc. So I agree Jack, a man needs to work at developing increasing discernment and levels of discernment in all areas of life that impact him.

    One way I’ve found to practice this besides just practicing it in everyday life walking around, is listening to some of the “True Crime” podcasts on YouTube. Many of these start out with the so-called “Internet sleuths” trying to figure out “What happened?”, and If it is applicable, case is a “Who done it?” aka foul play. I’ve found I can practice “connecting the dots” and see what my discernment tells me I think happened, or in the cases of foul play, also who/whom did it? What I really enjoy practicing above and beyond the “Who done it?” aspects, is looking at the people/suspects/person of interests involved from psychological and sociological discernment, i.e. what can I discern about the individuals involved or the cultural messages in the background. What do I need to take away from this that I can add to my discernment repertoire?

    Now, this is just a thing I’ve found that I like to do, this “true Crime” stuff, it’s not for everyone. The point is, I have learned to value the gift/skill of discernment so highly, that I’m willing to practice it, even at my age, to get better at it. It yields MANY dividends to me as I continue to navigate through life.

    To me, the “Red Pill” metaphor is synonymous with the truth with a small-t. The Scriptures, properly interpreted, are truth with a capital-T. So, discernment for me is getting at the truth of a matter; and for us Christians, The Truth, discerning the God context it all sits within. BTW, that’s one of the reasons I prefer this blog (and one’s like it, I.e. Dalrock when it up and running) to the secular RP content creators because while they can help me see the truth, in the end when discerning, I want to see The Truth too.

    Liked by 4 people

  3. thedeti says:

    “As you become more familiar with watching people, you’ll see their personality and constitution being reflected in their eyes, facial expressions, hand gestures, and the way they walk, dress, talk, etc. After practicing this for a while, you can look at a person’s photograph and pick up the patterns.

    Because reading women is a critically important skill for men sizing up / vetting women, Σ Frame has had several posts studying various features and phenomenon related to physical and metaphysical indicators of character.”

    Since we’re talking about physical appearance and bearing here, in my opinion this starts with identifying what women are trying to do. This is women trying to appear “sexy”. Or what they think men think is sexy. Some of these women are cute/pretty. Some are hot. They are not sexy. They’re trying to alter their appearances and miens and bearings in photos, video, etc. to appear sexy. They’re failing to achieve their desired result, though, because sexy is much more than appearance and it’s extremely difficult to pull off.

    Red Pill Apostle then gets to what’s really going on here. He is describing what’s usually called “frontin’ ” in street parlance. It’s women putting up false fronts. It’s women projecting images, appearances, bearings, and attitudes that just don’t have support in who these women really are. RPA is right that they can’t sustain it for long, and their true personalities come out sooner or later. It’s usually within months. They can’t play false for longer than that.

    A good way to sniff out women playing false is to watch their responses to any kind of stress. Especially, observe their responses to interpersonal conflict. To put it simply, get into a fight/argument with her, and observe how she fights and seeks a resolution of the conflict. This will tell you a lot about her inner character and who she really is.

    Liked by 7 people

    • Red Pill Apostle says:

      Alcohol and pressure tend to be windows into the soul.

      Liked by 3 people

      • thedeti says:

        True. Which is why I’ve never accepted “the booze/drugs made me do it” or “it was the booze’s/drugs’ fault”. No. The substance use/abuse just freed her up to do what she wanted to do. They loosened up her inhibitions and allowed her to be who and what she really is.

        Liked by 3 people

      • elspeth says:

        Alcohol, pressure, and abundant prosperity. I only have experience with the second of the three, but I readily acknowledge that I have seen the worst (and occasionally the best) of myself when the screws of life were tightened. And I’ve seen folks do some really dumb things right on the heels of acquiring “a lot” of money, LOL.

        Liked by 4 people

      • Red Pill Apostle says:

        “Alcohol, pressure, and abundant prosperity. I only have experience with the second of the three…”

        Then I hope there is some really well made moonshine in Heaven so you get to give number one a go. 🙂

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        “…abundant prosperity.”

        I had never thought about this until I heard Aaron Clarey talk about something that TFM had mentioned, which was that one of the worst things that can happen to an individual is coming into unearned money. Some of the worst people in the world are people who live off unearned money. Trust fund kids, scions of wealthy families, etc.

        Liked by 4 people

      • elspeth says:

        @ RPA:

        I was raised a good Missionary Baptist, and good Baptist girls don’t drink. I think Missionary Baptists of either sex weren’t supposed to drink, but my dad and uncle saw that as extemporaneous and no reason not to have a beer while watching the Braves game, LOL!

        @ deti:

        Yes, I should have included “unearned” because that’s a big part of it. You’re absolutely right! Of course rock stars, rap stars, starlets of all types, and professional athletes technically earned their money, and look at that bunch!

        Like

      • Jack says:

        Re: Fights / arguments / conflict, alcohol, pressure, and abundant prosperity

        These “tests” make a person’s constitution painfully obvious, but they require a specific context, a bit of time, and maybe some effort and/or risk.

        A man with discernment would be able to sense that a person is prone to certain behaviors without these tests. However, these things can certainly speed up the learning curve.

        Liked by 1 person

      • locustsplease says:

        Unearned money. A friend I know, “very lazy”, just unearned enough money to never work and he’s in his 20s. It’s basically killing him and I’m trying to get through and find ways to give him self-worth. The guy is dying on the inside and his parents might as well have given him a loaded gun and a note to kill himself.

        The parents took the “We work hard so our kids don’t have to” approach. Well, this kid has no skills, except chasing women. I don’t think he can mow a lawn. Makes me wonder just how degenerate these wealthy families are.

        Liked by 3 people

      • farmlegend says:

        “Some of the worst people in the world are people who live off unearned money. Trust fund kids, scions of wealthy families, etc.”

        And one more, category, which no doubt slipped your mind – women who didn’t have a pot to piss in or a window to throw it out of that married their beta bigbucks. In my circle, there are a few of these, insufferable libtard hypocrites all.

        Liked by 2 people

    • lastholdout says:

      A good way to sniff out women playing false is to watch their responses to any kind of stress. Especially, observe their responses to interpersonal conflict. To put it simply, get into a fight/argument with her, and observe how she fights and seeks a resolution of the conflict. This will tell you a lot about her inner character and who she really is.

      Yes, I have been saying this for 30 years. I learned this the hard way with my late wife.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Oscar says:

      As we say in the Army, hardship reveals character. Have you ever noticed how some couples grow closer under stress and pressure, while others fall apart? The conditions for both are set long before the hardship starts.

      Liked by 2 people

    • jorgen says:

      “Some of these women are cute/pretty. Some are hot. They are not sexy.”

      So what does sexy mean if not hot? Whorish?

      Like

      • thedeti says:

        This comment is my thinking on the differences between cute/pretty, hot, and sexy.

        Trust me – a woman can be hot and yet not be sexy. I’ve known lots of hot women who couldn’t be sexy if they tried; and a few sexy women who were not hot.

        Pamela Anderson is hot but is not sexy.

        Ann Wedgeworth is sexy but not hot. Or, rather, Wedgeworth built a career out of playing women who were sexy but not hot.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Jack says:

        Hot makes you go, “WOW!” (Whew!) …and lose your nerve.

        Cute makes you go, “Yeah! Baby!” …and grab her hand to go do fun things together.

        Sexy makes you want to shut up and get physical.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Deti

        Yes, yes and yes. The sexiest girls I have ever known were “cute” not “hot.”

        Liked by 2 people

  4. Joe2 says:

    “In real life, this is extended to applied discernment — what information one can “read” in people and in an environment can add greatly to their wisdom in making appropriate decisions and actions.”

    When I was young and growing up, a couple of neighbors were cops during the era when they “walked the beat.” They said that by observing the neighborhood and the behavior of people they could sense or detect when something was out of place and not normal. That ability came with experience on the job.

    Liked by 3 people

    • Jack says:

      Re: Rivelino’s Green Line test

      A man who can see couples interact — without knowing about “the Green Line test” — and know that something is off is a man who has discernment.

      A man who learns about “the Green Line test” from Rivelino and then realizes there is a correllation between posture / behavior and the relationship dynamic doesn’t necessarily have discernment.

      However, “the Green Line test” is a great way to introduce spiritual nubes to metaphysical phenomena and begin to train their senses.

      Liked by 2 people

  5. feeriker says:

    “Makes me wonder just how degenerate these wealthy families are.”

    Very. When you have enough money, you can buy your way out of whatever restrains the peasantry from indulging the worst of themselves. It kills the soul, indulging your most depraved impulses at will and without consequences. In fact, you probably don’t want to know how deep the depravity and degeneracy runs.

    The current U.S. “anti-president” and his family serve as good examples of this.

    Liked by 1 person

    • thedeti says:

      Yes, the Bidens became like this but didn’t start this way. Joe Biden was a politician who got lucky, getting elected to the US Senate when barely old enough to serve, and got rich after a lifetime of “public service”. Biden never really held a real job so his children never really saw him work. But in my view Hunter is a mess because he was seriously injured in that car accident that killed his mother and sister, and never really recovered from the emotional trauma.

      Joe and Jill have Ashley between them. Ashley is, or was, reportedly a drug addict. In her diary she wrote of “showering often when she was young” with her father, then Senator Biden, and this might have contributed to her self-professed sex addiction. So in the Bidens’ case, this is less about money than it is about languishing in family tragedy and their father’s weird sexual proclivities (and that’s putting it charitably).

      (This is based on reports, and based on what the Biden children have said about themselves.)

      There are better, clearer examples of unearned money causing corruption and immorality.

      –The Kennedys.
      –The Bushes. (GWB 43’s descent into alcoholism and early life aimlessness, which he was able to turn around. Jeb’s fecklessness and incompetence, which he was not able to turn around.)
      –The Hilton family (Nicky Hilton, Paris Hilton)

      Contrast Ronald Reagan who was never supremely wealthy, but was well to do. He came from literally nothing, but earned his money.

      Contrast Donald Trump, who came from money, but who earned his money by building a vast empire on money gifted from his father and a sharp instinct for marketing and branding, who has never stopped working, and who has never let it “get to his head”.

      Liked by 3 people

      • Oscar says:

        Did he get lucky, or did he make some Faustian bargains for which he’s beginning to pay now?

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        Oscar

        You might be right. Perhaps he’s been spending his career paying for those Faustian bargains. Perhaps his family has been paying for them.

        -his first wife and infant daughter were killed in a car accident a week before Christmas 1972, 2 years into Biden’s first Senate term.

        -his oldest son Beau died of a brain tumor at age 46 in 2015.

        -his middle son Hunter is a worthless bag of plasma. He’s a drug addict, influence peddler, and sexual degenerate who’s never amounted to anything largely because of horrific trauma from that 1972 car accident that killed his mother and sister. (Have no idea why Hunter’s a mess, but Beau recovered OK and had a career as a lawyer and military officer and rode Daddy’s coattails to the Delaware attorney generalship, but there it is.)

        -his daughter Ashley is a drug addict and sex addict who took showers with her father while she was a girl.

        -Beau’s widow Hallie Biden got into an affair with Hunter less than a year after Beau died, while Hunter was still married to his first wife (she later divorced Hunter).

        -Biden himself is a joke. Even before he went senile, he was unintelligent, unprincipled, a plagiarist, and wildly unpopular outside Delaware. He’s a pervert and a creep. He feels up women on public daises. He sniffs underage girls’ hair. He kisses women and girls without consent and where they’re clearly uncomfortable with it. And that’s just his public persona and Senate career. Privately, he’s apparently an inattentive father and a creep with his daughter. He took showers with his underage daughter. (I mean, really. What grown man does that? That’s just beyond the pale. No. I mean… just.. NO.)

        You be the judge.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        Matthew 16:26 For what profit is it to a man if he gains the whole world, and loses his own soul? Or what will a man give in exchange for his soul?

        Biden seems to have forfeited not only his own soul, but those of his children as well.

        Liked by 1 person

      • info says:

        That’s why for us we get the crown of Thorns and the gauntlet of life first. Before our imperishable crowns of Glory.

        Like

  6. Jack says:

    I just realized something…

    Metaphysical Illiteracy (a lack of discernment) exacerbates Analysis Paralysis.

    It’s a cycle.

    If a man can’t “see” his choices and opportunities, then he won’t know how to decide or what to do respectively.

    Liked by 1 person

  7. Rock Kitaro says:

    lol, one thing I acknowledged about myself fairly early in my 20s is that I am VERY transparent. Unless I’m actively putting on a performance (pulling out my acting skills to pretend to be James Bond or Dom from “Fast and the Furious”), most of my thoughts, how I feel about the situation or other people will be displayed through my facial expressions.

    I had to come to terms with this because I think it was one of the things that turned off a lot of women that I used to cold approach (during my Blue Pill days). They could see the desperation and how badly I wanted them, so it repelled them. Being 378lbs back then didn’t help either.

    Liked by 2 people

  8. thedeti says:

    https://www.tahriralnisa.org/about/naghmeh-panahi/

    Off topic: Longtime Dalrock readers will remember Naghmeh Panahi, Saeed Abedini’s ex wife. She’s made a career of her claims against Saeed and now works full time for a foundation “setting women free” from “domestic abuse”.

    Like

    • thedeti says:

      Quick and dirty on Nag Me:

      She was married to Saeed Abedini, a former Muslim who converted to Christianity and was trying to establish churches in Iran, his former home country. Iran’s oppressive ultrafundamentalism Islamic caliphate regime arrested and jailed him for 3 years. Naghmeh worked tirelessly to free him. Saeed and Naghmeh were the poster children for Christian marriage and love. They became the darling of Christian media, which joined Naghmeh in efforts to free him. Christianity Today almost sainted Saeed.

      Literally the moment Saeed stepped off the plane in the US after 3 years of brutal imprisonment in a third world sh!thole, Naghmeh separated from him and began accusing him of using pornography and of domestic abuse. She demanded he seek counseling. Saeed had been arrested once on a DV charge and had admitted to porn use in the past, both occurring before his Iranian imprisonment.

      Saeed denied most of the worst conduct and told Naghmeh to come home. When she refused, Saeed filed for divorce in Idaho, which was granted. Since then Saeed was arrested on charges of violating an order of protection (these are routinely granted in divorce proceedings on request), and little came of it.

      As soon as Naghmeh went public with her DV/porn use claims, Christian media began canonizing Naghmeh and demonizing Saeed. Saeed went from golden child to Satan incarnate literally overnight. Naghmeh was feted, elevated, and surrounded with “love” and “support” for her “bravery” and “speaking truth to power”.

      No one was interested in the truth of what actually happened between Saeed and Naghmeh. All they heard was “Saeed did porn and might have put his hands on Naghmeh, so he’s the Devil” and “Naghmeh is so brave”.

      Lessons:

      1) The episode showed how invested American Christianity is in the blue pill narrative. Naghmeh started barking orders and putting conditions on her marriage; with the full support of the Church. Franklin Graham had been a Saeed supporter; but as soon as Naghmeh’s allegations surfaced, Graham threw Saeed under the bus, as did almost every other Christian organization that had been so invested in gaining his release. The moment Saeed wasn’t useful to them, he was tossed aside.

      2) It showed how women play the role of sweet submissive Christian wife and mommy in public; while in private being the ballbusting b!tch topping from the bottom. It shows that the American Church really doesn’t believe in wifely submission.

      Liked by 5 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “It showed how women play the role of sweet submissive Christian wife and mommy in public; while in private being the ballbusting b!tch topping from the bottom. It shows that the American Church really doesn’t believe in wifely submission.”

        I can attest to this. My late wife profiled this perfectly. Our secular and churchian cultures are willfully blind.

        Liked by 2 people

      • lastholdout says:

        “It showed how women play the role of sweet submissive Christian wife and mommy in public; while in private being the ballbusting b!tch topping from the bottom. It shows that the American Church really doesn’t believe in wifely submission.”

        James Dobson fed this monster with an incredible force with “Christian” women and “FoF” continues to do so.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        The overuse of the terms brave/courageous/hero(ic) has been a disaster.

        Here is my (admittedly subjective) definition of hero (which in context is used synonymously with the other two).

        A person who is NOT OATH BOUND to do anything (not a cop or firefighter or soldier–sorry dudes) who risks their life or livelihood for a complete stranger or group of strangers.

        Examples include Paul Rusesabegena and Chiune Sugihara.

        Everything else is NOT heroic. Nothing else counts.

        All other situations (like doing something for your family or friends or being a member of sworn personnel) is called duty.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        Another example is Welles Crowther.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        Recall —

        Paul Rusesabegena (regardless of all his other character flaws revealed later) saved several hundred people (strangers) from the Rwandan genocide at great personal risk to himself.

        Chiune Sugihara granted exit visas to Austrian Jews (strangers) to escape the Holocaust at great personal risk to himself.

        Welles Crowther helped (complete strangers) find their way to the only open stairwell of the WTC tower they were in and died trying to get as many out as possible.

        These are “heroes”.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Jack, if you are reading along, I would be interested in your take on this. Maybe a post.

        The “opportunity” (can’t think of a better word) to be a hero presents itself to people who are witnessing an injustice or tragedy and happen to be in a position to do something about it and chose to selflessly act.

        They are not under oath to do so.
        They have no stake in the act (no family or friends).
        There appears to be no external motivation (no cameras rolling, etc).

        This, by definition, excludes MANY of the people we call “heroes” today.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Oscar says:

        Those are some good examples, and I had to look them up.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Liz says:

        The terms brave/courageous/hero(ic) have been overused because every person who believes posting online or “coming out” as gay/trans/or simply stating something online that is imbecilic is a heroic event.

        Not because soldiers/firefighters and/or anyone else who volunteered to serve is anything less than heroic.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        To clarify, not every soldier (fire fighter, et al) is ipso facto a hero. But there are a hell of a lot of soldiers who deserve the title, who have done heroic things.

        Liked by 2 people

      • Scott says:

        Liz

        My definition (nearly) excludes all acts committed while under oath or while getting paid to render the service. It’s similar in principle to why it is so hard for a rich man to enter heaven.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Scott says:

        My friend Zeno Franco and his colleagues attempted to quantify heroism on a spectrum here:

        https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1037/a0022672

        Like

      • Scott says:

        “But there are a hell of a lot of soldiers who deserve the title, who have done heroic things.”

        Off the top of my head, I can’t say I have met any (by my definition). I have known many uniformed personnel (obviously) who served and did their duty honorably. But I reserve the title of “hero” for acts so out of the ordinary, and so motivated by prosocial/altruistic reasons that almost no one fits the bill. That’s kind of the point.

        “Hero” should be reserved for those who literally had zero personal reason to do what they did.

        Once you pay someone, or offer them medals or promotions, it calls this into question. It MAY have been selfless, but you can’t know for sure.

        Liked by 2 people

      • info says:

        For this. We must pray for divine vengeance. Not one of them must get off scoff free.

        Like

      • Liz says:

        “Off the top of my head, I can’t say I have met any…”

        Those people are rare, I would agree. But they exist and I think the military community has more examples than average.

        A few years ago a soldier ran into a fiery home in the ROK to save a family and died in the process of saving the children (the family survived, it was successful). That person wasn’t paid to do so, they just acted (just about no one has heard of this incident and the specifics don’t really matter). Getting a paycheck does preclude one from acts of heroism, and “duty” only goes so far. That’s why we have phrases like “moment of truth”. Leaders have relinquished command and “died with their boots on” in such moments of truth, which I think is heroic as well (and just as rare as running into a fire fight).

        Anyway, I won’t argue more. I was/am a military brat, spouse, and mother.

        Liked by 5 people

    • surfdumb says:

      I remember. Thank you for the link. Her testimony is dramatic, and more so if Saeed was physically abusing her daily (police reports and bruises?), but even worse than throwing him under the bus is that my read was that she throws shade on the Father. She says how His Word says to be submissive and she was abused for trusting God about that. Yikes. I hope she is a believer and her blasphemy and tearing her home apart are sins that are forgiven her, but yes, it’s shameful that the church at large supports this and makes it so hard, needlessly, for the rest of us to create God-glorifying marriages, and creates hurdles for her to grow in godliness.

      Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        If Saeed was physically abusing Naghmeh every day, why didn’t she divorce him before Saeed ever returned to Iran?

        If Saeed was physically abusing her every day, why didn’t she abandon him in Iran? Why did she agitate so persistently for Saeed’s release? Why didn’t she divorce him in absentia?

        If she really were being abused every day, as she claims, there is no court in the land that would not give her a divorce and no churchian church in the land that would not stand by her. Why, then, did she stay so silent for so long?

        If he really were abusing her every day, there should have been graphic physical evidence of his abuse. Where is it? Where are the photos? Where are the police reports? Where are the sworn statements?

        Liked by 2 people

      • thedeti says:

        https://julieroys.com/podcast/ex-wife-tells-of-abuse-betrayal-behind-savesaeed/

        I’m amazed at the willingness of Christians to believe any story a woman tells, particularly when she alleges “abuse”. If she says a man “abused” her, even while he was in an Iranian prison, well, you are all just required to believe her. If she says she was abused, you have to believe her, or you’re a racist sexist bigot pig. If she says it, you MUST accept it as true.

        No. No, I don’t have to accept what anyone says just because they say it. No, I don’t have to accept what a woman says just because she’s a woman asserting “abuse”.

        Liked by 3 people

      • Scott says:

        “I’m amazed at the willingness of Christians to believe any story a woman tells, particularly when she alleges “abuse”.”

        During my divorce, the charge of “abuse” was leveled against me by way of the term “neglect.” I was not servant-leading well enough, which was neglect. I was told “This is a form of abuse.”

        You must roll your eyes when you hear the term and then ask “What do you mean, abuse?”

        Liked by 1 person

      • Oscar says:

        1 Timothy 5:19
        Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        During my divorce, the charge of “abuse” was leveled against me by way of the term “neglect.” I was not servant-leading well enough, which was neglect. I was told “this is a form of abuse.”

        I have discovered over the last several years, even in dealing with my wife, that to women, “abuse” is “anything I don’t like about any of my interpersonal relationships”.

        My man isn’t putting his dirty socks in the laundry. ABUSE!

        He yelled at me while we were fighting. ABUSE!

        He expected things of me. ABUSE!

        He didn’t hand me a tissue when I was crying. ABUSE!

        He told me if I didn’t change, he’d divorce me. ABUSE!

        I’m in a relationship with him and I’m not getting absolutely everything I want, when I want it. ABUSE!

        You must roll your eyes when you hear the term and then ask “what do you mean, abuse?”

        I suppose it’s my nature as a lawyer to be skeptical. That skepticism causes me to ask probing, pointed questions, much to the chagrin of my close and extended family. I won’t just take people’s word for it. No. If you’re leveling a charge of abuse, you better be able to back that up, and be advised I’ll be asking a lot of questions about exactly what you mean when you say someone “abused” you or is “being abusive” to you.

        Almost all the time when I really drill down on someone who claims “abuse”, it isn’t really “abuse”. It’s really just someone who’s not getting absolutely everything they want. It’s really just someone who can’t or won’t live up to the other’s expectations. It’s really just a “high conflict” relationship. It’s really just someone who can’t get along well with others.

        Liked by 1 person

      • thedeti says:

        1 Timothy 5:19
        Do not receive an accusation against an elder except from two or three witnesses.

        An accusation against an elder was a serious matter. Our founding fathers recognized treason was a serious matter and if you were going to make that accusation and punish someone for it, then you damn well better be able to prove it with rock solid evidence. Two witnesses, or confession in front of a judge.

        US Constitution, Art. III, Section 3, Clause 1:

        Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

        Like

      • thedeti says:

        I’m just so tired of this. I am so tired of the claim that “Women never lie, and women especially never lie about sex, grape, or abuse”. It’s just not true at all.

        It’s BS. Women lie all the time. They especially lie about sex and grape; and that’s been borne out by mountain ranges of anecdotal evidence. No reason to believe they’re not lying about abuse.

        Liked by 2 people

    • Sharkly says:

      The strange tale of Nag-me and how she won herself great fame by campaigning for her husband, Saeed’s release, only to then abruptly trash him as somebody she couldn’t live with, or even let their kids see, always sounded to me like something was very off.

      Initially I suspected that once Nag-me became an internationally known churchian celebrity, she started having an affair during her fifteen minutes of fame or at least was looking to monkey-branch-swing up to a higher level, and that her hypergamous affair plans got all messed up when Saeed was actually released and came home.

      It is also, however, possible that she has some sort of intimacy disorder, where her husband is the greatest man possible when locked up on another continent, and suddenly becomes a worthless piece of sh1t when he’s back home and wanting sex and close intimacy. “Distancing behaviors” could have been partly why Saeed willingly left to be half a world away risking his life in the first place.

      Normal men won’t choose porn over having sex with the wife they chose. Statistical odds would say that chances are that after years of imprisonment Saeed returned home only to be sexually rejected by the wife who had been publicly claiming to miss him. And she then worked to turn his own children against him to back up her own publicized nuclear-rejection of Saeed.

      At least one of those two must be mentally disordered, and lying.

      Whatever the reason for her seemingly bizarre actions, Nag-me clearly didn’t choose to follow God’s word in her marriage. Which makes me believe she is most likely the most guilty party. And as usual, the church sides with the woman no matter how crazy and ungodly she is being.

      I think the only time the whore-worshipping churchian charlatans will side with a man is naturally when he is truly an evil deceiving servant together with them of their same lord and master, Satan.

      Like

  9. surfdumb says:

    I agree with your questions. I said “physically” abused, even though she didn’t because it would make better sense of her story. If she suffered a type of abuse you took from your wife until you stood up for God, yourself, and ultimately her too, then her divorce seems more frivolous and there isn’t much to discuss from her case.

    Back to your questions, she answered them and said she was obeying God and being submissive. So if we were elders, not public consumers, then we may have heard the same story from her. If so, I hope they asked the questions you did above, or else they failed her and Saeed.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. feeriker says:

    “I’m amazed at the willingness of Christians to believe any story a woman tells, particularly when she alleges “abuse”. If she says a man “abused” her, even while he was in an Iranian prison, well, you are all just required to believe her. If she says she was abused, you have to believe her, or you’re a racist sexist bigot pig. If she says it, you MUST accept it as true.”

    #shesfullofsh!t

    I wonder if this can be made as popular and ubiquitous as #believeher or #metoo.

    Liked by 2 people

  11. Scott says:

    “I have discovered over the last several years, even in dealing with my wife, that to women, “abuse” is “anything I don’t like about any of my interpersonal relationships”.”

    This is a no sh!t true story.

    In my first marriage, my wife made it clear she was not interested in dealing with the finances. Neither one of us was particularly interested in it, or good at money. So I reluctantly took them.

    I would go through kind of a weekly and monthly analysis and check in with her, tell her the very broad stroke version of what was going on, tell her how much she had to spend on groceries, etc.

    Every once in a while, I would remind her that if at any time she wanted to open the books with me, personal or the business, it was totally fine. I was mostly hoping she would, just because I really hated doing it myself.

    She never did. But, at the same time complained about the budget.

    And again, I would say, “Please join me in this effort. We can work on the budget line by line.” And again, “Nope, I hate dealing with money.”

    Eventually, among all the other complaints against me, it was “You are abusing me by controlling the finances.”

    (This is something she probably heard from friends or read in Duluth.)

    Unreal.

    Liked by 1 person

    • feeriker says:

      “But, at the same time complained about the budget.

      And again, I would say, “Please join me in this effort. We can work on the budget line by line.” And again, “Nope, I hate dealing with money.”

      Eventually, among all the other complaints against me, it was “You are abusing me by controlling the finances.”

      This, methinks, is an “emotional maturity deficiency” that is a feature of many (most?) women’s wetwear. It’s something akin to what we see here in this famous video:

      “(This is something she probably heard from friends or read in Duluth.)

      Unreal.”

      All too real, and soon to be ubiquitous.

      Liked by 3 people

  12. Pingback: Freedom Isn’t Free, and Grace Isn’t Cheap | okrahead

  13. feeriker says:

    “But I reserve the title of “hero” for acts so out of the ordinary, and so motivated by prosocial/altruistic reasons that almost no one fits the bill. That’s kind of the point.

    “Hero” should be reserved for those who literally had zero personal reason to do what they did.”

    If everyone is a hero, then no one is a hero.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. Scott says:

    Correction.

    The refugees Sugihara saved were Lithuanian, not Austrian

    Like

  15. Pingback: Sitting on the Fence | Σ Frame

  16. Jorgen says:

    The analysis of the biblical concept of fool is onesided and proven wrong by the second citation listed to support it (Proverbs 26:4-12). Both concepts of fool occur right next to each other there. Verse 12 says,

    “Do you see a man wise in his own eyes?
    There is more hope for a fool than for him.”

    It’s a kind of one-sided Calvinistic evaluation zooming in on anything that can be twisted into anti-intellectualism, because you have to throw out logic to buy into their fatalistic cult. Or perhaps its just vapid American churchianity generally.

    Most of the citations going the other way I can think of off the top of my head are from Sirach, but this one from 2 Samuel 3:33 will suffice…

    “And the king sang a lament over Abner and said: “Should Abner die as a fool dies?”

    Abner died not due to any high filutin filosofy, but because he was too rash in going to the gate of the city of refuge. One foot out was all his foe needed.

    And Job 5:2…

    “For wrath kills a foolish man, And envy slays a simple one.”

    The emotional type of fool that is supposedly only “the wordly idea of a fool.”

    The Bible is more well rounded than vapid American churchianity will acknowledge. That’s why sometimes people say, “You can prove anything from the Bible.” And you almost can. But one thing you cannot is that there are more than 2 genders.

    Like

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 )

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