Book Review: Love & Respect

Love & Respect: The Love She Most Desires; The Respect He Desperately Needs. Dr. Emerson Eggerichs. Thomas Nelson; 1 edition (September 1, 2004).

Book Image

As always, there’s an interest in marriage, and especially Biblical-defined marriage on this blog. To that end, this book is of interest given its popularity. As requested by Jeff, here is a review.

Eggerichs makes the whole basis of his book one verse in Ephesians: However, you also, everyone, let each one love his wife as himself, and the wife, that she give deference to the husband. (Ephesians 5:33) In doing that he attempts to describe it using two acronyms in order to avoid the conflict in marriage that the author calls “The Crazy Cycle”: COUPLE and CHAIRS. In using the COUPLE acronym in relationship to men loving women, Eggerichs points to Closeness, Openness, Understanding, Peacemaking, Loyalty, and Esteem. In using the CHAIRS acronym in relationship to women respecting men, the author refers to Conquest, Hierarchy, Authority, Insight, Relationship, and Sexuality.

At 324 pages, this book offers an incredibly repetitive view of one Scripture and could have been shortened considerably. To that end, Eggerichs pulls in other Scriptures, but often pulls them wildly out of context to support his views. The author ignores other Scriptures in order to attempt to make his message more palatable to the world and to the sensibilities of women. In addition, the book offers a feelings-oriented, psychologically-based view instead of a factual-based covenant view of marriage as described in the Bible with the goal to honor God. Eggerichs comes close to this idea in the final chapters (“The Rewarded Cycle”), but falls short in relating this. This is a New York Times bestseller, and if the world loves you, watch out!

While the book contains some kernels thrown towards the men in the name of “respect”, the book fits the definition of traditional feminist marriage to a tee. The book offers no solid discrete Biblical definition of either “love” or “respect”, nor addresses Biblical submission of the wife to the husband sufficiently. Submission is defined as the husband’s responsibility to “protect and provide”, whereby the woman submits by simply accepting what he is expected to do by her will.

The bulk of the good in this book is found in the final chapters in that Eggerichs rejects the idea of the wife being the husband’s Holy Spirit. Unfortunately, the message to men is that “loving their wives as Christ loved the Church” is that they are to be doormats (or worshipers) to women in the guise of chivalry in order to allow her to “change” him. This book encourages the average immaturity of women, and places them as the sole beneficiary of the marriage. Ultimately, respect becomes as described by Dr. Laura in terms of praise and appreciation for all the good “tricks” her husband does to service her every whim.

Finally, Eggerichs shows a poor understanding of marriage and of the natures of men and women in general. He misses the import of what happened to Eve, Adam’s resulting sin and God’s resulting judgment (Genesis 3:17: “Because you have listened to the voice of your wife” [rather than God]). He rather misses the rebellious nature of women in buying into the “women as responders” doctrine – “if he would just love her sufficiently, she would fall in line and respect him”.

The reviews of the book on Amazon illustrate a number of other topics that Eggerichs refused to deal with, such as the erroneous view that women need to be respected rather than honored (her desire that her husband submit to her, not existing in Scripture). The average state of rebellion that women exist in before God is a major issue of marriage, but sadly is not dealt with in this book in the name of “respect”.

Overall, this book is another excellent manual of what Blue Pill marriage (Marriage 2.0) looks like. While excellent as a chronicle of such things, it is ultimately useless for advice in dealing with the real and numerous obstacles the society, the churches, women, blue-pill men, and other entities have placed on men who have desired a God-honoring meaningful marriage that bears fruit to His Name.

Rating: 3 out of 10.

Book Cover Image Source: Amazon

Advertisements

Marriage Is A Feminist Tool Used Against Men

In response to my previous post responding to this one, blogger Derek Ramsey continued and tripled-down on his feminist man-shaming and has made himself completely clear in doing so. The only thing I can say it’s absolutely astounding to find myself arguing Red Pill 101 on a manosphere site, especially stuff Dalrock and others have covered ad-infinitum.

While it’s become obvious that blue-pill won’t ever turn into red-pill in Ramsey’s ridiculous assertions regarding my positions, I thought it might be enlightening to others to attempt to explain the role that marriage plays within feminism.

Defining the Feminist Marriage
Ramsey writes:

Marriage and family are not feminist concepts. They are the foundations of functioning society and must be embraced. They need to be taken back from the feminists, so to speak.

I never argued that marriage and family are feminist concepts in total. As I have always argued, marriage and family are concepts created by God as a building block of society. What I do argue, however, is that those things have been subverted into tools by the feminists in order to facilitate their control of men and perpetuate the view of female superiority that swims in the mind of every woman from birth. To that end, all women are feminists and a large degree of men that follow into the pattern taught them and function as enablers of the will of women into society.

To that end, marriage and family has been redefined from something that brings glory to God into something that brings glory to the woman. Besides leading men into committing the sin of Adam and forfeiting the grace of their salvation before Jesus, the idea of marriage has been changed to support these basic feminist concepts. I denote this change by using the appellation of version numbers. Marriage 1.0 is marriage and family as God intended it. Marriage 2.0 is the feminist redefinition. I posted a chart reflecting the differences here.

Part of the function of marriage is to secure the enslavement of men to women. This is reflected by the base definition of marriage to be the prostitutes deal of conditional sexual access for lifetime enslavement to the woman. Children further reinforce the shackles the man has been placed under, as the sole reason for the woman to have sex with him dries up after she’s obtained the number of children she desires. She has her hooks into her prey.

Now if we take Ramsey’s suggestion that men just need to man up and marry those thots to fight feminism, it becomes ludicrous on the face of it. I or any other man can’t make marriage into what they want or what God wants, even if one finds the rare unicorn that is both actually fit for marriage and doesn’t believe the world revolves around her. The legal system has set itself up to unilaterally define the parameters of marriage and put the full force of itself against those who would violate those parameters. Anything reflecting God’s word is automatically considered “abusive” in the eyes of society and of the divorce courts. There is no amount of game or “keeping frame” or otherwise that will change or stop this. Notably, this leads to the issues of no-fault divorce, the Duluth Model, child support, alimony, and the like when the woman finds her man unfit or she gets bored or “unhaaaaappy” in the marriage. Ramsey or anyone else has no answers for the men they bid to walk into the meat grinder when these men get served with their divorce papers. They will be long gone when that happens, just like others will for those that think they can avoid feminist control and yet be married.

Then we look at the period within the marriage. Say we find the perfectly marriageable woman who hasn’t been indoctrinated into the goddess, who doesn’t believe that the world should revolve around her and her desires (Satan generally takes care of that not happening anyway through the children). The rest of society is there to council her in feminist ways, including all the women in her social circles. His money is really yours, the sirens whisper in her ears. How dare that man of yours tell you “No”! These people, including those preaching in the churches, sway the woman into a feminist position. The men are not immune either, constantly being reminded of how lesser they are compared to their wives in society, and reminded they need to man-up and marry and then in the marriages “step-up and lead the family” – or in other words, submit to his wife and fulfill her will. This redefinition has been rationalized into the Scripture via tradition to the point that almost nobody sees this, including Ramsey.

There Is No Good Marriage
This leads into the next thing Ramsey wrote:

But make no mistake: if we don’t increase good marriages and the number of children in those marriages, feminism will win.

Feminists might breed themselves out of existence by refusing to reproduce, but who is going to replace them if the anti-feminists also refuse to reproduce? Where are the future anti-feminists going to come from? Feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children. Our counter is marriage and family. It’s the only one we have. We must find ways to do it and stop making excuses for not doing it.‡

As I just illustrated, there’s no such thing as a “good marriage”. Just a feminist one that continues to feed men into the fire while putting their resources in the hands of women, creating children to perpetuate the process. The marriage ultimately just produces children to feed right into the process, starting with the mother’s own feminist indoctrination from infancy. As aptly stated, feminism only needs to indoctrinate the children, which is done well within the home, schools, and wider society. This indoctrination is an inevitability with feminism in place – there is no place that anyone can go without being exposed to feminist messaging and consequences for not heeding that programming. Marriage is not a counter to feminism, but the vehicle in which feminism is effectuated and grows.

A lot of men have looked at the issue with wisdom and have determined that as long as feminism exists, marriage is a counter-productive activity which only perpetuates feminism instead of ends it. There can be no other answer until feminism is dealt with. Deal with feminism, then we’ll talk about marriage and children.

Solipsistic Fallacy
Ramsey writes:

When the Brothers scoff at having more children, their anti-feminist stances become meaningless.† Words and actions must go together. When they recommend against a proper marriage, they fight against the very tool required to solve the problem. Avoiding marriage and family is counterproductive, no matter how well-intentioned.

In looking at Ramsey’s parting shot, it shows just how illogical both posts have been. As shown, the tool required to solve the problem of feminism is not marriage, as lack of marrying is not what is creating the feminism problem. The problem is a systemic failure of wider society that has infested marriage, causing women to reject marriage for their goddess delusion and men to reject marriage for the factors mentioned above. As long as Marriage 2.0 remains the default and only expression, marriage is poisonous for men. I respect the choice of men to marry or not, unlike Ramsey and the other advocates of feminism that make their man-up rants. The more that men don’t enter into marriage, the more that feminism doesn’t work. This alone scares supporters of Marriage 2.0 into making these man-up rants, since married men are needed to make feminism work and when marriage is gone, feminism ceases to function. Add to this the effects that Marriage 2.0 have on society like the economic ones Ramsey points out and it scares them even more. The house of cards is toppling, deservedly so:

Jack makes a great point, describing most of the advocates of Marriage 2.0 in this day and age:

Brother Derek has had the luxury of having married a decent woman early in life. From this perspective, his viewpoints are pretty solid. The problem is that the vast majority of men (and women) can’t enjoy the same luxuries as Ramsey (and his wife), and we know this is because of the bastage of feminism.

After reading all the horror stories and general facts of life, it’s hard to not believe there’s an incredible amount of solipsism and deception out there. “Since marriage works for me, it works for everybody”. They do not heed the horror stories as a wise man would (Proverbs 22:3) and avoid them. They rationalize that they just didn’t do it right or some other such thing. Yet the facts on the ground are what they are, and can not be changed by those that would wish it all away.

As for men that have red-pilled themselves, the words and the actions are going together. In addition to speaking out, they are avoiding entanglements with women that will lead them onto the plantation. They see feminism for what it is and how it affects society, and especially marriage. Sadly so few men do, and still function to uphold and perpetuate feminism.

That said, barring anything fantastic, this is the last thing I’m going to write on this particular issue.

One Hundred Years of Men’s Rights Have Come To Nothing

In drafting the last post in response to one on another blog, I thought of a graphic but didn’t have the time and energy to dig it out until now.  I don’t know who came up with it or where it even come from anymore.  But it points out that:

  1. Feminism is a much older way of thought that most people tend to think.
  2. Feminism is ultimately ill-defined to the point that anyone that seeks to be against it always fails.  A proper solution to a problem always begins with an accurate definition.
  3. The nature of power and all that it is predicates that those with it will not give it up willingly.   When those in power are wrong, it will always require some pain in order to remove them from that power.
  4. Yet few will come up with an accurate definition or an effective solution, nor will support the actions required to enact an effective solution. Therefore, the problem will never be dealt with.

Man Up, Marry Those Thots, and Save Western Civilization

I had occasion to come across something I was seeing when the SoP blog closed, the feminist man-up rant to the men that don’t know their proper place with the excuse that men need to do it to save Western Civilization. In “Does Marriage Keep Society Afloat?”, we have the very correct observation made by Derek Ramsey that birth rates are going down and that it’s going to effect the economy. However, his conclusion leads us right into another typical feminist man-up rant: The men just aren’t playing along because they aren’t marrying and having children.

To borrow the only line I ever quoted from Davis Aurini on my blog, Ramsey is seeing the appearance of the problem and not the essence of it. The essence of the problem is feminism, which created the economic conditions (among other things) that were pointed out.

Chart Describing The Nature of Feminism

Unfortunately, it was not enough for Ramsey to point this out, but to double-down:

>Look at Japan, it’s there for everyone to see. Their decline is here, but they are just the first in line.

Let’s look at Japan further. There’s a movement there with men called “grass-eaters” or “herbivore men” who have rejected traditional marriage because of the feminist overtones. The men were expected to be “Salary Man”, working as much as possible. Then as the facets of traditional marriage go, they were expected to present their pay checks to the wife for use and live off of whatever she deemed fit to give him not unlike how marriage works in Western Civilization. It is well known in marketing circles that women control the purse strings and contribute to a vast super-majority of all the spending in the economy. Simply put, in Japan as here, feminism created incentives against marriage and family.

>The only way out of this, without significant side effects, is to support marriage and increase family sizes.

Now here is where Ramsey really goes in the rough with his arguments.

>This requires abolishing abortion and defeating feminism.

The only agreeable thing he wrote. The existence of abortion is a condition created by feminism, so the only requirement is defeating feminism.

>The refusal to marry and have children (e.g. MGTOW) is actively harmful and contributes to the self-feeding destructive downward cycle.

This is wholly incorrect. Either Ramsey has a incorrect perception of feminism, or is a traditional feminist apologist (don’t know which).

>I don’t care what the excuses are for not marrying and having children. Make it work. Otherwise wave the white flag and embrace feminism.

In other words, Ramsey wants men to embrace feminism by getting married and having children. Therein lies the problem as Ramsey sees it – the weak men just aren’t playing along to make feminism work. Traditional marriage represents the locus of control of feminism, and to that end marriage is poisonous to men. They see all the evils of marriage as represented through the divorce courts, alimony, child support, and the like. They see the expectations upon them to serve their wives and be walking ATMs, to absolutely no benefit to men. Then they see the cramped job market and the increasing cost of living, and realize marrying will only increase that to the point of making it unsustainable. Then they see the poor moral quality of the women available, which has made them un-marriagable. Larger numbers of men have figured this out and are avoiding it and more will continue to so. They all definitely see the only function of marriage in this day is to bring men under the control of women, impoverishing men and enriching women in the process.

The answer to the problem Ramsey rightfully points out is to defeat feminism, making it a disgusting way of thought. Unfortunately, feminism is so ill-defined in the minds of most that opposing “feminism” ultimately does no good because they don’t define the problem well nor have the will to do what it takes to solve it. All manning up and marrying the thots will do is perpetuate the problem.

Most MGTOW will recognize that it will take massive societal pain to break the control that women have gained in this society via marriage and other means. If one looks through history (reading “The Fate of Empires” by Glubb will be very educational), they will find that there are cycles of empires and certain characteristics of those. The USA is at the end of its cycle as well as Western Civilization and will experience some pain in the end to “correct” things, as there’s no political will towards true morality. Often, there will be those like Ramsey that want to reverse the state of things instead of correct them – rather rebuild feminism instead of eliminating it. This is as many men, who chafe before the consequences of their actions and will seek to remove them, but will not seek true repentance before the Lord. Repent and correct the conditions that make marriage poisonous to the point that feminism is a “never again” entity and you will get increased marriage and child birth within two or three generations.

As long as women are in control as they have been the last 400-500 years things will stay the same as they have always been, and there will be the typical societal downfall that comes with judgment before the Lord. After all, a society that has systematically cannibalized half of its members will inevitably fall, and more importantly deserves to fall. Nature always seeks equilibrium.

And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach. (Isa 4:1)

The Godless Goddess Woman On Full Display

In doing these things, it’s funny how certain things tend to drop into your lap right at the right time. After talking about a sterling example of the supplicating beta worm that’s the worthless worshipper of woman, we have one that comes around of the goddess woman.

I explained the dynamic that traditionalists have placed upon men, women, and marriage last time, so I’ll refer you there for the basic idea. As pointed out earlier, society including the churches have been deifying women and bidding men to submit to their wishes. This extends not to just marriage but all society.

Now to move to our current example out of many many women, we have 43-year old actress Charlize Theron. We are given the message as men that she’s “shockingly available” and “been single for 10 years”, and that men need to “grow a pair and step up”. Now this is language we’re used to hearing from women and their enablers, as there’s been legions of women crying this very thing. But it’s fascinating to see a man-up rant from a Hollyweird movie star.

The Goddess Proclaims Truth
The graphic to the left explains the general operation of feminism. This view of women as goddesses, created from the advent of Mary worship, kicks off things. Since we have female supremacy in operation, the average woman has absolute female moral authority.  This means any pronouncement that she makes automatically becomes true and right.  If she’s hyper-obese, she better be the best looking woman out there, for instance.  And if your her husband, you better provide the right answer back to her.  If you don’t, then you just aren’t providing proper devotion that she deserves.

The base expectation out of traditional feminism is that women deserve husbands as their birthright.  I’ve made the reverse statement in a supposedly Christian environment to howls and the blog owner consoling the poor wimminz.   They want what they want no matter how unrealistic it might be. After all, we’re reminded that 80% of men are below average according to women. She’s got to have the exact man she wants and the princess fantasy to go along with it. This effect is worse in churches and has been called the Evangelical American Princess (or EAP) by several bloggers. These women just aren’t finding men, so the howls of “Where have all the good men gone?” After all, men are supposed to fulfill every whim and desire of the women around them!

The Worthless Male Responds
So we have Mizz Theron, this entitled princess, howling like many other women about not finding her perfect man that fits all of her 463 requirements. For 10 years, even! And then bidding the men that are supposed to fall all over her and worship her. But it’s not happening! Maybe it’d be useful to look at the back of her baseball card:

  • Single mom of 2 with her first partner.
  • Later dated Sean Penn for a while.
  • Ardent abortion advocate
  • Ardent supporter of PETA
  • Ardent advocate of same-sex marriage
  • “not having much respect for marriage in the first place”

I could keep going on, but as our article states:

Unfortunately, for her, the only men in her social circle are probably pro-choice left-wing activists, given her history of abortion advocacy, which spans all the way back to the late 1990s.

So rightfully, any man that Mizz Theron would be attracted would likely reject some or all of this. So all that are left are the simpering soyboys for her to choose legitimately. But wait a minute! Men aren’t worth enough to have a choice! They need to be falling all over her trying to gain her approval. Don’t they know this is a Glorious Woman?!? This is what all “good men” should be doing to any woman that dare might consider letting him into Her Glorious Presence!

Remember too, what happens to men that complain like this. They are often reminded that they don’t deserve to have wives, or even standards for women and should take what they get. Remember that a man would (as many men already have!) get shouted down as a pathetic excuse and a waste of flesh if he made a similar pronouncement to Mizz Theron.

The Biggest Teenager In The House
We keep looking at Mizz Theron, as we do most women who fit the feminist bill. The traditional responsibility and burden of the man is to serve the woman and give her everything she wants without any responsibility falling on her head. But how do we convince men of that? The key is to feign weakness so that women may be thought of as children. Women can’t be responsible, so men must undertake this burden. This is the source of a lot of the diversion of blame you see out there in the churches and society. That adultery wasn’t her fault, that pathetic excuse of a husband pushed her into it! That divorce wasn’t her doing, it’s all she could do to get away from her terrible husband that wouldn’t “make her feel loved”!

This leads us to Mizz Theron. Like many women, the fact they are single is always a poor situation out of her control that the men put on her. It’s not that she’s a terrible relationship prospect that chose a life to put herself into that place by acquiring the feminist merit badges, it’s just that the men just won’t man up and marry her or even have a relationship with her. After all, she didn’t do anything that warrants that kind of treatment. She just can’t!

The Prototypical Entitled Woman
As we see, Mizz Theron is simply a prototype of what we see every day in the dating market as men. Many of us do realize that we have a choice in the women we marry or date. Simply put, Charlize Theron, as most women, are simply not worth it. Not necessarily because of the looks, but because of the person. We don’t hear figures such as Albert Mohler or numerous others tell women that they need to shape up. However, we get bellows to man-up or grow-up and marry these women and protests about video games or a number of other non-issues. A woman can never be blamed for anything she does, especially when it comes to relationships.

As for Mizz Theron, why don’t you step up, Seth Rogen? Then there’s always Glenn Beck and Chad Prather and his boys out there that could man up and marry this woman. Oh wait…thought so.

The Traditional Male Role On Full Display

I’ve taken great pains over the course of this blog to describe the traditional female and traditional male gender role, and have even come up with this graphic to describe the nature of traditional marriage:

Note that I have the woman in a deific role, while the man is in a chattel role. This means the woman is thought of as a god, while the man is thought of as a worshipper, who exists as long as he is useful to a woman and then is ultimately thrown into the fire to be burned.

Ultimately with male mother need conditioning both parties from birth, both parties are willing throwing themselves into this arrangement. Women are raised to believe that their will, whims and fancy are supreme and that all needs to be fulfilled, and they are pointed to the men in their lives. Men are raised to believe that the entire worth of their lives is wrapped up in the approval of and service of women. They are taught that women are greater and men are lesser, and that consequently men are put on this earth to serve women. Women are not the image of man anymore, but beyond images of God (gods themselves). Men are not the image of God anymore, but useful tools put on this earth to serve the gods in the flesh with the construct of Marriage 2.0 as the vehicle to do so.

This leads us into a video entitled “Chad Prather: There Is Nothing Toxic About REAL Masculinity”. (H/T Boxer)

This marks the second video I’ve encountered now in the history of this blog that I couldn’t get through all the way without losing my lunch. This is the “real” masculinity that the blue-pill idiots espouse:

Respect to a woman is a deference to her. It is manliness. That’s why I bow. That’s why I open the door. Whatever you want, I got it.

What is a man? What is masculinity? It is the bowing of my head to you, it is the bowing of my will to you. That’s what a man is. That’s what masculinity is.

You yield to the will of the woman. That’s a real man…

See the slaves/cucks extolling the virtues of their own enslavement. Gentlemen, if you didn’t believe me in modeling what marriage is, believe this:

  • These are the “good men” and “real men” that you are expected to become in “marriage”.
  • Her will is supreme and she has her friends, family, church and the full force of the court system to back it up if you don’t submit to her.
  • The courtship and marriage exists to train and vet your ability to submit to a woman.
  • This is not a facet of modern feminism. Before the advent of the divorce court and child support enforcement, women used societal disapproval to punish non-compliance where the man became persona non-grata to everybody. The only difference is that Christ and the Church was replaced with the State.
  • Part of the delusion of traditional marriage is the idea that the man is the “head” of his family and that the wife will be a good loving wife who will submit to you. This “Driving Miss Daisy” submission is the hallmark of traditional marriage, where the woman in the backseat tells the driver to go somewhere and he does it.
  • Marriage 2.0 is far from Scriptural or God-honoring. His design was not for men to take women as their gods over Him, following after the sin of Adam (Genesis 3:17).
  • She is not really in love with you, but what you can do for her. Once you become useless to her, you will see exactly how “in love” she ever was with you. The marriage you thought you had will prove the sham that it always was.
  • Part of marriage is that women gain all the rights and men gain all the responsibilities. You have the burden and cost of the marriage while she doesn’t have to do anything for you in return. Everything will be your fault, while nothing she does will ever be taken into account.
  • If you are Christian and think Christian women don’t do this or believe this way, think again!

I can keep going, but the point is made. There is nothing honorable in the sight of God about “marriage” in this day and age to the point that it’s a falsehood to call it that. Men, you have nothing to gain and everything to lose in this day and age by marrying a woman.

To clarify, I’m not telling you to not marry, as I always believe it’s the man’s own choice in the end. I’m just telling you the facts on the ground, as it were. The Red and Blue Pill are before you – it’s the question of which one you will take.

The Red Pill Guide To Dealing With Churchians

When you travel online, there’s always the possibility of getting into discussions with people. This is very much true with those that claim to be Christian. However, you will find very quickly like Necron48 did that things will often not go the way you expect as a Christian man who has given himself to the Lord and has pledged to follow His teachings. I won’t blow-by-blow what happened, mistakes made, or link there as they don’t need the traffic. I explained what Necron48 saw in a previous instance, so I thought I would offer advice for being in such an environment. So, with a H/T to RedPillPushers, which inspired this post…

Deal With Them As You Would A Woman
Remember that any of the Red Pill advice you hear about women applies to almost anyone claiming to be Christian. Women are incapable of being objective, are solipsistic and take no responsibility for their actions. 90%+ of the time, you will find this to be correct. None of this changes when a woman becomes a “Christian”. Given the control women have exerted over men, it shouldn’t be a surprise that in this day and age, Christianity as it is typically practiced is of women, by women, and for women. Since the men have all most likely have been cowed into submission to their wives in their marriages, this is a safe assumption out of the men as well.

Stay in the Authority of God’s Words
As feminism is expressed in Churchian circles via the goddess/worshipper model of traditional feminism, the perception of women will take hold as doctrine. Much of this blog has documented such changes in solid doctrine to kowtow to the feelings of women. As things have grown, the Personal Jesus has taken over any view of objective truth, and Churchians will follow what they want instead of submit themselves to Christ and His ways.

Since Churchians feel, can not think objectively and consequentially can not recognize a standard for conduct, they will place tradition, reason, and their own experience in either equal place or above Scripture. Coupled with typical feminist doctrine, reflecting moral relativism, the Churchian will define the world and God by their own devices instead of looking to Scripture as the guideposts of their life. This is evidenced by the act of quoting Scripture being “triggering” to the people Necron48 dealt with, they are placing their own experiences over Scripture. They will generally only look to Scripture to bolster their own ways and interests. A great example is a woman rejecting the Biblical mandates to submit to her own husband because “men are abusers” (she or a friend had this happen to them). Where your truth is different than my truth, no one is wrong and no one can be challenged because it’s taken as an assault.

For one that desires to be about God, Jesus gives us the example in Matthew 4:1-11. Note all Jesus does in the face of opposition is quote Scripture. A tin pot authority (which each of us are) can not compare to the authority of God. His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. Since the typical Churchian is pretty dull-witted about Scripture (he/she has no use for it other than to affirm themselves) and will also misinterpret it for their own ends, find something relatively simple and straight-forward and don’t cloud the issue.

Do not deviate by going into your own experiences, thoughts, or traditions you have learned, or give credence to the experiences of others as it cedes ground and places the battleground on their home turf and opens you up to typical feminist shaming tactics (if they don’t already engage you with them). And above all, stay calm and firmly state the truth. Ultimately, since they are solipsistic, they can not imagine that others think differently than them.

Don’t Belabor the Point
When you engage people in a discussion with these things in mind, you can usually tell pretty quickly that you won’t get anywhere. In reading the discussion, I noticed many many red-flags that things wouldn’t go anywhere productive long before “the dog house” happened. Often, you can even read comments and posts in a place, see red-flags and know your message won’t be received before you even make your first post. Wisdom is learning when people will hear you, and when things will be as this:

Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. (Matthew 7:6)

This is what happened to Necron48. Ultimately when you see a red-flag, the only thing you can do is shake off your feet and move on (Mark 6:11). You can’t argue someone into a point, because all it generally does is set them deeper into their own position. We are never meant to be arguers or convincers, but simply heralds. Deliver the message of the King, but if they won’t receive you or hear you, move on. It’s better in the end.