The Golden Rule Works

First a little disclosure. I’m a minister. Let’s try that again.  I’m a prison minister. We are trained theologians who work in a dangerous environment. We often come from diverse and unpleasant backgrounds. We use salty language and we are just as ready to fight as preach—because we have to be. Your average parishioner will not stab you with a sharpened toothbrush handle if you annoy him enough, mine will.

I come from, and work in, a place of harsh absolutes. Please don’t mistake my roughness for a lack of love.


Doesn’t like condescension. True story.

I know that many of those reading this article are not believers and that’s groovy. I’m not trying to convert you. Evangelism is not my calling. I’m here because I hate it when bitter and unethical people try to misuse yet another perfectly good and logical teaching to undermine a simple Biblical truth.

When someone says, “Remember the Golden Rule” in an attempt to shame you for standing up for order over chaos, I hope that this little article will give you the confidence to say, “I always do.” Not because you are a passive doormat but because you understand that “Do unto others…” has two valid components: Call for Mercy and Chastisement of the Foolish. The weak and the cowardly deliberately avoid the latter function.

Tarnished Gold

“Do unto others as you would have done unto you.”

For as long as I can remember, and long before I became a chaplain, The Golden Rule has been applied by the weak as a stick to batter the strong.  The cringing and narcissistic may set up the paradigm in one of the following ways:

“You can’t call me out for jumping in line because you don’t like being yelled at.” Head-exploding cognitive dissonance is required to ignore that I also wouldn’t want someone jumping in front of me after hours of waiting.

“You have to forgive me for stealing from you because you would want forgiveness.” No. I would want correction for being a thief. And how does calling out your crime, or even punishing you for it, mean I can’t simultaneously forgive you? Nice try.

“Do you want all your problems handled with force? Huh? Well? Do you?” No. Only the ones that require it. It would be an awkward life if we had to slap people for common activities like making a sandwich. I’m not even sure what that question means or how they conflated “resistance to idiocy” with violence.

Since a plurality of churches teach this same false and morally bankrupt interpretation, most of the people you know will agree with the line jumper in the above example. Somehow you are the one who gets stink eye for demanding civil behavior from others. In a mind-bending paradox, you are seen as barbaric. Their twisted take on the Golden Rule requires a deep belief that nothing is inherently worth fighting over and no one has any interest in becoming a better person.

None of this is surprising. The increasingly liberal church has been misquoting, or simply fabricating Biblical concepts for years. I would run out of pixels exploring the judgmental, greedy, emasculating and anti-Biblical teachings found in almost any street corner “church.” Throw a rock and you will hit some clergyman on his money grubbing head who has made a false biblical claim for such obvious fallacies as…

  • God doesn’t believe in capital punishment
  • God doesn’t believe in self defense
  • Using good judgment is the same as being judgmental

All these misinterpretations are deliberate and have a central theme: Standing up for anything is wrong. Standing up forcefully for anything is evil or, more simply, being masculine is wrong. You notice it’s never a biker, cage fighter, fireman, or soldier who pulls this tarnished “gold” out of their asses. It is always the weak, the guilty, and the demonstrably immoral.

As a result, the physically, mentally or spiritually strong members of our society may look at the Golden Rule as a leash, used ruthlessly by the weak and immoral to insure that everyone feels as awful about themselves as they do. Seeing no upside to the scenario, they may opt to ignore the rule entirely and fail to activate its greatest benefit: The instantaneous enhancement of a moral and polite society regardless of faith or religion.

It Doesn’t Mean What You Think It Means

The last time a line jumper got in front of me (with his whole family) I called them all out and told them to get to the back of the line. The beta-male “father” of this group of rude, aggressive douche-hats adopted a threatening pose and told me I had better “relax.”

In my most compassionate and ministerial voice, I told him I would beat him until his skin didn’t fit if he decided to pursue the use of force.

He left and took his brood with him. But what about the crowd of people in line? Did they not appreciate that I stood up for order and common decency? No, they thought I was an asshole and said as much under their collective breath. Any form of resistance is repulsive to the weak. But I didn’t care. I believe in the Golden Rule as it is meant to be practiced. And the truth is; I did that man and his family a favor. They objectively needed to change their abusive and entitled behaviors and discomfort is the only guaranteed method of achieving change.

Just ask anybody who used to be fat.

Slap a fool for Jesus


The upcoming body slam is brought to you by the Golden Rule

If I was mishandling a gun and somebody snatched it from my hand and slapped me in my stupid face before declaring, “What are you trying to do, moron, kill everybody in the fucking room?” I would like to think I would be man enough to know that this Good Samaritan had just Slapped Some Jesus™ into me.

The Prince of Peace was gentle, but  not a pacifist. He took a whip to folks and got into at least one recorded brawl. Did He think violence solved problems?

Well, yeah… occasionally. Just read about His forecasted return for further clarification.

I’m not saying that offering a beat-down to every rude person you meet is the way to go. That kind of behavior just advertises deep weakness and insecurity. What I am saying is that calling someone out, when you really need to, for the benefit of themselves and society is exactly what the Golden Rule was written for. When the weak and false-minded assail you with, “Did you have to be so harsh with your nephew? I mean, what about the Golden Rule?” you should be able to stand up and say, “Well, if I was a lying, drug addicted, little turd, I would hope someone would do me the favor of pointing it out. Otherwise that would be a terrible way to go through life.”

Ding! Golden Rule validated!

Why? Because “Do unto others as you would have done unto you” works both ways. If men start using The Rule as it was meant to be used—not only to offer mercy, but provide needed correction—then those that try to abuse it as a weapon will soon find themselves on the wrong end of another misused beta-favorite. “He who lives by the sword…”

Read More: The Worst Advice Ever For Strong Men

99 thoughts on “The Golden Rule Works”

  1. Out-fucking-standing…
    I could not agree more with your take on the Golden Rule here.
    Oh and I love the “beat him until his skin didn’t fit” threat.
    It is amazing how people just expect their shitty behavior to be accepted.
    I use this true version of the “Golden Rule” on occasion, and get much the same reaction.
    But it is necessary.
    Thanks for the article.

    1. I thank you and everyone else who responded. Any discussion
      that touches on theology will almost by definition be faulty to a greater or
      lesser degree. The topic is far too broad to express, in fine detail everything
      you “meant”, in comparison to what you actually said.
      In that regard you have all been very kind in both your praise and your criticisms. The commenters here are nothing if not thoughtful and considered in their critiques. I hope one day to have the honor of posting here again.

      1. I really enjoyed your no nonsense writing style.
        Your perspective is pretty enlightening, and seeing as how it is hard won in a prison environment I would expect nothing less.
        I am wondering if you have any other writings that would be available somewhere.
        Do you have a blog? If you don’t, you ought. I know I would read it.

      2. The apostle John, actually referred to the golden rule as God. See John 1:1, where “the word” is said to be God and where Jesus who manifested the golden rule and taught it as “the way, the truth, and the life” that saves people from their own selfish thinking and behavior. In a figurative sense he was God, the golden rule in the form of a human. It’s the dualist anthropomorphic concept of God that trips everybody up. It tripped up Jesus’ disciples so that they couldn’t accurately understand the nature of the kingdom of God, the holy spirit, sin, and virtually every other concept related to this topic. James, however, knew enough that he could see that the true understanding of all these things was hidden (in plain sight) in the golden rule and advised his readers that if they wanted real wisdom or understanding to seriously and intently examine the golden rule in order to perfectly discover the truth or the will of God. A great deal of the time, Jesus’ apostles and disciples said and wrote things that they didn’t clearly understand but they were trying to understand them. See Paul’s comments in 1 Corinthians 13-15 and his analogy of the unpolished mirror that represented his inability to clearly and perfectly understand what he was talking about.

  2. I thought about writing something similar to this in the comments section of the golden rule post, but I have neither the patience, nor the simple eloquence to put it down as well as you did. Well done sir.

  3. Prison minister is one of the most up front, hardcore masculine jobs you’re going to find left in the world. I’ve met a small handful of them in my time on earth (not in prison, fwiw) and they are to a man the epitome of everything men should be but aren’t any longer.
    This article is fantastic, and a great reminder of how the Golden Rule is supposed to work. It’s shocking how it’s been weaponized by the effeminate left to mean exactly the opposite of its intended purpose. But then, that’s kind of par for the course these days.
    Well done sir, slainte.

  4. I find that most people whose actions are in the wrong when confronted with a threat of physical violence immediately regress to the right course of action. They know what they did, but need to get called out on their shit.
    (50/50 with women, they don’t give a fuck because they know no one is going to touch them)

  5. Christ was crucified alongside two thieves. One thief cursed Jesus out. The other told him to shut up: “We deserve to be up here, but this man has done nothing.” Jesus told the repentant thief that that day he would be in paradise.
    A lot of Churchians think that, besides forgiving us our sins, Jesus should rescue us from the here-and-now consequences of our actions. It doesn’t work that way. If you murder a man, Christ will forgive you, but your victim will still be dead and his family still bereaved. If you’re unwilling to accept the consequences of your crime, then how repentant can you really be?

    1. This is where I think the Catholics are on the right path- the idea of temporal punishment for sin- even after being forgiven, they have to make reparation, whether through physical reparation (i.e., repayment for theft, volunteering labor as penance, etc) and expiation through other penance such as almsgiving, prayer and fasting.
      Not always easy to understand, but the idea of seeking forgiveness as a means to avoid consequences is about as un-Christian an act as I can think of.

      1. There’s also something to be said for their ritual of confession, where you ahve to go in and verbally state your sins(from behind a privacy screen).
        Having to go in and say “I looked at porn” out loud made me think about what I was doing, and was instrumental in helping me overcome that habit(which dramatically improved my game).

        1. I know that feel. If the priest is a good one, he’ll call you out if you confess the same sins every time. That helped me get serious about self-improvement.

  6. Funny how so many women raised on second wave feminism cannot stand the Golden Rule. I have actually seen women cringe when I mention that this is a value of mine. They retract from the idea that they will have to be held responsible for their actions. They are so used to getting away with whatever they want, always coming out as the oppressed victim.

  7. Excellent. I was raised in a catholic setting. From school to family and friends. It was not only until later that I realized what the golden rule meant, contrary to what I had been told throughout two decades of my existence. If I would never steal then I should never allow anyone to do so eithere and employ measures that ensure so.
    This whole society is pussified… weak men and cowards is the reason the wealth inequality is so big.

    1. That’s why every military college (including mine) has the phrase “nor tolerate those who do” at the end of their honor code.

      1. My acadmy didn’t have that at the end… The idea being that honor was something sacred between brothers that transcended laws and codes. In other words, if you held a friend accountable for being dishonorable under a code could just say you were following the rules; under our system men were supposed to hold eachother accountable by ther own volition.
        The idea is reminiscient of the Laws of Lycurgus that governed Sparta; never codified to ensure that they were adaptible and just to all situations.
        In a functioning society people follow laws becaus they know the difference between right and wrong, not fear of punishment.

        1. “In a functioning society people follow laws because they know the difference between right and wrong, not fear of punishment.” – Indeed. This is why I see Western countries devolving. Most people *do know the difference, but because the consequences of bad behavior have been removed they will do whatever suits their interest. If someone were to knowingly cheat you out money or fuck your wife in say, the 18th century, your response could be swift and painful. The law in these cases would normally show you leniency for your actions, as it would be clear that you were wronged. In the 20th and 21st century with the advance of mechanization and centralization of production it’s just the opposite. If you decide to take matters into your own hands the Govt will punish you like a red headed step child. If someone stole your money, wrecked your car and peed on your front lawn and you decided to take a bat to the motherfucker, you’d find yourself on the other side of the law in an instant. THAT is a problem. The Cathedral does not want strong confident men who have a ‘no bullshit’ approach to life. What they do want, are armies of obedient workers bees who take orders unquestionably and swallow their pride while sporting that fake “California Smile”. In other words – “Eat your shit and say thank you”
          or as mommy used to tell us “Play nice!”

    2. I agree. Weak-minded men only thinking of pussy and themselves are why this society is declining for all but the rich. Ever notice how the rich look out for one another? Yeah… think about it.

  8. Christianity has always been divided about this and phrases such as “the meek will inherit the earth”. At the present time many see Christianty as simply one more religion that has blighted the world with violence and intolerance (as in religion – undistiguished the one from another – is the cause of all strife in the world) while at the same there are those who see it as a ‘slave religion’ (nietzsche) and a form of self-deceptive consolation (marx or any latter day atheist / humanist). In practice this leads a church that is divided between die-hard scripturalists, who regard the scripture as a closed system and who tend to be aggressive and evangelical but stil have the capacity to bring people ‘to the fold’ and the weak liberalised churches who embody the ‘weak’ and I think false notion of the golden rule, and who personify ‘meekness’.
    In part the Kantian categorical imperative is responsible for the latter take: the idea that doing unto others what you would have done to yourself could be extended to something objective, rational and universal. There’s nothing wrong with this – the absence of hypocrisy, of double standards etc except the problem with the categorical imperative is that it has no necessary content, which should clearly not be the case with the golden rule, given its christian context
    still struggle though to understand what the golden rule means (nothing wrong with an absence of certainty if it makes you think). The assertive ‘calling-out’ evil & bullshit approach of the minister / author seems healthier, and less-craven, less slavish than the turning the other cheek that will allow other people to walk all over you (what happens to the self and as importantly self-respect) in this instance. However if there is value in the golden rule it has to be something other than ‘eye for an eye’ justice, that is it cannot operate without reference to the other person., It cannot be revenge, or simply getting even. If the minister is right that we should call out evil, wrong-doing, stupidity, when we see it, it follows (as I think he argues) that we must be prepared to have that evil, wrong-doing, stupidity called out when we ourselves are responsible.
    It is perhaps the failure to resolve this tension between the ‘turn the other cheek’ christianity (weak, liberal, and in decline) and the aggressive, warlike variety that spread the word of the latter (think the crusades) that has contributed to the decline of this once great religion. If Christianity is to survive it has to find a path between slave religion and holy berzerker

    1. But it’s not about revenge or eye for an eye. It is applying correction in the same manner that you’d wish it applied to yourself if you become some kind of deviant. No person would want to be tortured by somebody else or have their eye plopped out nor their hand cut off for stealing, however most decent and introspective people would want guidance out of their own bad acts so as to retain their decency if nothing else.
      Agree on the need for a median to apply, but that said the current version of Hippy Christ Christianity is so far to the left/enable sin side of the equation that an immediate hardening up, along the lines of what the preacher here suggests, is warranted. Deciding on where the media sits can be a work in progress as we start to correct some of the more glaring heresies.
      If the minister is right that we should call out evil, wrong-doing, stupidity, when we see it, it follows (as I think he argues) that we must be prepared to have that evil, wrong-doing, stupidity called out when we ourselves are responsible.
      Exactly. Following the Aristotelian idea of the Mean (upon which St. Thomas Aquinas based a lot of his ideas), one should thus temper the correction to achieve the best results with the least harm, but that doesn’t mean eliminate the correction as most take it these days.

      1. I don’t think what the author is saying has to do with ‘eye for eye’ justice, but when you take a robust and immediate approach to combatting bullshit / evil etc, then that’s something you need to distinguish from. The difference perhaps – and why the minister works in the job he does – is that the rule requires an orientation towards the other – whether neighbour, enemy or sinner. Having said that in a sense there is nothing saying it couldn’t be eye to eye, if that is how you would do ‘unto others’ and unto yourself.
        Clearly the golden rule is meant to distinguish from justice in the form of revenge / immediate balance etc, but it isn’t always clear why, except perhaps insofar as christianity has a sense in which justice belongs not to the aggrieved (I hesitate to say victim). There is a sense in which the golden rule requires some kind of trust that justice will happen – an act of faith if you like – something which has been criticized (and could be criticized within the concept of this article’s framework of thinking) as being otherworldly (as opposed to the kingdom of heaven is in the here and now).
        In a sense this is to make a distinction between justice (which may need to be deferred) and correction / right action (which can be modelled in the here and the now). To make that concrete when the minister takes to task the queue jumpers he ‘corrects’ their behaviour, but he does not seek justice

        1. Fantastic insights michaelmobius1, as always. I think what you’re looking for here is Justice tempered by Love in the true Biblical sense maybe? Not hippy dippy “love” where everything is accepted, but a correct and good dose of agape and mindful kindness? That would, at least as as postulate, tend to negate the drifting into “eye for an eye” territory. You could swat the hand of a boy trying to lay hands in a bad way on a virtuous girl, which is decent and good in a certain context, while being mindful of youth and understanding through your deep appreciation of Agape that one does not beat innocence and youth and gives it a chance to learn through other means (the hand slap and subsequent verbal correction). Could be wrong though, given human nature.
          With humans it’s always a task, since there is no shortage of bad men who will pervert any notions and virtues that are, to most people, clear, in order to achieve their own sadistic ends. Hence why medieval Christianity had such a huge supply of torturing sadists, flesh whippers and perverts despite all of those things going against the very tenants of Christ’s message in no uncertain way.
          Meh, people…can’t live with’em….can’t live with’em.
          I think I’m musing more aloud here than telling you something you haven’t already considered

        2. Thank you. Its good to hear the word Agape spoken of. Yes, an eye for an eye is not justice if love, agape is absent. To return a tennis ball from across the court is not justice or love; at best it is an equal and opposite reaction.
          “You could swat the hand of a boy trying to lay hands in a bad way on a virtuous girl”
          Definitely but perhaps in this day and age one should give him some credit for finding such a girl in the first place.
          Re. medieval (and later) perversions of christianity, it has a lot to live down, and as such must be taken to task for those failings. It will hopefully be the stronger for it.

  9. Great article. Atleast people are now interpreting the Bible correctly, after centuries of misinterpretation. Religion wise, only Christianity (and Islam) can save the world from the disease of feminism.

    1. Orthodox Judaism is very, very clear in that traditional gender roles are to be kept. I know an Orthodox Rabbi who runs a very traditional home. His wife stays home, cooks, and keeps the house. He makes the money, and his sons are educated in the ways of Judaism.

      1. Funny, I was thinking something similar the other day, sitting in my truck watching a bunch of Hasidic jews unload their cars and meet up in a park- they’re extremists, but the nuclear family is still the social unit, and seemed rock solid to casual inspection.

  10. I couldn’t agree with this more! This is the golden rule as I have always been taught it and teach it to my children: treat other as you expect to be treated, not be a big pussy towards everyone. If I stole a car from my neighbor, I would expect them to beat my ass if they caught me.

    1. Yes, except if they beat your ass and you press charges, they’d be screwed. Royally.

  11. I agree with you on your interpretation of the Golden Rule. But, I really have a problem with this line — “Evangelism is not my calling.” — What? I hate to break it to you but if you are a Christian, much less a minister, evangelism IS your calling.

    1. And from the word it originally is translated from, means to be an example to others in deed, not in word. The modern understanding of what an evangelist does is not only wrong, but fucking stupid.
      Don’t watch his lips. Watch his feet.

      1. His feet has him in a den of thieves and murderers trying to teach them the Word of Christ. Seems to be a pretty apt example of the deeds being fulfilled.

        1. Agreed. Not knocking this guy’s work at all. I’m just really puzzled how a minister can claim that it is not his calling to engage in evangelism.

        2. I have an answer: Ephesians 4:11
          “So Christ himself gave the apostles, the prophets, the evangelists, the pastors and teachers, to equip his people for works of service, so that the body of Christ may be built up.”
          The Christian faith seems to indicate that there are different functional positions.

        3. This is hard to understand without a historical account of what they were talking about. Being a priest or a pastor was often a hereditary position prior to the rule of St. Benedict in the early church. That tradition still applies to the Jews with their Kohen, the hereditary priest class. If I’m not mistaken, an evangelist was a non-itinerant preacher, not necessarily a cleric. Need someone with more knowledge to chime in here, though.

      2. I don’t understand your comment. The modern definition of “evangelize,” whether you think it is “fucking stupid” or not, is to preach the gospel and convert — which I assume is the meaning the author intended. Christians are commanded to do this by Jesus. If you are a Christian, your job is to “evangelize.” Period.
        This guy sounds like a social worker. That’s all well and good and also what Christians should be doing. But, claiming that it is not your calling to evangelize when you call yourself a minister shows a shocking lack of understanding of scripture.

    2. Your point is well taken. Unfortunately, like all fields which
      produce their own lexicon, I am guilty of speaking in the “lingo” of
      my own churches bureaucracy. In my local hierarchy “evangelist” is a particular
      title and denotes very specific duties. You are absolutely correct; All who
      serve evangelize (in the common usage) if by no other means than example. If I
      write again, I will make every attempt to leave occupation specific word usage
      out of my articles. Thank you for your observation.

  12. Great article MinisterOfWar is there any books or resources you would recommend for someone interested in looking into how modern Christianity became what it is today?

  13. American churches are desperately in need of some “old time religion” like what you’re laying down here. Preacher MEN with balls who will call out feministic BS that thoroughly permeates modern churches… No more of this “everybody is ok” malarky.
    I know the manosphere has plenty of folks who are critics of religion, but they really should consider that churches were the nucleus around which the patriarchy formed. Its not a perfect system, but there aren’t any viable alternatvies that I can see.

    1. Well, theoretically you can create a philosophy with all of its attendant axioms, morals, virtues, ethics and epistemology that could conceivably cover this requirement. The problem is that lacking charismatic leaders who can spread the philosophy in a way that the believers accept it and internalize it out of their own volition, you’re screwed. That applies to religions too I guess.
      Objectivism (whether you like it or hate it is irrelevant, I’m just making an example) embraces the soup to nuts tenants of a strong patriarchy for the most part, and had a rather charismatic leader, and it launched the now just learning to fight back effectively libertarian movement. Since society seems hell bent on being secular, it’s really the only hope for drugged up college kids and other “I’m too good to subordinate myself beneath a higher power” types. Can’t see many other philosophies that come close and have some level of charisma to them though, so yeah, religion really is the fast track for this kind of thing.

      1. Americans don’t know fear anymore, but they will before long, I think. Watch them run to the arms of God when life isn’t so easy anymore.
        Rationally, I lean towards atheism. But the pragmatic real politik side of me sees the importance of Christianity as a unifier.
        The beauty of Catholicism in particular as an instrument of social cohesion is that it is all things to all people: simple enough to be understood by the most ignorant and wretched, complex enough to preocuupy the most intelligent.

        1. It’s like an Onion. If you’re into that kind of thing I suggest going by a larger Cathedral(esp. Europeon ones) when it’s not mass time and examing the ornaments.
          You’ll find a ton of esoteric symbology, and if you know what it means you’ll realize that there’s a lot of scientific truth being described via religious allegory.

      2. The irony here is that the same people who don’t want to worship a “fictional zombie”, seem to have no problem subordinating themselves to and engaging in hero worship of secular leaders.

        1. Aye. The treat politicians/stars/the state as God, and their priests are called “scientists”. They don’t know from whence the knowledge is derived, they don’t look at the studies, they don’t question the outcomes, all they hear is “Science has shown that stepping on your own toes causes herpes” and bang, they’ve accepted as the delivered truth until the next priest announcement contradicts it.
          Plus ca change, plus c’est la meme chose.

  14. I hate religion, but I like this author, and I love what he wrote. Outstanding article.

  15. The golden rule is bullshit anyway. Most people seem to forget that most of what we deem acceptable or not is derived from Christian values and that these values were not always the same. For example, I’m sure the Vikings had a different take on the golden rule. We are living in the after glow of Christianity in the West. The fire died out in the 20th Century but the embers still provide us with some warmth. Once it dies out we will see if things get a whole lot worse.

    1. You think people should have the right to break into your house rape any females present then kill you with a machete ?
      That’s the implication of claiming ‘The golden rule is bullshit anyway’

    2. And why, precisely, is it bullshit? All major religions and belief systems have a version of it, so it’s not just a Christian thing. The Vikings had something similar, that applied to their own kind actually.

      1. The Golden Rule is a basis for any civilized society. Like you say all major religions have a version of it. It what enables people to collaborate in the first place so things can be invented and built. Without the Golden Rule society breaks down into a tribal system, where the golden rule only applies if you are member of a tribe or family and all the other humans outside the tribal village are seen as fair game.

      2. Well I’m playing devils advocate here. The golden rule is just a fancy way of saying “be nice”. Doesn’t it weaken society by preventing the will of the stronger man to succeed? How could there ever be a patriarchy again if we follow the golden rule? Unless you actively enjoy living under the thumb of feminists how else do men succeed without breaking the golden rule? To do so involves forcing your will as a man onto the women but you wouldn’t want that done to you. That’s how women get their way, by appealing to rules like this.

    3. The Golden Rule is simply – “Do unto others” or alternatively “Do not do unto others as you would not have done to yourself”
      Yes the Vikings did have a different take, nevertheless if you take the Golden Rule out of the equation you will end up with a tribal system and never ending clan warfare, sort of how the African Bushmen live in the savannah.

      1. That very kind of thing is what you can observe in action in the Highlands of Papua New Guinea.

  16. Thanks. For the longest time i thought it was wrong to call people out and instead be merciful to them, because it would build character. That and I believed in the karma system. I still believe in karma to a point.
    However, sitting back and playing defense in these circumstances is the same thing as internalizing stress. Frankly, i’m through with internalizing.
    This article re-affirms that what I’ve been doing for the past week is right. Calling people out on bad behavior. Unfortunately there are many who thrive on preying on the weak, especially if they’ve been trumped by the strong. They call this behavior DISPLACEMENT in psychology.
    Anyway, i’m going to enjoy this. It feels so much better taking it to people, than simply “turn the other cheek”

    1. What if “turn the other cheek” was not to display weakness, but the ability to take another hit fearlessly?
      “Hit me again, punk. Let me know when you’re tired.”
      Remember Christ’s words “no one taketh it (my life) away from me: but I lay it down of myself, and I have power to lay it down”

      1. I believe in balance. While there are times that it is the better option to take that hit fearlessly. I’ve done that a good portion of my life and have done my fair share of walking away from things.
        I prefer:
        “Is that all? Here, let me show you how it’s done.”

  17. Great article. Another statement that bothers me is when someone doing wrong claims, “If you were in my position, you would do the exact same thing!” The best answer to that, if you are calling him out or punishing him, is, “And you would be doing what I am doing, if you were in my position!”

  18. The kooky british author Karen Armstrong has a TED talk on the Golden Rule. Apparently all the major religions have a version of the Golden Rule

  19. Great article. Have a question for you kinda unrelated to topic, but I have to ask since you’re the manliest Christian I’ve ever read. What is your take on lust, and or prostitution, from a Christian perspective? Are you part of the quaker/puritanical crowd that is sexually oppressive, or are you more liberal about sexuality?
    Are you yourself a celibate? Married, single?

    1. The Puritans were not sexually oppressive. Dude, the Puritans had a very healthy view of sex in the confines of marriage, and in fact a woman could divorce her husband if he didn’t sex her up enough and vice versa, it was their law.

      1. Who cares you dumb nit? It was just a general idea to ask a question about his beliefs…

        1. You clearly missed the point of the article if you’re saying the guy shouldn’t be corrected when he’s wrong.

    2. I was a professional criminal for most of my young adult life. Drugs, sex and violence were pretty much my bread and butter. I’ve done some pretty freaky stuff and I’m not in a position to judge others about much of anything. I’m not trying to doge the question, but “liberal” and “repressed” are too subjective for me chime in on:)
      I am married. You would probably consider my home church to be something like Baptists. Hope that answers at least some of what you are asking.

  20. Manosphere is moving from strength to strength – 2 Reasons why ROK is moving right direction:
    1) This highlights the moral deficit within churchanity of twisting scripture and utilizing it for contrived means.
    2) Showcases he bible, but highlights pastoral positions of which shows they is still a vanguard of red pill understanding.
    Caption below: “Femen throws bottle of water over Belgian Archbishop”. (Don’t worry they will get their return soon enough – still Luke 23:34 ‘Father, forgive them for they do not know what they are doing’.

    1. also in San Fransisco a bunch of homosexuals went into a church and threw a bunch of condoms and caused a lot of trouble. the newscaster asked the pastor why he didn’t do anything. he stated “if a blind man stepped on my foot why would i scream at him?”

      1. San Francisco is out of control when it comes to gay pandering. The Folsom Street festival, public nudity and all is beyond contempt.

        1. my father has talked to doctors working San Fransisco. the stories they tell are well….. nasty…

        2. My bro was I San Fran maybe 10 years ago. Went to that “festival”. I like my sleaze but the pics he showed me were ridiculous. These people have absolutely no respect for themselves or anyone else. Crisco sells well that week supposedly……

  21. to those who don’t know “meekness” does not mean weakness in any of the sense. Meekness as defined by jockeys (who ride horses) when referring to horses as “all the strength and power under control.” and that’s the definition i would prefer to use over all others.

  22. I’m an atheist, and use the golden rule as the base of my morality. I
    don’t think it would have led me to humiliate and threaten a man in
    front of his family though, even if he was an idiot.

    1. I think if you had this guy’s background and saw the other man’s behavior you’d do similar.
      So much of the pathetic behavior we see these days is because no one has the courage or gumption to call them out, thereby enabling it.
      Its a lesson ive learned along the way.

      1. I do understand that, and thoughtless people do need to be told to reel it in a bit, but I don’t think anyone should do that in front of kids.

        1. I don’t know if this makes any difference with regard to your position, but understand that he was making it plain that my calling him out for being a line-jumper was going to result in his attacking me. I didn’t say “get to the back or I’ll hurt you” I just said “get to the back”. He immediately got in my face in a threatening manner. I was extremely calm and spoke only loud enough for him to hear. If he is willing to come to blows over a few feet of line space, I won’t crawl away because he has chosen violence. He will have to live with the consequences of his actions. Thank you for your comments.

      2. Do you think the fact that the people don’t fear consequences any longer, as in the whole there aren’t any, has an influence on this behaviour? Murder? Life means 10 years with good behaviour. Burglary? Be out in 6 months, if even. Hell? WTF?

  23. Maybe one of my favourite articles.
    Christian values have been twisted around to accept this form of liberalism. It is truly poisonous and holds back the majority of the male population from actually become the men that they were rightly meant to be. Excepting poor behaviour from others is not only detrimental to yourself, but to themselves as well. Now throughout all sections of society, people just stay in this adolescent way of thinking, there hasn’t been any challenge in their life.

  24. One of the big problems Ministerofwar is that I believe most Christians have lost knowledge as to what forgiveness means. Most people have made it equivalent to mercy but the bible does not teach that. To conflate forgiveness with mercy is a modern day fiction.
    If you look at the time that King David banged Bathsheba and Nathan the prophet called him out on it. David responded “I have sinned!” after which Nathan told him that God had forgiven him. However everything that Nathan told him would happen in the curse did in fact happen.
    Given today’s current understanding of the term forgiveness one would have to question as to whether God had in fact forgiven King David. Alternatively I believe we have the wrong understanding of the term “forgiveness” and need to understand that it does not necessarily mean mercy but could in fact also mean “correction”.

  25. Great article. Another nice perspective full of “red pill” truths and from a man who’s paid some dues and I’m sure has seen some serious shit.
    He’s right about so much. It seems that it is now the norm that people simply ignore and otherwise enable outrageous behavior by others.
    I now regret all the times in life I stood silent and didn’t make people face the consequences of harassing, disrespecting, or otherwise mistreating someone including myself. As my self-worth & confidence has increased thanks to the manosphere & working out, I’m well prepared to do exactly that.
    Big difference between being a white knight and calling someone out on their bullshit.
    Lots more men need to do it.

  26. Great article, much thanks. Too many neo-reactionaries blame Christianity for feminizing the West and contributing to it’s decline. Contemporary Christianity has strayed from the Truth. Christ was certainly not effeminate or weak.

  27. Alot of the bullshit pacifism that the effeminate western church preaches is based on a misinterpretation of the turning the other cheek.

    1. Not this christian.. Let someone shove me, were gonna be brawlin like Hawk and Mr Cutler thugs from Over the top!

Comments are closed.