The Assurance of Salvation

The question of the assurance of salvation is something that’s come up here before in comments, but I thought it would be good to address it more fully. As with anything, it seems it’s a controversial issue as well, so hopefully it can be framed through what Scripture has to say and not what men have to say. The term “saved” or salvation denotes the work of God done through the person of Jesus Christ which redeems a person from eternal death through their sin and into eternal life. To read more about this specific topic, see this. Regardless, things should rest on the objective word of God and gospel, and not on feelings and emotions.

If you are saved and added to His Church, no external forces can rip you away from Christ Jesus. (Romans 8:35-39; Ephesians 1:15-23; Ephesians 5:28)

Who shall separate us from the love of Christ? shall tribulation, or distress, or persecution, or famine, or nakedness, or peril, or sword? As it is written, For thy sake we are killed all the day long; we are accounted as sheep for the slaughter. Nay, in all these things we are more than conquerors through him that loved us. For I am persuaded, that neither death, nor life, nor angels, nor principalities, nor powers, nor things present, nor things to come, Nor height, nor depth, nor any other creature, shall be able to separate us from the love of God, which is in Christ Jesus our Lord. (Romans 8:35-39)

In coming to a walk with Christ in faith, we realize that we can’t do these things of ourselves and need Christ to get through life. These things listed are far beyond our mortal ability to deal with – yet we can have them taken care of if we abide in the body of Christ. As Paul also writes:

The eyes of your understanding being enlightened; that ye may know what is the hope of his calling, and what the riches of the glory of his inheritance in the saints, And what is the exceeding greatness of his power to us-ward who believe, according to the working of his mighty power, Which he wrought in Christ, when he raised him from the dead, and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, Far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come: And hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, Which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all. (Ephesians 1:18-23)

If Christ has this power over all these things and we are in his body, who could come against Christ and take a single follower from his hand? No one!

However, if one does not walk with Christ in faith, their salvation is not assured. (Hebrews 10:26-39)

The issue of faith is an incredibly important one. While no one or nothing can rip us from Christ, we are fully able to choose to walk away. Without faith, it’s impossible to please God. Also, Salvation or justification is contingent on faith in Christ, which is clearly portrayed as believing the words of God. Faith or belief is further depicted through the example of Abraham with the requirement that action on that faith is required before it is true faith.

This will take some meditation and thought to get your mind around, but regardless faith can be a challenge. This is where the Enemy attacks. He gets us to doubt for a number of reasons, which are covered in the additional reading. We should well test ourselves whether we are walking in the faith of Christ, especially since it is incumbent to be justified before God and live righteously before Him.

This makes false beliefs dangerous – the lines are not drawn on those who “believe” or “not believe”. The Enemy is perfectly content to have you believe in and trust in something that’s totally wrong and not in Christ. The Personal Jesus is a good example of this error of faith – there is much written in the New Testament on the topic of walking the proper path in Christ for this very reason. The Scripture is there to test ourselves through the Spirit on whether the path is right or not. For wide is the path and gate that leads to destruction, but narrow is the path to life.

Look to the example of David for a good illustration of faith. While he sinned, his heart was with the Lord in faith, therefore he was justified and did not die of his sin. David did not depart from the Lord in faith. He did not commit what is warned of towards the Hebrews:

Now the just shall live by faith: but if any man draw back, my soul shall have no pleasure in him. But we are not of them who draw back unto perdition; but of them that believe to the saving of the soul. (Hebrews 10:38-39)

David did not draw back into perdition from following God, or turn from God and put his trust in something or someone else, but remained steadfastly with the Lord. He had consequences come into his life, but he was still highly honored by the Lord in the end.

There are some mistaken beliefs that unjustifiably cause people to worry about this issue, but there are others that should cause people to fear and tremble. Be sure to look at the additional reading, and look at 1 John if you are interested in the topic. And remember if you are building your house on the rock, you have no reason to fear. But if you are building it on sand, watch out!

Some Additional Reading
John MacArthur: A Believer’s Assurance – discusses some of the reasons, good and bad, for people to doubt their salvation and gives some counsel regarding them.
John MacArthur: How can I be sure of my salvation? – a summary of 1 John’s points on salvation, as this was the point of the book.

Links and Comments #10

Back to share more of what I’ve read lately…


There’s been much written about the idea of whether men should accept traditional feminism. Dalrock wrote his response. Traditional marriage is modern marriage and traditional marriage is matriarchal and man-hating, so it generated a number of good responses from people who know better.

Source: http://13mph.blogspot.com/2010/01/handlebars.html
Truth In Advertising

GBFM points out the near patently obvious to everyone not tainted by feminism that the traditionalists bear false witness against the men in blaming them continually and giving women a free pass.

This is par for the course with all of feminist society, since it is a wicked thing to criticize women for any way. This has been proven time and again, most notably compare the treatment that Kermit Gosnell received and the treatment the man received who gave a woman an involuntary abortion by pill with the woman who was completely and totally acquitted for leaving a newborn for dead in a Walmart bathroom. Women get the p**** pass for everything they do and are above any kind of accountability, while men are crucified.

Commenter imnobody00 points out that the traditional feminists are part of the problem with marriage and with all feminist practice, since they recognize the current form of marriage as holy and right and do not oppose the wickedness and vile adulteries perpetuated in the name of marriage. Conversely, the attitudes behind MGTOW are Marriage 1.0 related – the opposition to MGTOW comes because men are daring define the value of their lives outside of the servitude to women.

Lyn87 points out the callousness that is typical towards men on these things. This is just another instance of the dehumanization and disposability of men. Men are really getting hurt and it’s not a matter of manning-up and “being a conqueror”, those that are hurt need help! The traditionalist, who sent the man down the path to marriage walks by the wounded half-dead man and says “too bad you need to man-up and be a conqueror”. The manospherian walks by and says “stop being a mangina and start being a real man”. There are men that need others to have compassion on them. There’s a time and place to “stop being a victim and be a conqueror”, but that’s AFTER the wounds have been dealt with, not DURING. There’s too many men being left bleeding on the side of the road because even those who have supposedly taken the Red Pill are still holding onto a shred of man-hating feminism. It’s this kind of attitude that makes people think male suicide is funny and allowed The Talk to get away with a ridiculous joke of an apology instead of being run off the air for good and then lynch-mobbed like what would happen if a man joked of a woman’s mutilation.


Other stuff related to marriage:
Proof of my last post: You can’t marry without the State making it a devil’s three-way.

A wife being a helpmeet the way it was meant to be. Prayers go out to LadySadie and the rest of those involved with the tornadoes. The hope is also there that it doesn’t take the requirement of tornado damage cleanup for this to happen for those already married.

But does glorifying the Personal Jesus make tattoos right?
But does glorifying the Personal Jesus make tattoos right?

Moving from the unicorn to what is much more typical and common: It is heartening for the future, though, that every commenter almost down to the individual is blasting her for being a self-centered egotistical princess [censored]. Seeing this kind of garbage coming from wives who only prosper from it is why men are not marrying. The traditionalists would do much better to put their energy into putting the wicked rebellion of these women to an end and fighting against all the other vile adulteries that modern traditionalist marriage represents than set out to bring single men who are acting with wisdom and discernment to the same wicked ends as these. But if they were to do that they would have to repent of their man-hating ways, now wouldn’t they? More proof that misery loves company.


Yes red-pill women exist. However, as proven by last week’s video made by feminist MRA Kristina Hansen, the story of the scorpion and frog takes hold. Some video responses from barbarossa and stardusk (language warnings):


The moral of the story: As much as any woman might be anti-feminist, she can never ever be pro-male. As a woman, she can only remit into neutrality. An anti-feminist anti-male woman is still a misandrist supporter of feminism.


Random stuff:
Hannah writes a brilliant comment on tattoos and how they are viewed on women.

DayKoons: Why I Am Not An Atheist.

A Mentu repost: How to Get Him To Propose

Red Pill Knowledge: Women want any kind of attention they can get, so give reinforcement with women on the proper feedback.

The Karamazov Idea (Private when I checked these. So links and no descriptions in case the situation is temporary): You Know You’re Speaking The TruthWhat Kills Love?

Red Pill Room: On Love

Dr. Helen Smith has a book coming out.

On Chivalry, specifically female infantilisation though male disposability gets a look in. Related: The perversion of chivalry.

Rollo: Value-AddedHe’s Special


Free Northerner responded to my response. I really don’t have anything more to say except on the following:

I highly doubt most slaves had a choice in the matter and willfully traded their freedom for the care of their master.

I think what we have heard about black slavery in the south colors our perceptions too much when it comes to Scriptural matters. The slavery in Scripture mostly doesn’t involve kidnapping and racism. It involved an economic exchange much like what we think of the employer-employee relationship today. As R.C. Sproul writes:

Paul was not concerned with overturning slavery itself, and it should be noted that slavery in the ancient Roman Empire was closer to the modern-day employer-employee relationship, not the slavery of other eras based on kidnapping and racism, which Scripture abhors (Ex. 21:16; Gal. 3:28). In any case, to dishonor our supervisors today, as with a slave’s dishonoring of his master in the first century, falsely depicts Christianity, “as if God, whom we worship, incited us to rebellion, and as if the gospel rendered obstinate and disobedient those who ought to be subject to others” (John Calvin).

In fact, any Scriptures that speaks of these things is applicable to us. Society didn’t have massive companies and corporations to be employed with. You could trade goods for goods, but if you didn’t have goods you could trade labor as a currency for a set period of time. This is nothing different than the “choice” we have to take jobs today. We trade labor for money, which we trade for goods.


Old visitor allamagoosa has a new blog. Please check it out. Until next time!

Marriage 1.0 vs. Marriage 2.0

Below is a comparison between Marriage 1.0 and 2.0 as given from a large number of blog posts on this site, summarized as best as I could. While there are a number of variances and disagreements from one church or person to another as to the acceptance (or existence) of the practices, the conditions on the left were what was originally intended in Biblical marriage and the conditions on the right are what exists in marriage today.

Revised 08-14-2015: Added “two become one flesh”, “bride price”, “homosexual marriage”, “helpmeet”, and effective dates of each.

(2015-08-14) Marriage 1.0 vs. Marriage 2.0

A Proper Framework for Marriage.

(Part 1)

How Marriage Used To Be Established
There are many signs indicating how the initiation of marriage used to be different. As mentioned before, there are no mentions of government involvement and required clerical involvement in Scripture. Marriage, was an arrangement made between families (and even individuals) which was consummated in public by mutual consent and intent, and made by direct choice of the man.

There are numerous examples to indicate this: Issac directs Jacob to seek out Laban to take a wife of his daughters and Jacob arranges a price with Laban, ending up with both his daughters by beguilement, Esau seeks wives of the family of Ishmael, Samson asks of his family to gain a wife of the Philistines.

There are indications that the father was to approve under his family headship of a marriage – this is seen in modern practice by the father giving away the bride at the wedding. A daughter being able to go to the State instead of her own father for approval is another rebellion against “patriarchal oppression”. This is another move to destroy the authority of fathers by replacing them with the State in the form of welfare and child support.

We can look to Cana and to Jesus’ own stories and many other examples, both Scriptural and traditional for more clues. While it is impossible to delve into the typical conditions of marriage since they were so varied, Edersheim writes of the traditional Jewish practice in establishing conditions of marriage:

From the Mishnah (Bab. B. x. 4) we also learn that there were regular Shitre Erusin, or writings of bethrothal, drawn up by the authorities (the costs paid by the bridegroom). These stipulated the mutual obligations, dowry, and other points on which the parties had agreed. (1)

According to Rabbinical law certain formalities were requisite to make a bethrothal legally valid. These consisted either in handing to a woman, directly or through messengers, a piece of money, however small, or else a letter, provided it were in each case expressly stated before witnesses, that the man thereby intended to espouse the woman as his wife. The marriage followed after a longer or shorter interval, the limits of which, however, were fixed by law. The ceremony itself consisted in leading the bride into the house of the bridegroom, with certain formalities, mostly dating from very ancient times. (2)

The rules of colonial America are similar in their implication:

Historically, there was no requirement to obtain a marriage license in colonial America. When you read the laws of the colonies and then the states, you see only two requirements for marriage. First, you had to obtain your parents permission to marry, and second, you had to post public notice of the marriage 5-15 days before the ceremony.

So as the historical and Biblical process the following:
1. The man announces his intention to court to marry a woman to her father and family.
2. The man or the man’s family works out conditions with the woman’s family to affect the marriage. Permission is obtained from the woman’s father and optionally the man’s parents.
3. Upon agreement, the expression of marriage is made before witnesses.
4. Culturally, after a short period of time, a public celebration is made where the agreement and consent to it is made public. The couple calls themselves husband and wife, and the public acknowledges them as such.
5. Thereafter, the couple goes to the marriage bedchambers (the bridegroom’s house) in consummation of the marriage (i.e. the honeymoon).

Note at no time does intimate and specific government or Church intrusion (i.e. forcing the church building as a venue or a church official as witness) come into play.

History of Marriage Licenses
As mentioned here, the origin of such licenses is racially motivated. Miscegenation laws banned interracial sex and interracial marriage. As it goes on to say:

When the government needed finances, some states began allowing interracial marriages or miscegenation as long as those marrying received a license from the state. So in other words, they had to receive permission to do an act which without such permission would have been illegal. . . Not long after these licenses were issued, some states began requiring all people who marry to obtain a marriage license, seeing that they could make a profit off of the Union of Marriage. So in 1923, the Federal Government established the Uniform Marriage and Marriage License Act (they later established the Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act). By 1929, every state in the Union had adopted marriage license laws, and by 1935, all states required licenses except Maryland, which soon followed shortly thereafter.

It’s interesting how coincidental this timing is with the establishment of communism and the collectivist involvement of the State in the lives of individuals as a practice.

Analysis: Marriage 2.0 – The Chicken or the Egg?
In analyzing the change to marriage-at-large effected by Marxism, some questions come up: How such a change could have been affected? Why is it that so few Christians protest the personal and intimate intrusion of government into their marriages? It’s amazing how silent (and in denial) the traditionalists are regarding these things, even to the point of supporting marriage, despite the number of evils perpetuated in the name of marriage today.

The place of God in marriage is replaced with the State. The place of authority that the husband holds is replaced with the State, so in effect the State becomes the head of the wife and the husband is turfed off to third-wheel status only useful for a sperm donation and his working ability. Marriage becomes unimportant, so daughters can go off and chase after The Feminist Merit Badge and be on the Slut Carousel with impunity, yet the sons get chided for not manning-up and marrying the sluts. The State institutes divorce for any and every reason so she can throw her husband aside when she gets bored with him and receive fabulous cash and prizes as a result. The wife can remarry (multiple times!) after her frivorces. The State can unilaterally direct the couple to do with their children what it wishes against the couple’s wishes (example: forced public schooling – home schooling will become illegal sooner or later) at pain of kidnapping the child and prison time. All of this is accepted by the traditionalists. But the State defines that marriage can be between two men or two women and now the traditionalists finally complain.

It seems there is no concern paid to any of these factors in traditionalist circles. The fact that there is acceptance and even support of Marriage 2.0 within the traditionalist Christians is telling. The fact that these things are even accepted as part of “traditional marriage” and thought to be part of Godly Biblical marriage is telling. The power of tradition rears its ugly head. How could the establishment and acceptance of Marxist feminist marriage as the norm have happened so easily? And why do the traditionalists exhibit such blindness to these things?

The only conclusion that can be taken out of this is that Marxist feminist marriage literally *is* an expression of traditional marriage. Such an arrangement wouldn’t have been possible without the foundations laid by the previous feminist system. Modern Marxist feminism presumes female-centric moral-authority and male sacrifice at its core. It did nothing to build these things. They were already present from the previous form of feminism in place in spades, and the traditionalists are ready and on-call to call for these things repeatedly. After all, they have done so for so long they know no other way. No one who supports female supremacism will upset the apple cart, no matter how wicked and vile things get.

The action of traditionalist redefinition of doctrine to reflect the ways of men explains the actions of Mark Driscoll, Focus on the Family, and others. When doctrine is changed in acceptance of the ways of the world by Christians instead of resisting and not accepting the ways of the world, there are definite troubles.

Solutions?
The most obvious is direct repentance of the action of rendering what is rightfully God’s over to Caesar. In other words, justify God and don’t justify men. As many realize, this will not wholly restore Biblical marriage, as it will retain the female-supremacist aspect of old traditionalism. But it will be a kick in the right direction. This is not “opposing marriage” or “burning marriage down”, but destroying an idol (repeating what has happened in Scripture many times – they weren’t justified or “re-purposed for God’s glory”, they were destroyed). As Anonymous writes:

the smart play will eventually happen: end State sanctioned marriage. It’ll be one royal mess, but what does exist of the TradCons will hopefully go that way. It’d solve a whole lot of problems with the current system anyway.
. . .
Christians and others who want to marry in religious ceremonies, can certainly still do so, and the legal aspects of life together (property, etc) can be handled contractually. As to the rest… as Mel Gibson playing Wallace said of the English fort in Braveheart: “Burn it.’

Anonymous is being much too melodramatic, but the removal of the State out of marriage is a very possible thing, though the State will not go quietly (as evidenced by the attitude towards common-law marriages). As I wrote over here:

But for today’s day and age you have to draw up a contract. Make it completely devoid of State interest (two parties, not three) and have the parties agree to it if they wish to be married. If there are Christian denominational interests (either in the parties involved or the venue), make an approved denominational contract (even call it a covenant to be perfectly honest) in line with Scripture. But no governmental intrusion – the contract is to be observed as written with complete freedom on the part of the participants or the venue to agree to all the terms.

There’s an example of such a marriage covenant here. Do it in a witnessed way before the community. And be sure the community supports it so the members involved live up to their vows.

Real God-honoring marriage is possible, if only people will make it happen.

(1) Sketches of Jewish Social Life Alfred Edersheim page 137. (2) ibid page 139.

Link Farm Of Stuff I didn’t link to above
The Purpose of the Marriage LicenseThe History of Marriage LicensesBurn it down?British Columbia’s Bernakified Fiat MarriageGBFM: Marriage has been butthexedThe Triumph of Institutional MarriageWikipedia: Marriage LicenseTaking Marriage PrivateShould Christians Enter Into State-Based Civil Marriages?

A License For Profane Wickedness.

Biblical marriage and the evolution of marriage from there to traditional Christian forms of it has been a major topic of interest in the blog. As Mentu points out:

I can’t speak for Christian marriage, but I firmly believe there is no evidence of an attempt at reframing traditional marriage – but that’s only because it has already been reframed.

It’s hard to specifically pin down all the machinations behind the revisions of Marriage 1.0 from the beginning, but as been pointed out, there are major sign points like chivalry. Another major sign point of the evolution of traditional Christian marriage is the advent of Marxism in marriage. This is the common feminist influence that most all of the manosphere will acknowledge, even while some of the groups are in support of the older forms of feminist influence in marriage.

Making A Case For The State
Most of us should know, the goal of Marxism (socialism, communism) is the insertion of the State into people’s lives as the solution to all their problems. This is in the name of “relieving oppression”, something which found a natural home in the modern expression of feminism, which found problems in the female infantilization inherent to chivalry. Women were the natural target of such things, even as shown by Alexandra Kollontai in 1920:

In Soviet Russia the working woman should be surrounded by the same ease and light, hygiene and beauty that previously only the very rich could afford. Instead of the working woman having to struggle with the cooking and spend her last free hours in the kitchen preparing dinner and supper, communist society win organise public restaurants and communal kitchens.

[Description of housework and communist solutions]. . . Thus the four categories of housework are doomed to extinction with the victory of communism. And the working woman will surely have no cause to regret this. Communism liberates worm from her domestic slavery and makes her life richer and happier.

The burden of children are even put to the State:

But even if housework disappears, you may argue, there are still the children to look after. But here too, the workers’ state will come to replace the family, society will gradually take upon itself all the tasks that before the revolution fell to the individual parents. [A description of child care]. . .

Just as housework withers away, so the obligations of parents to their children wither away gradually until finally society assumes the full responsibility. Under capitalism children were frequently, too frequently, a heavy and unbearable burden on the proletarian family.

It should be unmistakable that Kollontai’s communist propaganda focuses almost exclusively on the woman. As recognized even from the 12th century in action, women create the conditions of the family, and consequently can be appealed to in affecting change within marriage. As Briffault’s Law states, which has been proven time and again:

“The female, not the male, determines all the conditions of the animal family. Where the female can derive no benefit from association with the male, no such association takes place.” — Robert Briffault, The Mothers, I, 191

When women are not restrained in marriage — when they are followed and serviced (i.e. submitted to) rather than given as much expectation as men to fulfill their responsibilities with costs to them — they will unilaterally do what benefits them at the cost of all else. When the State offers to move in and be the chivalrous and sacrificial provider to the wife who doesn’t seek to “oppress” her, what wife will refuse? What woman in her hypergamous impulses will refuse the ultimate Alpha Male as her husband?

Inviting The State Into Your Marriage – The Marriage License
The State has firmly ensconced itself within the institution of marriage to the point that it is considered traditional Christian practice to get the State’s approval for marriage:

So, what is marriage? In the US, for example, most people assume marriage is what happens when a man and woman go to the courthouse, apply for a marriage license, then have someone perform the marriage and sign the license and return it to the government office. If you don’t do that, you are “shacking up.” That is, you are not married.

Note that Biblically there are no mentions of governmental agencies and clerical ceremonies when it comes to the marriage of any of the figures present. Yet somehow this has become a part of traditional Christian marriage. The Word of God says “What therefore God hath joined together, let not man put asunder.” yet the State has, with the support of the Church assumed the power to join man and woman together in marriage as well as tear it apart at will. The whole “sanctity of marriage” battle was lost here. Black’s Law Dictionary indicates this in its definition of license:

In the law of contracts. A permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or a tort. . . Also the written evidence of such permission.

Notice the word “contract” is used (marriage, specifically is an adhesion contract). In this sense, those who cohabitate are correct – what relevance does a piece of paper have to marriage in the sight of God? We will learn later that it is irrelevant to God when it comes to marriage itself, but this piece of paper is very relevant to the State. The State, in placing itself in the place to give permission to marriage creates its own interests. There are three parties of interest to every marriage contract – one of which has the force of law to make you enter it if you want to be legally married. In signing and agreeing to a marriage license (and birth certificates), you give the State unilateral rights to enforce its interests.

The marriage license is what enables a wife to unilaterally divorce for any and every reason. The marriage license is what gives the family court its power to determine custody and alimony/child support. The marriage license enables child protective services to take a child out of the home, and enables the State to impose its will on the family and the children at will. The marriage license effectively justifies all the welfare and domestic violence shelter programs that women use AFTER they have been divorced. Effectively, the marriage license gives the State the right to AMOG husbands right and left out of their own marriages. The State is the perfect chivalrous husband (after all the State gets to define it all too) of all the wives. Husbands are just the trustees there to make it work – willing or not. The husband just becomes the third wheel in the polygamous arrangement that Marriage 2.0 represents today.

Obtaining the license, in effect, is going to the State to ask permission to engage in the “unlawful” practice of marriage. Those that don’t follow God are one thing when it comes to this matter, but the fact that “Christians” agree and support to this is a disgusting thing. They have rendered what is God’s over to Caesar to remake in his own image. And he has.

Then these traditionalists have the gall to claim that they are dealing with the holy institution of marriage as handed down by God Himself and then rail on those like myself who dare point out the wickedness that the current version of traditional marriage represents! Even worse in the eyes of these people are those who refuse to participate in the pagan idolatry and wickedness that is involved in replacing God with the State! If only more of us would be like Daniel or the three friends or the apostles and refuse to bow down to the altars of government to spite God! Maybe marriage would be in a better state today than it is now, instead of having the traditional church either actively supporting the feminists or supporting them passively by sticking their heads in the sand.

(This post got too long, so I’ll split it up. The next one will cover some history, catching how people used to marry, along with some more direct analysis of Marriage 2.0 in this light.)

Links and Comments #9

I’ve been busy followed by sick followed by busy, so I haven’t been able to post as I would like. But I have found a few links and things to share that have been interesting to me:


On the topic of traditional non-Marxist feminists (or tradcon feminists as most of the rest of the manosphere call them): I’ve run across the opposition to men’s rights and equality in the law before from traditionalist feminists. Most don’t use those specific words that “rights don’t exist for men”, but it does seem to be what they believe. PMAFT has been writing about the opposition to “equality” that’s been self-evident among all the feminists. As he points out, Louise Pennington wrote that “The older I get, the more I believe that ‘equality’ is nothing more than a smokescreen to prevent the true liberation of women.”

As he and others point out, the message from them doesn’t seem any different. From the old TWRA site to other voices such as Suzanne Venker, the message comes out that women need to preserve their “special rights” they have over and above men, inherent to chivalry. Hence, the lack of rights for men, and the lack of responsibilities for women. While the traditionalists do not identify with the Marxists, they are defending their own system of female supremacy, coupled with the delusion that men were “in charge” of marriage. Hence, they will side with each other when abortion isn’t on the table. The traditionalists know well to not upset the female-supremacist apple cart.

The silence from the whole community of Churchianity regarding the abuses that go on in the name of “the holy institution of marriage” (a video link I can’t embed here) is telling – their silence indicates support! The answer to the ills of marriage is to fix the redefinition and reframing from Biblical Christian marriage. But the traditionalists see no problem…

Related: Cail Corishev’s case of tradcon tourettes. Hollenhund’s response.

Also related: Christianity is self-defeating. It definitely is, when it exhibits a complete and total hatred for those born in the physical image of Christ. Anti-male is Anti-Christian. When you institutionally hate men (and especially single men) as a matter of traditional doctrine, don’t be surprised when men leave and take their families with them. Don’t be surprised if they leave embittered on Christianity as well. Being a boy or a man is not a “mental illness”. It is also not sinful!

Related #3: A Mentu repost about his attempt to secularize Dalrock’s “Reframing Christian Marriage” series:

I can’t speak for Christian marriage, but I firmly believe there is no evidence of an attempt at reframing traditional marriage – but that’s only because it has already been reframed. Today’s man has three options: He must worship at the altar of vagina and surrender his soul to the Hamster Gods in exchange for the honor of constantly working to ensure marital bliss, or ignore the tenets of Girligion and be forever banished to the torments of marital hell and it’s demons of divorce, or be the heretic who finds comfort in other manly pursuits while having fun jumping from bed to bed in relationship PUrgAtory.

Also when doctrine doesn’t follow what is handed down in Scripture, it is defeating as well. Case in point is Kim Kardashian and Kanye West (H/T Dalrock) While Kim Kardashian should be a very loud warning to the average “Christian” woman, it should be noted that Satan takes care of his own children. The only issue to address to the world anyway is the acceptance of Christ – what the world does besides that is irrelevant. Besides being like the world and following the world doesn’t equate to spiritual health.


The topic of relationships:
The truth about relationships: “Relationships are about trust, honestly, transparency and love.” is false.

The truth about what women are attracted to: Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston bomber that is in custody) now has more girls crushing on him now than probably ever before. Remember, men, this is the kind of women that society would have you man-up and marry. Parents, remember that this is what your young angelic daughters are attracted to. And remember that this is a consistent story with all these “bad guys”. A good steady Christian man who keeps his nose out of game has no chance with women when they are attracted to this…

An example relating the truth of hypergamy from Anonymous. His later explanation.

The truth: What a hamster running smack into the wall looks like.

There is freedom in singleness. What is missed by the traditional attitude towards marriage (and the message of MGTOW) is that life is not completely bankrupt without the personal approval of (and involuntary slavery to) a woman.

Related: One of the more balanced presentations of singleness I’ve found recently (H/T):

Beginning here and continuing down through the comments: Michael discovers the truth of the red-pill. Women don’t want a beta-provider. They don’t want Larry Lawyer, they want F***buddy Rockbanddrummer (to borrow one of Deti’s figures).

The erection of barriers to finding someone. In this day and age, singleness is definitely manufactured in the church and not because men won’t man up and marry the sluts.


Dalrock’s latest post What is the Manosphere? has spawned some interesting discussion.

Hollenhund on the position of men. And on women.

Hannah’s discovery of matriarchy in the Church.

It’s interesting to read how many different definitions and misconceptions people have about all the groups, even those that self-identify with the manosphere. Related to that are these videos about MGTOW:


Meanwhile, it’s odd that Dalrock groups MRA/MGTOW together. Right now there’s a turf-war going on as evidenced by this video from a “female MRA” (the senior editor of Elam’s outfit), attacking other men (MGTOW):


Some stuff unrelated to each other:
One of my searches has been to find a woman who speaks about marriage that gets Biblical marriage and the needs of men completely. While I haven’t found a perfect case yet, I do stumble across some interesting things in that realm. The latest example, Peacefulwife, writes a couple of interesting things.

On Mother’s and Father’s Day.

Why Do Men “Hate” Us?

On the loss of community: For being on the Internet so long and the experiences I have as a result, I have a lot of off-topic stuff to say about that, but that’s for another time and another blog.

A video of the previous “be kinder and gentler slave masters” it-girl to Suzanne Venker, Danielle Crittenden:

Things do get boring sometimes when you run into the same old things all the time.


I hope sharing these things have been useful to someone in their travels. Until next time and some talk about Marxism and marriage…

Responsibilities Don’t Exist

Free Northerner had a response for one of my little blog thoughts involving some reading, which in these posts are meant to be backed up in the material presented in the links.

While he agreed with me in complete principle, he went to the typical tradcon feminist line that “rights don’t exist”. Now I thank him for a “respectful response”. While he will see my response to what he wrote within this post, I would like to point out that this is not wholly the response, but his response happened to be a perfect take-off for a post I was planning beforehand (the opposition of rights and equality for men), the content of which you see here.

Rights are exhibited in the form of laws, and God has His own laws. “Right to life”“thou shalt not kill”. “Right to private property”“thou shalt not steal” and the like. Those that go around claiming “rights don’t exist” will at the same time cry about their rights or the rights of others when the government comes to take their guns, or someone robs their home, or even claim a “right to life” when it comes to the issue of abortion. They reveal their own biases in this claim that rights don’t exist.

These are God-given rights by virtue of the fact that He specified these limits. We should not confuse the sovereignty of God over what He has created (addressing 2 Thess 3:10-12, and the Jesus decision), and should not confuse the fact that rights can be taken by other just men acting in God’s will and God Himself for various reasons. Taking the rights of others outside of this should result in proper justice to be done if mercy is not taken by the wronged. God even supports this in the laws to His people and the expectation He has in enforcing such laws.

This leads into responsibilities undertaken willingly, which addresses Col 3:22 and Matt 16:24-27. People can willfully trade responsibility for responsibility. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist, but that people have the right to negotiate an exchange of goods and services. It, however, is a proof that responsibilities come from rights and not the other way around. Undertaking all things have a cost, and even Jesus warned of counting costs in such things. The misapplication of these Scriptures involve the fact that a choice was made to undertake a vow. Let your yes be yes and your no be no. If you say you’re going to do something, do it. This is not a proof that rights don’t exist.

Christ does not bid anyone come by force. This is obligation. The nature of men is to turn something that should be out of love into a forced obligation and something that should be given out of grace into an entitlement. This is the state of traditional Christian marriage (Marriage 2.0) and has been for about 1000 years.

This brings us back to the silly and absurd statement that “rights don’t exist”. When this is said in the context of the manosphere, it usually meant to mean “Rights Don’t Exist for Men.” In traditional practice, this is a true statement. This is readily seen by the practice of chivalry, which takes all rights away from men and all responsibilities away from women. This is akin to the statement that “Responsibilities Don’t Exist For Women”. Feminism (both tradcon feminism and marxist feminism) of all stripes has taken rights away from men and responsibilities away from women. Free Northerner’s mistake is not carrying out his very true statement into the rest of his work:

The delinking of the rights and responsibilities is one of the largest causes of societal dysfunction. From it flows the entitlement society.

The statement that there is no discussion of rights without responsibilities would be great in a sane world, but we live in an insane world vis-a-vis men and women and must formulate our actions based on reality and not hopes and dreams. Much of that world has been created over the last millennium by the traditionalist Christians in instituting chivalry. Chivalry creates an obligation (or unchosen responsibility) upon all men by birth.

In that sense, it’s true that responsibilities don’t exist for anyone.

Women don’t carry responsibility for anything, as evidenced by the female infantilization inherent to chivalry.

Men carry obligations from birth in the terms of traditional Christianity as penance for being born with “the demon rod” as Augustine puts it. As he viewed it, “the cause and effect of original sin is lust, the symptom and disease is the erection, and semen is the agent transmitting this sin to the next generation.” In this sense, one-sided obligations out of hatred of men are placed upon men. To say it another way, men must continually pay penance from birth for the sin of being born a man by being involuntarily enslaved to all women. This is the hatred of men and female-supremacism (i.e. feminism) that is inherent in traditional Christians and why they support Marriage 2.0 wholeheartedly.

This also explains the special hostility that MGTOW gets, since they have chosen to not value their own lives in the frame of women. Marriage 2.0 is a raw deal, which is why the men who have rebelled against this arrangement aren’t undertaking it. They have stopped acknowledging their sinhood for being born men and start seeing marriage not as an obligation of slavery but as an exchange. This is why I speak in terms of exchange in several places when it comes to marriage. I hold enough value and self-worth in my own life that I do not choose to enslave myself to be the footstool of a woman – the value provided by the woman does not match what I would have to give up.

It’s been noted in several places (examples to come in my link farm tomorrow) that there’s been a degree of TradCon Tourettes (and agreement with the Marxist Feminists) in the opposition to equality or the idea that men have rights. That they sound suspiciously similar for a reason – their beliefs on marriage are one in the same. This leads to commenter Rexoffender’s response:

Feminists love rights without responsibilities. Solid example that I’m not exactly shocked wasn’t brought up by anybody during the debate on women in combat roles is why no women have asked to be included in Selective Service. At its core, feminism IS rights without responsibilities. They want the right to an abortion, not the responsibility of providing for a family. They want the right to equal pay, not the responsibility of equal work. They want the RIGHT to go to war, not the RESPONSIBILITY of the draft. The decoupling of the rights and responsibilities is central to almost all of the social madness in America. Feminists are just a loud example.

This leads back into Antz’ comment (which I thank Free Northerner for preserving all the links):

Regardless of how each of us evaluates the intrinsic fairness (or lack thereof) of the traditional marriage contract, it is important to stress that the traditional marriage contract is gone forever. Any man who enters into a traditional marriage permanently indentures himself as a servant of a woman who can rip up her part of the contract at will, with no consequences.

From the moment that a man signs on the dotted line, his freedom, his property, his life, and his children permanently belong to HER.

The modern version of the traditional marriage is the ultimate embodiment of modern feminism:
* Rights without responsibilities for women
* Responsibilities without rights for men

And into the other link, which illustrates the hatred of men within traditionalist circles:

She unilaterally divorces you? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She falsely accuses you of domestic violence? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She bears false witness against you in any other way? Too bad, rights don’t exist.
She makes sure you never see your children ever again? Too bad, they’re hers! rights don’t exist.
She cuckolds you? Too bad, rights don’t exist! Man up and pay for the child!
She commits adultery against you? Too bad, rights don’t exist! Besides you caused it!
She divorce rapes you and takes away your livelihood? Too bad, rights don’t exist.

Too bad the traditionalists won’t extend this way of thought into other realms…or into women, and see their female-supremacist bias for what it is. Women have all the rights in the world. Men? Just the obligation to pay penance as a slave for the rest of his life for his sin of being born with the demon rod. Granted, when traditionalists speak against rights and equality they might be responding to the liberal Marxist concept of “rights” meaning outcome and not opportunity as myself and the MRA movement means it. But it still amounts to opposition against and hatred of men. Being Anti-man is being Anti-Christ. As I think on it, it’s probably sensible that man would be persecuted for being in the physical image of Christ – after all, Christ came as a man.

Ordinarily, in any other case outside of gender relations, I’d agree with Free Northerner’s post more wholeheartedly. But the original text was about the relationship between men and women and must be dealt with in that light. With the warped and twisted way life is right now, the only proper thing is that any discussion regarding men is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve rights. Conversely, any discussion involving women is out-of-hand if it doesn’t exclusively involve responsibilities. As long as the rights/responsibilities pendulum is being held to the side and not allowed to rest at equilibrium, this must be the case.

Defining Feminism Part 4 – Defining Her God

This is the final part of a series of posts to more specifically define feminism (1)(2)(3). It represents my notes from the book The Feminist Gospel, as I have blogged through it. It will present summaries I compiled from the book of certain basic ideas which I can see readily expressed in modern Churchianity, and then my commentary on those ideas. My commentary will be in red. The book as a whole is much more detailed in both religious and secular interests of modern expression of feminism, and if you can locate it, I suggest it as a good read.

Having described the assertion in feminism that each woman has the right to define her own world, this will describe the next assertion of feminism. This is the assertion that women has the right to define her own god.

Changing The Gender of God
It should be no surprise from the previous parts that modern feminism places an extreme importance upon language. For example, “Mary Daly identified the ‘maleness of God’ as a major problem for the liberation of women in the Church.” (1) This question was brought out into the common religious community by a New York church, which erected a statue of a female Christ on the cross. (1) The statue was complete with its own breasts, hips, and vagina. (1)

This led to a study of sexism in the Bible by many denominations, in an effort to find “ways for making worship and study more inclusive of all participants.” (2) Feminist theologians rejected much of the Bible as male-biased. (2) They believed that “the Bible itself needed liberation from the misogyny that shackled it. (2) This led from the recognition that language is a human symbol that represents reality. (3) The symbols of the Church had presented God as “He” and as “King”, “Lord”, and “Judge”, and they argued that these symbols needed to be updated to reflect the new feminist consciousness. (3) As Letty Russell wrote: (3)

We cannot wait for a new generation of female and male scholars to publish new Bible translations and commentaries that eliminate the hitherto unconscious sexist bias of writers, most of whom are male.

Most didn’t have a very holy attitude towards Scripture and were more than ready to comply with the wishes of Letty Russell. As Burton Throckmorton, Jr., a professor of New Testament and member of the NCC revision committee for the Revised Standard Version of the Bible is quoted (13):

The scripture is the church’s book. I think the church can do with its scripture what it wants to do with its scripture.

We have the explanation for the changing of gender language and other factors within the Bible with respect to new translations. While they all have problems of this fashion, the New International Version is the most notable as the Feminist Bible (12345). The fact that there is very little respect for God’s word as handed down through Spirit-inspired writers is very evident all over Churchianity. People believe it can either be followed or not, and literally be changed at the whim of those reading it.

Russell believed that the linkage of the gender pronoun applied to God with fleshly men reinforced inferiority and superiority stereotypes, alienated women against the Church, and served to limit God to physical male imagery and was as a result idolatry. (4) Russell’s suggested changes to language to alleviate this are illustrated through the feminist reading of the Lord’s prayer, which also illustrates feminist church doctrine as described in previous parts (5, verse numbers added by me to follow along):

(9) Our Mother/Father, who is everywhere, Holy be your names.
(10) May your new age come May your will be done In this and in every time and place.
(11) Meet our needs each day and
(12) Forgive our failure to love As we forgive the same failure in others.
(13) Save us in hard times, and Lead us into the ways of love. For yours is the wholeness, and the power, And the loving, forever. Amen.

Kassian gives adequate commentary of the effects of this in the book, so I defer to her.

As Kassian points out, Russell alters and renames God into something different than how He revealed Himself. (5) This is the true Biblical idolatry that is condemned. In changing the language, they serve to eroticize/sexualize God, depersonalize God, attacked God’s character, deny the Trinity, obscured the person and work of Christ, obscure humanity’s relationship to God, and even confuse personal identity. (6) The end result of renaming God was that the feminists became the authority which named their own destiny. (7)

Changing the God Altogether
“Since its inception, the ultimate goal of women’s liberation had been the attainment of personal meaning, value, and wholeness.” (8) Such a quest is an undeniably spiritual one. (8) Given the secularists tendency to rebel against everything that they perceived as Patriarchal, for they perceived that it did not do these things, it should be no surprise that they would rebel against traditional religious expression. Since the God of Scriptures was connected to the male-defined male, He was discarded. (9) They ultimately turned to what was perceived as the matriarchal, or goddess worship, by looking into Greek, Egyptian, and Eastern mythologies. (10) It was ultimately seen as reflexive worship of one’s self with the goddess as the symbol of that worship. (11) The principles of this kind of worship are: All is One, All Is God, Self Is God (12), and served well to reinforce personal experience over external objective authority.

While feminist spirituality is an interesting topic of study that explains a whole lot in modern society, the focus of these notes is upon how feminism has affected the Church.

It should not be surprising that the feminists who wish to self-identify with the Church wanted to worship in this way as well. What kept them from doing so was the issue of Biblical authority. (13) As talked about in previous parts, the feminist believer was allowed to accept or reject whatever Scripture that didn’t align with their vision of equality. (13) This meant that a new authority had to be made to replace Scripture. This new authority was laid up in the community of believers, which allowed interpretations of the Bible to differ from accepted Christian theology. (13) “If a woman perceived that some of the Bible’s words did not liberate and give wholeness to the pressed, then she could legitimately judge those words as inauthentic with the ‘Word of God.'” (14) In other words, the Word of God conformed to her and she did not have to conform to it. Experience equals authority. (15)

This “experience” led feminists to add to the canon. (16) They searched for sources outside of the Bible which confirmed their personal experience and then by their personal authority added them to the Bible. (17) They found examples in Montanism, gnosticism (this explains the popularity of the Gnostic Gospels, they believed self-knowledge was knowledge of God), ascetics, witchcraft, and sectarianist Christian groups to add to their Biblical canon. (17, 18)

The Refining of Language
The feminists have proven themselves right on the point that language has meaning. As has been illustrated in previous parts, religious feminists have learned to use language loosely to blur the distinction between Christian and pagan. (19) This has resulted in a complete merging of the ideals of religious and secular feminist spirituality, though both are shrouded in different language. (19) Both would say totally different things with the same meaning. (20)

(2013-05-07) Chart

The twisting of words into different meanings is evident. The feminists are correct in that words have meaning and words have power. As Haley sought to replace submission with deference, feminists have been changing the meanings of all kinds of words. As well, the feminists have eroded and destroyed the historical understanding of gender, especially as it relates to Scripture.

Putting authority into the community has resulted in frustration as it relates to spiritual conversations. It requires, first, an awareness that different people may be carrying different meanings of common words. Then it requires a desire (and patience) on the part of the parties to discuss what they mean by each of the words they use. These words represent typical historical building blocks of the Christian faith, so this discussion is a necessary one for a spiritual conversation to have fruit. For example, by “Jesus” do you mean Jesus of Nazareth or the Personal Jesus? What is meant by “faith”, “holy”, “works”, and a number of other commonly used words? I can guarantee you in this day and age where moral relativism reigns that any sample of people are carrying a multitude of definitions for something that should be standardized among Christians. It’s sad that the average expression of Christianity today is in such a bad state.

Religious feminists believe in the “All Is One, All Is God, Self Is God” mantra as well. (21, 22, 23) They speak in terms of “connectedness” or “union” with the Creator, and believe that everything and everyone is connected through the Creator and to the Creator. (21) They recognize that God is present in all things and all people, and favor use of material names to describe Him (rock, door, water, plant). (22) They recognize God as an impersonal force or energy that permeates all things through His indwelling Spirit. (23) Then, while religious feminists are careful to not identify themselves as God, they use language which indicates this belief by the recognition that Christian conversion only recognizes the fact and belief that self is one of the many manifestations of God. (23)

The goal of religious feminists (i.e. The Feminist Gospel) is to get people to recognize their “connectedness” to God (thereby abolishing dualistic thought) and then bring home to the Church all who have been defined as “other”. (24) Those who fully actualize themselves in these things are considered to be “children of God”. (24) Then once all have been actualized in this manner, the Kingdom of God will be at hand, along with the return of Christ. (24)

Note, the abolishing of dualistic thought. This means the idea of right/wrong, sinful/not sinful, holy/profane, light/dark. Ultimately, all you have to do is bring yourself, you don’t have to change or adhere yourself to God at all, and He loves you just the same anyway. Sounds like the Personal Jesus.

While I didn’t intend on going into “women-church”, the term was used above, so I thought it would be worth going through Kassian’s material and coming up with a definition.

Women-Church Defined
“Women-Church is a feminist counterculture movement that interacts with, but is not controlled by traditional religion. (25) These take the form of small women’s Bible-study groups, women’s groups in a traditional church, women’s churches, women’s courses, and women’s retreats. (25) “The purpose is to form a critical culture or exodus community that rejects patriarchy– both in the Church and in the world.” (25) Feminists view Women-Church as the true Church of God, and leading the Church greater into its new home. (26) Women-church seeks to gain a stronghold within the existing Church while it dialogues with traditions outside of the Church. (26) It seeks to replace older traditions of the patriarchal Church with new traditions that celebrate the women’s journey of liberation and reflect the Woman-Church as a community of liberation from patriarchy and oppression. (27) Ultimately, the ritual and practice of a Woman-Church is indistinguishable from those of secular feminism. (28)

As note taking can get tedious, it has taken 10 months to complete this series. As I thought the material was important as a formative reference, I thought it important to take notes and present it. I hope having the reference has been useful and will be useful in the future. And finally I would like to thank Mary Kassian for doing the research and writing this book, as it’s in my list of books that have been formative for me in explaining the waywardness of the modern church.

(1) The Feminist Gospel by Mary Kassian p 135. (2) ibid page 136. (3) ibid page 137. (4) ibid page 138, 139, 140 (5) ibid page 143. (6) ibid page 144, 145, 146 (7) ibid page 147. (8) ibid page 152. (9) ibid page 153. (10) ibid page 154. (11) ibid page 159. (12) ibid page 161. (13) ibid page 169. (14) ibid page 170. (15) ibid page 171. (16) ibid page 172. (17) ibid page 173. (18) ibid page 175. (19) Page 185. (20) ibid Page 186. (21) ibid page 187. (22) ibid page 188. (23) ibid page 189. (24) ibid page 190. (25) ibid Page 196. (26) ibid page 197. (27) ibid page 199. (28) ibid page 201.

Links And Comments #8

I’ve been cleaning up some things in my blog notes and doing bits of research for some more involved post ideas. But I’ve still been reading around and have much more this week:


Usually when the female-supremacist hatred comes out, the arrogance and ignorance comes out as well. All you can do is trust that those of right Spirit and truth will see the hate for what it is, reject it, and walk away from those who purvey it. For what comes out of the mouth is what makes one clean or unclean. This is proven out in both Scripture and experience:

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)

There will always be those who will seek to enslave others and this is no exception.

Related to this matter is the blog post here. While men need their gardens to tend and need them to bear fruit, the problem with Free Northerner’s premise is that it is couched in terms of responsibilities and not rights. Any responsibility undertaken without the complete freedom of choice (a right) amounts to slavery. This is the usual mistake of frame that the feminist man-hating traditionalist “Christians” make to justify their warped and twisted profane view of marriage. It is these same people who are producing the man-up rants when their man-slaves run off the plantation and deprive a woman of her rightful divorce and fabulous cash and prizes. As Antz writes (the first comment):

Any man who enters into a traditional marriage permanently indentures himself as a servant of a woman who can rip up her part of the contract at will, with no consequences.

From the moment that a man signs on the dotted line, his freedom, his property, his life, and his children permanently belong to HER.

The modern version of the traditional marriage is the ultimate embodiment of modern feminism:
* Rights without responsibilities for women
* Responsibilities without rights for men


And onto the topic of the lack of value that men place in themselves (the real man-up message that needs to happen), commenters Retrenched and donalgraeme get it:

Retrenched: Truth is, despite most of the faux alpha posturing men do, most men will actually hump just about any woman if they think shes their best option at the moment.

Donalgraeme: Retrenched is right, most men give a higher priority to their sex drive than to their dignity. Unfortunately, this tendency hurts all men, as women can drop their standards.

As I’ve talked about many times, control sex, don’t let sex control you. It’s well noted that this is what the feminists of all stripes are doing, and men have been falling for it hook, line, and sinker. When a man’s only requirement of a woman is that she has a vagina, he serves to debase himself. But unfortunately, this is the default script, even in traditionalist “Christian” circles. Those like the ones mentioned above would rather have men be sniveling little [vagina] beggars begging and pleading a “woman” to marry him let him be her personal slave. As AVfM commenter Jean Valjean writes, the whole notion of the “real man” is pent up on how useful he is to women:

To me, whenever someone says “real man” or “man up” I do not hear those words. I hear “slave” or be a “better slave” because everything that constitutes a “real” man in our society are also the perfect attributes of a slave.

We are already real. So I reject any standard or idea that puts conditions on my being treated as an equal human being deserving of respect and dignity.

Men are put in this place by society and Churchianity, and men are accepting this debasement and ultimate slavery with open arms at the chance of getting to worship at the altar of the vagina. The self-debasement. Needs. To. Stop.


Crimson Viceroy and others have really been lighting up the comments at SSM’s place (a great post in and of itself showing that traditional Christian marriage is feminist marriage, but it’s hard to pick just a phrase or two out of the comments):
Crimson Viceroy #1:

If a man claims to be Christian and following Jesus than the overriding thought process should be upon what qualities God approves of, NOT upon what women find attractive. I already accepted their dark side and that’s why I’m letting men know that it’s a perfectly acceptable and noble option to leave them by the wayside. So no, there’s no beta-tude in me to wringing about how they are precious little flowers. Perhaps in this day and age, a man will have to ultimately come to decide upon whether or not he values his walk with Christ more so than his own desires of having a mate.

A wife or marriage can not come before Christ or you are not worthy of Him. This is blasphemy in the traditional “Christian” movement (reported to me by several sources), for a man’s wife is his god, proving again what is traditional is not Biblical.

Crimson Viceroy #2, again showing a good God-first mentality, dealing with the other flavor of [vagina] beggars:

Spare us the “alpha man up” sermon, if we’re sick and tired of Churchian pastor’s manning us up, what the hell makes you think that we’re willing to listen to another “man up” sermon about how if we don’t learn Game our lives will be over? I’m not advocating the other camp where men come in and “save the day” by marrying carousel riders. But I’ll be damned if I “adapt” and give women what they hedonistically want. . . My concern is solely with what God thinks of me, not the moisture level I induce between the legs of a woman. For true Christian men, God’s opinion of who they are should be at forefront of their minds, not chasing tail and “getting some trim”.

Men are adapting…WE’RE WALKING AWAY. We have our own salvation to consider and I’ll be damned (poetically and literally) should I continue to waste what precious little time I have left on the mortal coil having to reframe myself to be more pleasing to women.

Chasing after the flesh is always vanity and never pays before the Lord. Sunshinemary:

. . . modern Western women as a group have become truly contemptible creatures, ugly in mind, body, and spirit. Why should men do anything to suck up to such creatures?


anonymous writes, proving the importance of environment on the determination of the holy and the profane (Control your environment if you want to be holy before the Lord!):

Then I realized…. 20 years ago, I would have indeed profiled them as hookers. But why had I lost that ability? What had blunted my discernment?

The next day was Sunday. And as the girls strutted into church, I suddenly realized exactly where my desensitization had occurred! Female coworkers don’t dress that way, female neigbors don’t dress that way on the road or in the market. No, it was years and years of the Sunday morning slutwalks that desensitized me to revealiung clothing, to the point where i could no longer automatically profile a hooker as a hooker!


Commenter Eric on the effects of the typical traditionalist frame:

Or as Plato expressed it even more clearly, sin is willful disobedience to the Divine, whereas righteousness is to love the Divine and seek to imitate it. If the dichotomy of man=bad and woman=victim is accepted as reality, it can’t help but lead to sin and social degeneracy; since to fulfill this role, men would have to accept, own, and embrace their own evil natures instead of turning from them. And women likewise, by adopting the role of victim are indirectly accusing God of injustice towards them, since victimhood is supposedly in their nature.

Under such ways of thinking, self-improvement and the pursuit of wisdom and righteousness is actually seen as a liability.


Link-fest, few comments:
Why do Christians even care about such trash of the world like Kayne West and Kim Kardashian, much less celebrate them?

Haley soft-pedals submission into deference to please the feminists, as deference implies an optional choice, putting the woman at the head of the marriage.

Sunshinemary on early marriage. Again something rejected by traditional “Christians” to the point that when it came up on Boundless there was such a backlash that one of the creators had to come defend it.

So Ferdinand Bardamu was Matt Forney? I don’t know if I necessarily buy that, given that I wasn’t around at the height of the In Mala Fide stuff. But after following Matt Forney’s blog a while in the past I don’t get the appeal if he really *was* Ferd.

Where have all the ladies gone? They died off and womyn took their place. Rightfully so due to the female infantilisation inherent to chivalry, but these womyn haven’t been forced to grow up.

And finally Donalgraeme writes (links added by me):

I think that this field of thought- exploring how traditional doesn’t necessarily mean Christian, is one deserving of more attention. Ballista over at Society of Phineas has delved into it a bit, but we are still looking at the tip of the iceberg.

I think it to be an especially important inquiry because I believe that “feminism” is in fact an older phenomenon that many realize, and as a result many traditions have a feminist bent which isn’t obvious at first. This is just one example. As far as I can tell the historical concept of a stay at home mother who doesn’t work is very recent, and not at all consistent with the standard practice of a Christian marriage over the ages.

This has really been the whole point of the blog. It’s a huge topic and it’s going to take a while, given what people are ready to hear. Until next time…