The Importance Of Patriarchal Religion To Marriage And Childrearing

I live in America, and I am happily married, with kids. I do not write this because I am more manly, or intelligent, or successful than you; I am not. I write this to share the main key to my success: patriarchal, traditional religion.

I am writing from my own religious convictions, which I believe are true. You are free to disagree, but you may still find value here. I have read the writings of other religions, and consider them “True Myths,” useful for their wisdom, even though I may disagree with their theology. Neomasculinity itself is a philosophy that can be accepted by people of different religions, or no religion.

Modern Religion

I'll find another church, thanks

I’ll find another church, thanks

Modern religion is a feminized wasteland. God exists to impose obligations on men, and excuses women’s evil acts. Faith is blind, irrational, and collectivist.

Men hate modern religion, which is why most churches in the West are demographically imbalanced toward women. Men are bored to death with touchy-feely sermons, endless committee meetings, female gossip, and the losers sitting in the pews around them. This is not how it should be.

Patriarchal Religion

I'm proud that the founder of my religion can bench more than me.

That’s more like it.

Patriarchal religion is interesting to men. It teaches that God is a man, creator of rationality, slayer of evil men, protector of the innocent:

Praise be to the Lord my Rock, who trains my hands for war, my fingers for battle. (Psalm 144:1)

In male-led churches, women are taught to be respectful to their fathers, husbands, and legitimate authority. They understand that their role is to raise and care for children, and support their husband’s mission:

Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. (Ephesians 5:22)

In patriarchal religion, female sins, like rebellion, envy, dishonesty, hypergamy, dressing and acting like a whore, and “hamstering” or rationalizing sin are condemned:

When the woman saw that the fruit of the tree was good for food and pleasing to the eye, and also desirable for gaining wisdom, she took some and ate it. (Genesis 3:6)

I also want the women to dress modestly, with decency and propriety, adorning themselves, not with elaborate hairstyles or gold or pearls or expensive clothes, but with good deeds, appropriate for women who profess to worship God. (1 Timothy 2:9-10)

And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner. (1 Timothy 2:14)”

This is the way of an adulterous woman: She eats and wipes her mouth and says, ‘I’ve done nothing wrong.’ (Proverbs 30:20)

Finding A Virtuous Woman

This is the unicorn I married.

This is the unicorn I married.

All women are tempted towards sins like envy, but not all women act on their impulses. In spite of what many observe in the West, I have met many virtuous women: few sexual partners before marriage, respectful, submissive to their husbands, physically fit, feminine, good mothers. Most are in the older generations, especially before the Boomers. Most are involved in traditional religion. There are fewer younger women who are virtuous, and every single one that I have met is involved in traditional religion. They tend to be more rural, from small churches.

Traditional religion can be extremely helpful to finding and vetting women. It provides a community with certain values that you want in a woman, and it provides reliable references for a person’s character. A woman who spent her younger years “out in the world” and came back at 29 be a “born-again-virgin” is a red flag, but a woman in her early 20s who teaches Sunday School and helps with the potluck dinners is far more likely to be wife material. The older women in the church will usually let you know if a woman is a whore.

Patriarchal Religion Helps Control Women’s Sinful Tendencies

With proper training, woman can be virtuous.

With proper training, woman can be virtuous.

Traditional religion acts as a curb (but not a cure) for women’s immoral, rebellious, destructive behavior. My wife goes to a women’s bible study group, where she often receives instruction from older religious women. This includes things like telling her to be submissive to me, lose weight and be healthy, not waste money, have cheerful sex on a regular basis, and to learn how to get some control over her emotions:

Teach the older women to be reverent in the way they live, not to be slanderers or addicted to much wine, but to teach what is good. Then they can urge the younger women to love their husbands and children, to be self-controlled and pure, to be busy at home, to be kind, and to be subject to their husbands. (Titus 2:3)

One of my wife’s friends once corrected her attitude toward sex, saying: “you need to view your body as a sheath for your husband’s sword.” She now routinely thanks me after we have sex. I am not a natural alpha, but I have little fear that my wife is going to suddenly cut off sex if I have a minor slip up.

Band Of Brothers

We've got your back, bro! Deus Vult!

We’ve got your back, bro! Deus Vult!

With this great power comes great responsibility. As a patriarch, I am commanded to lead my family, instructing my wife and kids on how to act properly, with genuine love for their well-being. I must be on top of my game, be physically fit, and think rationally when my wife is irrational. I attend a men’s Bible study, where we talk about leading as men. Every man in my group owns a gun, and we often go shooting together.

We encourage, support, teach, and correct each other. I have had sharp, intense, discussions with my pastor and men in my church about my own character and life decisions. Things are handled like men, discussed in the open, with real-talk (not rhetorical bullshit), and masculine love and concern for each other. This has aided me in thinking deeply about my life, and correcting bad decisions I have made.

Awhile back we helped another man who was on the verge of divorce. He was working 100 hours a week because he would not stand up to his employer, and had no energy to lead his family. We told him that the marriage counseling he was getting was bullshit (“talk about your feelings more!”), and that his slavish attitude toward his employer was making his wife lose respect for him. The women in our church also talked to his wife about choosing to be respectful and submissive, in spite of her rebellious emotions.

He cut back hours at work, which enabled him able to be captain of his ship again. This, along with training his wife received, helped her become more respectful. Now, his wife is less of a bitch, and they have sex several times a week. I doubt this would have happened without patriarchal religion.

Children

I've succeeded as a father!

I’ve succeeded as a father!

We see that our culture is toxic, feminized, and immoral. Men need a place to raise children apart from these toxins, and church is a great place to do this. My kids go to Sunday School classes where they are taught to be respectful to me, my wife, and legitimate adult authorities. We have several families with well-disciplined children that we can trust won’t corrupt our kids. My wife often takes the kids for play-dates so she can socialize with wholesome women, which is a great alternative to sitting around on social media all day.

Conclusion

Patriarchal, traditional religion will not change female nature, but it can help restrain it. This is how past generations maintained civilization. I can confidently say that traditional religion is the main reason I can maintain a happy marriage in this cesspool of a culture. Those who are not religious might consider other institutions that may provide similar support for their marriage and child-raising.

Read More: This Accidental Experiment Shows The Superiority Of Patriarchy

403 thoughts on “The Importance Of Patriarchal Religion To Marriage And Childrearing”

  1. off topic (haven’t read the article yet but it looks good) but it seems Podesta and therefore Clinton have been linked through the email release to ‘spirit cooking’ dinner parties – occult events that involve more blood and cum than paprika and artichokes. Things are getting wierd

    1. Just your run of the mill Eyes Wide Shut- type party. No biggie. All those conspiracy types just might get the medal of honor (fashioned out of tin foil,of course).

      1. Smaller scale perhaps but seemingly real. I’m not sure whether the Clintons hang out with podesta but its a clique so not unlikely

  2. Brutus,
    Thank you for writing this. My wife and I just had our first child and moved to a new area so we are looking for a church to join and would ideally like to find something very similar to what you described your article.
    If the author reads the comments I’d be very interested to know what denomination you belong to

    1. I don’t want to out myself by being too specific.
      Orthodox and Catholic tend toward being more traditional and patriarchal. Protestant churches in the country also tend to be this way.

  3. I have heard good things about the Taliban. They have a wonderful patriarchal society in good old Afghanistan. The women know their place and their sinful tendencies are controlled. Meanwhile, there are no such restrictions on men. Truly the envy of the world.
    – Allahu Snackbar!

    1. You have a couple of patriarchal societies which are primitive. And then you have all matriarchal societies which are primitive.

        1. At least Afghanistan was headed in the right direction before being blown to hell by Communists and Jihadis.
          Meanwhile, each and every matriarchal culture, is primitive and unable to progress past the stone age.

    2. Meanwhile you ignore ancient china, Ancient India, Ancient Sumeria, Mesopotania, Ancient Israel, Ancient Rome,Ancient Greece and many more

  4. This was an excellent article. I am not a family man and I am not a religious man, but I believe the author’s conviction that the two are necessarily connected…one without the other is impossible — faith in a traditional masculine god without a wife and child is empty just as a wife and child without faith in a traditional masculine god is impossible.
    That said, the author quotes the letter to the Ephesians and rightly so! It is, in all religions, what I believe to be the single most important “advice” (if you will allow the word advice) regarding marriage. I only wish he had quoted more if it. In Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians Paul tells them, as the author here points out, “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord” 5:22 but he goes on to say “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the savior of the body” 5:23
    This is amazing. It sets up the perfect patriarchal religious family heirarchy. The man obeys Christ as Christ is the Lord of the Man and the family obeys the man as the man is the Lord of the family.
    How absolute is this command? Well, keep reading. Paul goes on to say “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in everything” 5:24 and THAT is the relationship. What Christ is to the church so is the Man to his family. That takes being the king of your own castle to the next level no?
    Now this is all well and good…in fact it is excellent. However, it is not complete. If the story ends here it just sets the stage for men to be total fucking asshole dictators. There needs to be more and Paul goes on….because, as we know, with great power comes great responsibility….Paul then commands the men what to do when he says “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church and gave himself for it; that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the world, tht he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having a spot or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it shuld be holy and without blemish. So ought men love their wives as their own bodies.” 5:29 and that is the crux. If you are going to have a successful family your wife must look to you as the church looks to Christ but at the same time you must look to your wife as Christ looked to the church.
    I believe that this is the reason I have never got married or had children. I can rule over a woman, sure. Most men can do that so long as they aren’t cucked out faggots. But can I sacrifice everything, my time, my will, my life, my blood to that woman to create the symbiotic relationship? No. Of all the bullshit I do in my life I think it is possible that never getting married and never having kids was truly the most selfless act in my life. It is something that I honestly can feel proud of.
    I feel like a lot of guys get married with the idea of being the lord of their wives but neglect the idea of the responsibility of martyring oneself to that wife for the privilege. Don’t get me wrong, I don’t mean being a beta simp, but making your life about your wife and your children rather than about you. Christ specifically asked that the cup be passed from him but understood the importance of sacrifice. He died for your sins not his own and as such you must die (your ego at least) for your wife even if you don’t really want to
    This said, back to the start. I do feel that there is a symbiotic relationship between the faith in god and your religion and having a wife and children. Neither are possible without the other….the family is not possible without the man as the man is not possible without the family in this case no different than the church is not possible without Christ and Christ impossible without his church. The thing is that there is a sacrifice on both sides. The woman must sacrifice her will in making her man her god just as the man must sacrifice his life (as Christ did for the church) to bind the family and make them whole in his blood
    These are traits that I simply don’t have but I would suggest to all men that before getting married and having children they seriously think about whether the woman they have chosen will submit their will to them as a god AND whether as a god they are willing to be martyred for that woman.

    1. “can I sacrifice everything, my time, my will, my life, my blood to that woman to create the symbiotic relationship?”
      THIS!!! (which you reformulate later, and resume in the last paragraph)
      The great question of my life these years. How easy it would be to ignore it and do it just as others do, thoughtlessly. How easy it would be to make it all wrong from the beginning, and at the same time, pose an attitude and status for general convenience. But, according to perfectionism and (let’s say it) basic decency, this question must be answered beforehand.

      1. Agreed. The truth is that I show far too many sociopathic traits to ever do this and because of it I have stayed single. Some people will look at me knocking down, sometimes, 2 or 3 or more lays a week, week after week, year after year decade after decade like I am just a selfish, hedonistic asshole. Maybe I am. But the truth is that I understand who I am and I understand what marriage is and the awesome responsibility involved and realize that I would totally fuck it up, totally be miserable and more likely than not ruin a few kids. My hedonism and assholishness is my good deed

        1. You’re preaching to the choir, my friend. Mix that with a strong (inevitable) cynicism that infected me after years of contact with people’s most private weaknesses and disloyalties and you’ll be in my shoes.

        2. Right there brother. However, there is a story I have always liked. It is a parable told in Dostoyevsky’s Brothers Karamozov. It is about an evil old woman. She is mean to everyone. Wicked even. A cruel old bag. However, one day a beggar comes by and she gives the beggar an onion. When she dies Saint Peter holds her aloft over the pit of hell by nothing other than an onion. He is pulling her into heaven when the denizens of hell start grabbing onto her ankles. Peter is, essentially, pulling all of the damned out of hell by only an onion but the wicked old lady tries to kick the damned off of her and that is when the onion breaks.
          The moral I take from the story is that you can be saved by a single good deed so long as you aren’t a dick about it. My onion? I didn’t selfishly fuck up any children on my way through life womanizing and taking advantage of various situations.

        3. “My onion? I didn’t selfishly fuck up any children on my way through life womanizing and taking advantage of various situations.”
          As I see it, that is a huge (YUUUUGE) watermelon, which I hope to duplicate.

        4. Also, I prefer “virtuous pagan” to “man whore” 🙂 I think that first ring of hell will be fun

        5. Mit dat acc-shent, he shoundzh liiike he shoould be in an Aush-tin Powerzh Mooo-fee!
          Christ, the just in the first 20 seconds, I was dying!

        6. You should learn to do one of the things that mystifies you. You would be amazed how even the way you walk changes when you become your own hero

        7. Well there’s learning, and there’s Mastery. I should have said mastery of these two
          things mystifies me. I take a run at the
          ol’ ivories now and again but I just won’t commit the required hours to truly
          master it. I used to be a marginal
          trumpet-blower so you can understand that it’s the left hand that needs the
          most work.
          As far as languages, I firmly believe my old brain won’t
          have it – like athletics, you really need to do it when you’re young. In some cases it can really be “Too Late”. Despite this, I took a modest shot a Russian
          a few years back, but again, wouldn’t commit.
          You’re absolutely correct though – there are few better
          highs than rising to a gauntlet thrown down by yourself. I do try to learn new things from time to time,
          and even hammer down on the thousands of things I’ve started and abandoned over
          the years.

    2. This was an awesome comment!
      “But can I sacrifice everything, my time, my will, my life, my blood to that woman to create the symbiotic relationship?”
      As I move closer and closer to marriage this sacrifice gets more real. Sometimes I feel like Christ in the Garden, overwhelmed by the responsibilities and amount of sacrifices I will make.
      Thank God, I have His help!
      “Come to Me, all you who are weary and burdened, and I will give you rest.”
      Matthew 11:28

      1. Thank you. I am not a man of faith at all….but that doesn’t mean I do not understand it’s value.

      2. Do not frame it as a sacrifice! If she’s the right one, you won’t lose anything of significance, and what you gain will be Real.
        ‘course if I’m wrong, you’re fukked.

      3. You’re are not only doing the right thing, you’re doing what will make you truly happy. Yes, you will sacrifice many things, but all those things you sacrifice are vain distractions that block you from enjoying the serenity and true happiness that only family can bring. Don’t get me wrong, I spent 10 years of my life as a nomad travelling the world. For most of my life I thought marriage wasn’t for me. I was an atheist and my politics leaned towards free-market anarchism. But at 35 I did meet a woman I felt I wanted “sacrfice to”. We married at 40 and had a daughter at 41. I don’t regret anything but at times, when I look back and reflect upon my life, I do feel there’s a lot to the “youth is wasted on the young” thing. If I cold turn back the clock I would definitely would have stopped playing around at, say, 28, and would have started having kids at 32 max.

    3. Well written and closely reasoned, Mr. Knee. I can tell you’ve given this a lot of thought, and it shows a keen self-awareness to accept that it’s not for you based on fact and not fear or greed.
      My one disagreement is the perception of sacrifice of one’s
      life to the marriage. I know that notion is ingrained in our attitudes towards marriage, as in “giving up your life, giving up your freedom, losing everything” to get married. If you go into a marriage believing that you are giving up your life for someone else’s you WILL be miserable and you will resent the woman and likely the offspring.
      The things you actually give up, like total autonomy, sport-fukking, spontaneous hedonism are just things, activities.
      A successful marriage requires that both parties remain intact, in fact grow stronger as individuals and a family as you move forward. You don’t give up your life for another, rather you align your lives together.
      The most apt analogy I can cough up is a three-legged race: You’re still two people, but the work is guiding two distinct individuals in a harmonious direction.
      I swear I’m going to fuk up my job because of this site!!!

        1. Easily the most cordial followup to the best comment written by one of the most regular and dependable contributors to one of the absolute best sites on the internet.

        2. That was the best compliment to the best comment written by one of the most regular and dependable contributors to on of the absolute best sites on the internet.

    4. Frankly, if it wouldn’t be right before my eyes I wouldn’t believe a character setup such as yours could exist.
      Your existence and your words are very enlightening to me.
      Excellent job.

    5. “I do feel that there is a symbiotic relationship between the faith in god and your religion and having a wife and children. Neither are possible without the other….the family is not possible without the man as the man is not possible without the family in this case no different than the church is not possible without Christ and Christ impossible without his church”
      Very interesting comment, but Christ didn’t have a wife, unless you’re of the Dan Brown / Holy Blood & the Holy Grail variety?
      “I would suggest to all men that before getting married and having children they seriously think about whether the woman they have chosen will submit their will to them as a god AND whether as a god they are willing to be martyred for that woman.”
      I understand the argument you’ve made, but men are not Gods, or as Gods to their women. I think this mistaken. You describe a relationship based on authority very persuasively, but it is one that would surely set an impossible standard, while at the same time putting most men off marriage (for good or evil)
      Brilliant comment nonetheless

      1. Christ didn’t have a wife. Christ had the church. That is the relationship set up. Your relationship to your wife is the same as Christ’s relationship to the church.
        Men are set above women to be to them as god is set above man. As for impossible standards, “be perfect as my father in heaven is perfect” the standard is supposed to be impossible. That is why there is infinite compassion and forgiveness.
        It is all right there in the letter to the Ephesians. Don’t blame me, blame the Apostle. Those are his words, not mine.
        For Christ to lead the church he had to sacrifice his life and for man to lead a woman he must sacrifice his ego. In turn the church is submissive in all ways to Christ as the woman is submissive in all ways to her husband. That is the deal. It is the literal (hitler) definition of Christian marriage as set forth by The Apostle

        1. Paul compared one relationship – that of Christ to the Church with that of man and wife. He is making an analogy not saying those two relationship are the same thing.
          More to the point though you go further than Paul does. You write:
          “I would suggest to all men that before getting married and having children they seriously think about whether the woman they have chosen will submit their will to them as a god AND whether as a god they are willing to be martyred for that woman.”
          I’m not sure there is anything Christian about that, even if it is riffing on what Paul says. Why should any woman submit to a man ‘as a god’ if a man is not a god? Making a comparison between (the son of) God and a holy institution (the church) and then transposing it in analogy to the relationship between a man and his wife is a comment on the nature of hierarchy in christian marriage. The wife submits to her husband as the church submits to Christ. She does not submit to him as one submits to a God. In Christianity all humans are fallen, imperfect and sinful and men are not Gods in relation to their womenfolk. It’s the phrasing of that last paragraph that is misleading

        2. Your answer is understandable but, I believe, ultimately incorrect. I am out fornicating with wonton harlots but promise i will respond to you in the morning. we have chatted long enough that I respect what you have said despite disagreeing with it. But I’ve enjoyed the response and look forward to answering. I would do it now but these whores aren’t just going to fuck themselves 😉

        3. Bet this is the night you get drunk, fall in love and fly to Vegas to get married to once of those harlots, sacrificing your modest ego in the process. The good Saint’s words still ringing in your head.

        4. ”Paul compared one relationship – that of Christ to the Church with that
          of man and wife. He is making an analogy not saying those two
          relationship are the same thing.”
          When man and woman play their roles in the relationship. The man representing God and woman representing the church they image their creator as they should.
          This emphasis is to solidify the hierarchy that glorifies the one who made male and female. And to show how God is to everyone.
          This analogy is the ideal. Whilst of course the wife is not to regard their husbands the same as God. But he is God’s representative.

        5. Not just “gods representitive” but literally “made in the image God”
          Yes, this is correct. Once I have some coffee I’ll elaborate

        6. Mostly agree. I disagree that the hierarchy should be ‘solidified’. I think a lot of misery can result from people trying to force the role-playing aspect of this. As you say we are dealing with Paul sees as an ideal, or a way of seeing human marital relations vis a vis the relationship of Christ to to the church. Why would you try to solidify something that ultimately cannot be more than a form of imitation (a word that in the history of christianity is in no sense pejorative as in imitatio christi). I also disagree that a husband is God’s representative. Again this is setting the husband and therefore the relationship up to fail. The idea is that he is better placed than his wife by virtue of his biology and the role he has been (hopefully) prepared to take up to lead his family in the imitation of what is Christian and Godly. I’m aware the pope is likewise – representative, vicar-general etc., I just think the words employed need to be carefully considered. Not all men are natural leaders. Some women have bigger personalities than their menfolk / husbands. In such situations, any attempt to negotiate an ideal, must be carefully calibrated. Even the word submit has entirely different connotations today than it did 200 or 2000 years ago. We associate submission with Islam. Modern conservative women may be prepared to accept male leadership insofar as it can demonstrate itself to be more superior to and more adaptive than female leadership but words like ‘submission’ are going to have to be very carefully considered if there is any sense in which such a submission might seem to be forced / involuntary.

        7. As promised:
          So Mobius, I will give the following disclaimers. My background is catholic so despite trying to be neutral about things there is always a bit of the RCC stuck in the back of my head. Also, as you know, I am neither a family man nor a husband so I cannot pretend to be an expert on either of those things. What I can do is read….and I can read well, very well.
          Let me start with St. Augustine as he has been on my mind a lot lately. Saint Augustine points out that man is made in the image of god. But what exactly does that mean. We are not god but an image of god the way a photo of you is not you but rather an image of you. Augustine takes it on faith that god is a trinity. That three things (F, S, HS) have come together to be a single thing (God). Given this he looks at man for a trinity. Because if god is a trinity and man is made in the image of god than man must be the image of a trinity. In this he sees mans necessary acceptance of temporality — past present and future coming together to make time. There is no ability to understand anything outside of the basic concept of time. For Augustine our souls are temporal….and temporality is 3 things that are as one….and that is the image of god that man is.
          Why do I mention all this nonsense about time? Well, you say “Paul compared one relationship – that of Christ to the Church with that of man and wife. He is making an analogy not saying those two relationship are the same thing.”
          It is here that I believe you are incorrect. Paul compared one relationship — that of Christ to the Church — to another –that of a man to his wife. Yes. And of course he doesn’t say they are the same. But like man is the image of God so is the relationship between husband and wife the image of Christ to the Church, just the way the trinity that is God is reflected in its image, the trinity of time.
          With this in mind look at Paul’s epistle to the Ephesians:
          He says: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. or the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;” Ephesians 5:22-25
          I believe our misunderstanding comes from you thinking that I suggest that Paul is saying that women should see men as God. Of course that would be incorrect. But Paul is very clearly stating that the image of the relationship of God to the Church is to be reflected in the image of the relationship of man to wife. A wife needs to submit in all ways to a husband the way the church submits in all ways to Christ while the man must sacrifice himself for his wife in the same way that Christ sacrifices himself for the church.
          Going back to the beginning…I quite obviously don’t live this life. I am fine with that. However, I think that Paul is giving very good marital advice. All that said, I think it is impossible to read what Paul said to the Ephesians and think anything different. A woman must obey her man as the church must obey christ. No, the husband is not god. But the relationship of man and wife, for the Apostle, must reflect the relationship between Christ and the church.

        8. Thanks for the response. Re. your disclaimer: “my background is catholic… .” I must say I did not think your background was catholic but I guess as Ludwig once said ‘whereof one cannot speak, one must passover in silence.” ….
          Selective misquoting aside, your comment is a very interesting one, certainly in keeping with the style of the church fathers, but I am not sure how you can get from what amounts to something akin to an argument ‘from design’ to Paul ‘giving very good marital advice’. In this age as opposed to the time when Paul was writing perhaps, there arises the question of how we should understand such explications of analogical relationships as one finds in the letter to the Ephesians. Is Paul saying that the relationship of Christ to the Church is an identical relationship to that of husband to wife, or one which can simply be likened to the other. You have already conceded that ‘of course he doesn’t say they are the same’ yet that is not the sense I get from your exposition, which is almost scholastic in its obscurity.
          I think we must also consider what should be understood by the idea of being in the ‘image’ of God. Today we have perhaps a greater awareness of how language works and are less likely to get caught into thinking that words necessarily refer to outside or to ‘something in the mind of God’ etc., that a comparison between one thing and another, or one relationship and another, is necessarily any more than an effort to understand a relationship in our minds. That is not a comment on the nature of the hypostasis / hypostases of the Godhead/ trinity etc but just about how we go about considering such questions, including in relation to ourselves, and the institutions we exist within.
          When we make a comparison today, we understand that we are merely straining to understand something in a better way rather than a worse. Even Paul might understand his own words in this way, as merely an exhortation to live within marriage in a way that models itself upon a superior relationship, within a hierarchy of relationships. Problems arise only when such good marital advice is taken as a hard and fast prescription that would bind the behaviour of men and women who might otherwise act differently based purely on the idea that the image (of the godly) in question can be more than something dimly perceived. Moreover what you refer to as a misunderstanding does reflect your own words, which appear to exceed the extremity of Paul’s own words. To remind you once more you said “I would suggest to all men that before getting married and having children they seriously think about whether the woman they have chosen will submit their will to them as a god AND whether as a god they are willing to be martyred for that woman.” This takes an idea – one which we know you do not even believe in except as helpful advice – and introduces an almost foreign element of subservience to the husband “as though he were a God”. I would say to describe a relationship between men and women / husband and wife, that would probably be more helpfully described in terms of ‘leadership’ based on natural strengths and complementarity, in such a way is potentially to undermine the actual prospects of marital harmony. As I pointed out the word submission is particularly anathema to the modern mind, except in various types of role-playing scenarios, such as S&M, and through an unnecessary amplification introduces an apparent element of coerciveness to what otherwise might simply be understood as a helpful way of seeing things based on some early meditations on fundamental theological ideas.
          When you say that just as ” man is the image of God so is the relationship between husband and wife the image of Christ to the Church, just the way the trinity that is God is reflected in its image, the trinity of time” you make an interesting case, but what does it mean for a non-believer to make that case, particularly in such an exaggeratedly scholastic fashion?

        9. ”but words like ‘submission’ are going to have to be very carefully considered if there is any sense in which such a submission might seem to be forced / involuntary.”
          If something is voluntary then its no command at all. Morality isn’t voluntary.
          ”I also disagree that a husband is God’s representative. ”
          1 Corinthians 11:2-11
          2Now I commend you for remembering me in everything and for maintaining the traditions, just as I passed them on to you. 3But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, and the head of the woman is man, and the head of Christ is God.
          4Every man who prays or prophesies with his head covered dishonors his head. 5And every woman who prays or prophesies with her head uncovered dishonors her head, for it is just as if her head were shaved. 6If a woman does not cover her head, let her hair be cut off. And if it is shameful for a woman to have her hair cut or shaved off, she should cover her head.
          7A man ought not to cover his head, since he is the image and glory of God; but the woman is the glory of man. 8For man did not come from woman, but woman from man. 9Neither was man created for woman, but woman for man. 10For this reason a woman ought to have a sign of authority on her head, because of the angels.
          11In the Lord, however, woman is not independent of man, nor is man independent of woman. 12For just as woman came from man, so also man is born of woman. But everything comes from God.

        10. ”Modern conservative women may be prepared to accept male leadership insofar as it can demonstrate itself to be more superior to and more adaptive than female leadership but words like ‘submission’ are going to have to be very carefully considered if there is any sense in which such a submission might seem to be forced / involuntary.”
          Also 1 Peter 3:1-6
          ” Likewise, wives, be subject to your own husbands, so that even if some do not obey the word, they may be won without a word by the conduct of their wives, 2 when they see your respectful and pure conduct. 3 Do not let your adorning be external—the braiding of hair and the putting on of gold jewelry, or the clothing you wear— 4 but let your adorning be the hidden person of the heart with the imperishable beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which in God’s sight is very precious. 5 For this is how the holy women who hoped in God used to adorn themselves, by submitting to their own husbands, 6 as Sarah obeyed Abraham, calling him lord. And you are her children, if you do good and do not fear anything that is frightening.”
          The NIV modifies that to “not believe the word” to enable rebellion in Christian households but the correct translation is “obey the word”,

        11. i’d say the passage is primarily about actions and lifestyle being most persuasive. A lot of it is about how words are ‘constructed’ in the modern mind. Why focus on words such as ‘obey’, ‘submit’ (even if they are biblical) if the same or better could be achieved by say ‘respect’, or ‘respect the leadership’ of ones husband. Most women are absolutely happy to let their men lead when there are no outside influences suggesting they wear the trousers.

        12. “If something is voluntary then its no command at all. Morality isn’t voluntary.”
          We’re going to have disagree. If something isn’t freely chosen it doesn’t have any moral value in my book. There is no real virtue in blindly following a set of rules that you are incapable of evaluating on the basis of your understanding of their merit. That goes for both men and women

        13. Mobiles: I would like to give you a thoughtful and considerate answer here but first i need to ask: Do you honestly believe that my lack of faith makes my reading of Paul’s letter invalid? I get that from your response and, if that is the case I really don’t think I can respond to you on this topic any more.
          Also, I don’t know why you say I’ve selectively misquoted. I used the full quote in context as translated in the KSV. Would you like to use a different translation for the discussion? I would be happy to. I can actually read it in the original greek and use the quotes there. Would you like to continue is classic greek?

        14. I would love to continue in classical greek….but as you probably suspect I would have to learn it first. Unlike you I’m not a scholar, although I try not to be careless in arguing. The issue for me isn’t really a scholarly one. I would expect you to best me on scholarship because that is your forte, but you also spoke about the non-scholarly aspect of st pauls words, namely their value as very good advice. Unlike some I don’t regard Paul’s words as infallible: they must be judged on their own merits. So while I certainly am interested in Paul’s meaning, I’m more interested in the utility of his words in relation to the situation we now find ourselves in. Regarding your question as to whether your lack of faith invalidates your reading of St Paul, I think you know I don’t think that. But it does raise the question as to how you can lack faith yet find not only validity in the kind of instructive analogies Paul is making (vis a vis christ/the church & husband / wife) but come to such an extreme interpretation of a husbands and wifes duty. That’s what interests me. How do you find yourself believing in the pragmatic validity of that analogy for modern relationships if you don’t believe in christ / the church in the first place. For myself I don’t get too hung up on such things. I have more faith than you presumably, but lacking a fundamentalist approach to scripture, I could not see myself arriving at the kind of conclusions you draw.
          For one thing, if you really do find Paul’s words to be solid advice how would you go about persuading a prospective wife (yes I know it wouldn’t happen…but if it did) that she should submit to you and treat you as if you in the way you suggest – as if in relation to God or however you phrased it

        15. All of this is fair and pretty much what i expected. I am glad I wasn’t let down.
          Our theoretical issue is here:
          ” Unlike some I don’t regard Paul’s words as infallible: ”
          While Paul is infallible, the epistle to the Ephesians has been canonized. This is why I gave the catholic disclaimer. I honestly don’t understand how this stuff works in protestant denominations. To the RCC Paul’s letters which are included in the bible are to be taken as deified.
          So there are a few issues.
          Is this what paul is saying? And is paul correct? And finally: Does Paul’s advice ring true to modern man. All of this is totally valid. As for the first question, I honestly do not know how else one might read Paul’s letter than the way I have read it. I am open to listen, but he seems pretty clear.
          As for the others, you have the best of me. I don’t know. I am a big believer in the idea that men need to chose their own paths. marriage and children is a wonderful path but not for everyone. Not for me, for instance. However, I do believe that recapitulating the relationship between christ and the church in the relationship of man to wife would lead to a more fulfilling relationship than the idea of two individuals living individual lives apart from each other. All successful relationships between men and women are a relationship between a master and a slave. I have never seen a happy marriage with two masters and, to be frank, i’ve never seen a happily married woman who wasn’t a subject of her husband the way the church obeys and is subject to Christ.
          As for me…while I believe this is the right way to have a marriage doesn’t mean I have to be married. There is a correct way to go camping but fuck if i will ever go camping. It doesn’t mean I think that the correct way is wrong, just that I don’t want to do the activity. As for submission….remember the relationship of Christ to the Church. Yes, the church is submissive to christ. Yes the church worships christ. But that can never be the end of it. Christ’s love of the church has to be so great that he suffers the passion and crucifixion for the church. So whom is slave to who. In the end they are in a equal relationship. It is equal despite having different parts…much like man and wife. Christ has to give law to the church and the church owes obedience to christ. However, christ also has to give blood to the church and the church has to accept his sacrifice.
          Again, I am not married or even in a relationship and I think a lot of guys here can school me on how to have a proper relationship. That said, my claim here is nothing different than a very simple and blunt reading of Paul’s letter to the Ephesians. If your argument is that that is no longer a valid thing because of how people are socialized I really can’t argue with you. I don’t know. I will say only that this is what Paul is saying and that I think, in a theoretical framework, it makes sense to me

        16. This seems more reasonable and I agree with much of it.
          Re. Paul’s status in the catholic church versus protestant denominations I don’t care to comment. There is no congregation for the doctrine of the faith let alone holy inquisition of times past, but protestants have the lions share of ‘fundamentalists’ vis a vis scripture. The church I was brought up in was conservative but became more liberal as times moved on, even having a woman bishop, who incidentally buried my father (not something to brag about on ROK perhaps).
          What is the status of Paul’s words in such a congregation? I’m not up on the debates in that particular church but I imagine there would have been some healthy debates about Paul’s words in Ephesians. Probably much the same as with the Church of England but without such a visible split between the conservatives and the liberal wings.
          In such a situation updating and adapting scripture written 2,000 years ago to the modern world is likely to be seen as very necessary, as unlike the strong discipline of the catholic church congregations in protestant churches tend to vote with their feet, meaning they tend to go either more conservative or more liberal. Does that mean that the meaning of Paul’s words are no longer valid, or must be permanently mangled to meet the needs of the religious snowflake generation? Well, clearly Paul wouldn’t have like the idea of a woman bishop, and we can probably agree that his words would be difficult to reconcile with such a development. The question would arise, whether Ephesians was simply outdated (as you say this is not an option if his words are ‘infallible’) or retrievable on some other basis (could a woman perform a leadership function in the church, or in the workplace while still ‘submitting’ to her husband within the marital realms for instance.
          In Judaism I think interpretation and critique is pretty much habit. Less so in modern / protestant churches but of course the more such passages are open to interpretation / critique the more they are open to revision and review, even to the point of being sidelined and over-turned. Clearly that presents some fundamental problems for those who wish to take scripture seriously and that no doubt is one reason why many modern churches are struggling.
          Here you make a fairly persuasive case for why Paul has something to say even for the modern audience (although I feel you have presented your argument somewhat differently this time round). I agree that there is always a leader and a follower in every relationship, or a dominant and subordinate partner or to use your phrase a master and a slave.
          The main point I was making previously was that our choice of words in describing such things, or even in translating passages from scripture may make a world of difference. You emphasise ‘submission’ and I took issue with that, not because I think it is necessarily wrong (which is an issue for translaters / editors to hammer out in the first instance) but because as I indicated previously in an age when we have much greater appreciation of the way language is constructed rather than transparently referential the choice of words with respect to translation, but also interpretation, comes into play as never before. Above all the moment you lose the idea of transparent referentiality one must thing about what is being done in selecting words and describing concepts. So again, why the word ‘submission’ when another like ‘leadership’ might be more palatable to the receiver. But then again who is the ‘receiver’ here? Could we have ‘submission’ for the ROK leadership, and leadership in the wives version of the New Testament. That doesn’t seem entirely satisfactory, and failing that we have to perhaps consider both what Paul meant and the workability of what he was suggesting, specifically in a time far removed from his time of writing. As indicated I do agree he was on to something. There must be one leader, and where women yield that role to their husbands one might expect a greater harmony than in any other situation. Some wives like to wear the trousers, but while some husbands might not mind that, it seems clear that wives / women themselves find something inherently unsatisfactory about such an arrangement even when they appear to desire it or work tirelessly for in (like our beloved president in waiting (for hell to open up and take her).
          Which brings us to your most interesting suggestion, and one which I think is potentially subversive of everything that has been said about the need for the husband to be the head of the wife. There is nowhere in the bible to my knowledge that mentions the husband as master and the wife as slave. To suggest that seems more in keeping with Andrea Dworkin feminism, but leaving that aside I agree that you introduce a very important idea, and one which is probably at the root of the upheavals in gender that we are currently living through. To reference the master / slave dichotomy is of course to reference the master / slave dialectic of Hegel (and thereafter of Marx). The sting in the tale though is precisely the dialectical nature of the relationship. You mention this with respect to the relationship of Christ and the church. Who is the master and who is the slave? After all by your reading it is Christ who sacrifices himself for humanity and the church, and again by your reading it is the husband who sacrifices himself for the wife? Here we might consider the lordly status of the man who nonetheless by virtue of that status must go off to war to fight to protect his wife (and family) and risk losing his life in the process? That is perhaps though less about the dialectic than to ask who is exploiting whom? But in the Hegelian Master/slave dialectic relations are not of course static, but evolving, or potentially revolving (with potentially revolutionary connotation). The master as I remember becomes de-skilled, increasingly dependent on the slave for their labour and skill, rather than the other way round. Eventually the slave or servant, having become more resourceful, hardier and perhaps more cunning, can make a claim (overtly or covertly) to being the master rather than the slave. The hierarchy is over-turned. We have a revolution.
          Does this apply to Paul’s husband / wife hierarchy? Clearly it doesn’t from Paul’s point of view, but then he was writing well before Hegel or Marx. Nonetheless the notion of sacrifice (of the husband) might suggest that there was already an awareness of double-identity involved. Indeed as you suggest, one might question even at that point who is the master and who the slave, given that by your reading the man sacrifices his needs (although not necessarily the desires) for those of his wife. Moreover if we consider the way in which it is men who become skilled and resourceful in their labour (for their wives and families?) one might easily identify the man as the slave made good and the woman as the mistress by virtue of entirely of her needs and desires which the male must then satisfy. So then perhaps Paul is more contemporary than we might think. Perhaps rather than being a fusty conservative pushing outdated patriarchal ideas, perhaps he was a revolutionary and still is? Perhaps the exoteric reading was always wrong, and the man must now become the head of the wife?
          All of which is fascinating but probably won’t do a thing to make life any more liveable for men and women seeking to live with each other. You are right about the need for hierarchy within relationships, and the master-slave dialectic correctly references the dynamic changing nature within those relationships. Struggle is perpetual after all, but that does not necessarily mean revolution or inversion. The woman on top simply doesn’t work for the most part, and the man brought low, and made submissive and subservient is a universal symbol for contempt. It is within the confines of the relationship that the master/slave dialectic may play out: if a woman has a greater talent than a man in any given field, why should that be denied? The point of the red pill is that most of the time when that is claimed it is not actually the case, but merely a question of social engineers trying to claim that it is the case; but if it is the case it would be blue pill to deny it. I would say the problems arise when we are too prescriptive: that is true both with respect to St Paul – how many cack-handed attempts may have been made to effect his advice with a net result of a miserable marriage? – but even more so with respect to the social engineers of today, who should have learned better by now but are still evangelising progressive ideology as though it were infallible scripture within a revealed religion.

        17. ”If something isn’t freely chosen it doesn’t have any moral value in my book. There is no real virtue in blindly following a set of rules that you are incapable of evaluating on the basis of your understanding of their merit. That goes for both men and women”
          Murder freely chosen come with consquences. As do unrepentant sin that up to a certain point results in shunning.

        18. Because of the confusion and squid ink that surrounds the issue. When people say respect. They mean treating them as an equal. And leadership is redefined as being a chauffeur driving where she wants to go.
          My time at dalrock.wordpress.com seem to make the amount of deception of bullcrap pretty clear providing example after example of this
          I really hate the weaseling in regards to the issues the amount of torturing the text and making loopholes that nullify the word of God.

        19. indeed it does come with consequences, both physical and for the soul. The concepts of right and wrong don’t have much meaning if we don’t get to choose

        20. I hear what you’re saying, but any word or concept can be twisted, including ‘submission’, being ‘the head’ …anything. If the respect in question is for respective roles, or for authority in appropriate spheres then what teenagers mean by ‘respect’ when they demand it of their elders for instance won’t come into it.
          It can be weaseling perhaps, or fudging the issue but it should be about successfully negotiating the ideas in question

        21. We already have this free will to choose. But the murderer has the consequence in a just society of being executed and the thief must pay a fine.
          Given the biblical injunction no the husband has no right of force over his wife nor does the church. But she is called on to repent and rebuked and if she persists she gets excommunicated “handed over to Satan” so to speak.

        22. That’s is a biblical description of right governance, which will be intelligible to some, and less so for others. For me what matters is that we account for ourselves. To ourselves, to others and before God. Not necessarily in that order

        23. Yeah. And I think Shunning is very important as a solution when dealing with such women who refuse to repent. Ideally with everyone in that church steering clear of such a woman.
          As Christ said for those who are unrepentant despite many warnings and rebukes treat them as you would do a tax collector.

        24. I’m afraid I don’t agree. People should be free to feedback critically according to their beliefs. Any collective action like that is indistinguishable from coercion. No-one can make free choices on that basis and faith is reduced to social control.
          Those who persist in wrong-doing author their own correction

        25. That is a command for Christians. Shunning is a requirement for unrepentant sin commanded by Jesus himself if other methods do not work.

        26. This seems like a pretty comprehensive consideration of the matter:
          https://gotquestions.org/Bible-shunning.html
          The emphasis above seems to be on shunning the sin rather than the sinner. Again one needs to be careful; historically the church might be seen as using such injunctions and the mechanisms devised around them to control people and society generally. Typically such purpose was worldly and political rather than spiritual. Perhaps it’s better to focus on ones own conduct rather than that of others i.e. to provide a model for emulation rather than the kind of social pressure that will act against the individual’s freedom to choose between what is good and evil

        27. It is. But dont you think that Paul’s excommunication of a man involved in sexual immorality that he is unrepentant of is wrong? When a person refuses to repent no matter what people say then the only option is excommunication. In this regard coercion is commanded and mandatory.

        28. the article I linked to made a distinction between shunning and excommunication I think – even if the latter might be to the church authorities what ‘shunning’ might be to the ordinary christian. Personally I hold with the idea that we are moving towards the possibility of a greater adulthood, one where the individual must take greater responsibility for their own actions and conduct, and with it their spiritual status and accountability to God, family, society, and indeed with respect to duty to ones self. I appreciate there may be considerable potential for disorder in such an idea, which is based more on the ideas of thinkers like Bonhoeffer than any close familiarity with scripture and I appreciate you might reject it on that basis, or more simply because you think it is wrong. My problem with compulsion, or social pressure / social control is that insofar as it is coercive it constrains free will to choose, and therefore to see or fail to see (the other side of the coin) what is good. I simply don’t see the point of a packed church if the people on the pews are there because they have to be. In reality though, our free will is constrained by other people, including by the kind of feedback we give. No-one is compelled by the same reasoning to fraternise with others whose moral conduct is offensive to their faith or belief system, and it seems to me that Christians should feel free to make judgements of others on such a basis while of course bearing in mind the injunction that by the same token they too will be judged. What is wrong with our society is that the coercion and social pressure at present is in entirely in the other direction: those with traditional christian beliefs for instance are expected to accept or approve of things which may go against their beliefs.

        29. The article doesn’t contradict your position, but it qualifies it IMO. As I explain below I think social pressure may be damaging to any kind of morality / faith worthy of the name (which must be conscientious). In reality though an utter free for all is unlikely to produce an ordered society that is pleasant to live in – I’m not sure though that that is the point of faith / religion

        30. I understand the qualifications that has always been my position. However as you see social pressure is a rule of the church of final result and it will be till the end of time. Such is the nature of God’s word.

        31. I know. I guess that is where we must agree to disagree. I guess as a christian it seems that is the right way to go since this is from god. The christian worldview is at odds with your worldview of radical autonomy which many Americans hold. However what this conversation makes clear is that Christianity is incompatible with the west as it stands now that there are limits to even liberty especially in regards to human relations and with god.

        32. yes, we will have to agree to disagree, but I think it is only at odds with radical autonomy (if that is what I’m describing) if the latter is about ‘doing your own thing’. I am talking mainly about making moral choices and the greater value that comes from making those choices from a less rather than a more constrained position. If there is a unitary Christian world view, and that is the ‘right’ one, then wouldn’t it be better if those who hold it do so of their own free choosing?

    6. Too few Christians have read or understood the passages you cite. If they did and embraced the simple teaching therein, perhaps many of the issues we currently observe would be exceedingly rare.
      Excellent teaching.

      1. Agreed. The funny thing is, it’s not tough. I mean I sited the passages. It’s right there. It is all very clear

        1. To quote Kierkegaard:

          The matter is quite simple. The Bible is very easy to understand. But we Christians are a bunch of scheming swindlers. We pretend to be unable to understand it because we know very well that the minute we understand we are obliged to act accordingly. Take any words in the New Testament and forget everything except pledging yourself to act accordingly. My God, you will say, if I do that my whole life will be ruined. How would I ever get on in this world? Herein lies the real place of Christian scholarship. Christian scholarship is the Church’s prodigious invention to defend itself against the Bible, to ensure that we can continue to be good Christians without the Bible coming too close. Oh, priceless scholarship, what would we do without you? Dreadful it is to fall into the hands of the living God. Yes, it is even dreadful to be alone with the New Testament.

        2. I know this quote. Kierkegaard is one of my favorite philosophers and generally one of my favorite people who have ever lived. I can get lost in the combined works for ages. His pseudonym project might be the coolest thing philosophy has ever churned out

    7. That was one of the most succinct explanations of marriage in a catholic wrapping I have ever read. Well done.

    8. You almost sound like a preacher……perhaps you missed your calling in life instead of being a godless heathen 🙂

        1. Better doctrine from a heathen than foolishness from a bishop, in my mind.
          God willing, you are made to believe and you turn your sharp mind and concise pen toward Scripture and philosophy. R.C. Sproul is getting on in years.

      1. Thank you Brutus. It was a pleasure to read your article.
        I do wonder how well my exegesis here translates to Protestant denominations. My reading is as neutral as possible but the Catholic always creeps out ya know

        1. “My reading is as neutral as possible but the Catholic always creeps out ya know”
          You should say some hail mary’s for that you know

        2. Those protestants faithful to God will take it to heart for the catholic and protestant teachings in this regard is identical. As for the so apostates and heretics they will react negatively as you would expect. Much thanks for you excellent comment.

    9. I’ve read quite a bit of your stuff since I started roaming around these parts. From a translation of My Nigga to an exegesis of Pauline theology on marriage, you’ve got the most eclectic mix of erudition I’ve ever come across. Reading between the lines I always had the sense that you were a lapsed Catholic of a very unique type. Not lapsed in the conventional sense but rather, a strange mix of agnosticism, traditionalism, wisdom, nihilism, narcissism and hedonism rolled up into one. You sir are one interesting dude.

      1. Why thank you. I don’t believe I’ve been summed up so well. I did let the Catholic show a bit here huh?

    10. “Of all the bullshit I do in my life I think it is possible that never getting married and never having kids was truly the most selfless act in my life. It is something that I honestly can feel proud of. ”
      Dude, I have to say that I think this actually states the opposite. Because you’re selfish, you can’t abandom your bullshit in order to take responsability over a family.
      To a man, the only path beyond family is the path of hedonism. Hedonism surely have a place and time in a man’s life, but with maturity comes responsability, with responsability comes abnegation. Every man have a responsability not just with his own lives, but with his community, his country, and his family’s name. It is imature to ignore such natural, masculine duties in order to have a life of selfcentered pleasure. In this process, family may be the most important of all, as it is the root of all society.
      A boy seeks irresponsible pleasure, he is binded to his own realization above those around him, specialy women. A man have pleasure as a consequence of his responsabilities. Even thought that he rarely seeks selfcentered pleasure, he gains it as a consequence of his accomplishments.
      As my grandpa used to say: “The smile of a family man is true, it is the smile of someone whose duty is fulfilled; The smile of a man without bounds is so intense, anxious and passenger like a whirlwind. Morning comes and he wakes up old and alone.”
      I hope you can see this as an advice.
      Aside from that I mostly agree with you tough.

      1. There are different roads in life. Without racking up an actual body count it is hard to say that some are wrong. What is important is that men follow their hearts and stay true to themselves I think.
        I am glad you have found a path that is good for you. But I believe it is a mistake to extrapolate what is good for you and assume it is good for everyone

        1. I’ll sound arrogant in this comment, but believe it or not that’s not my intention because I don’t even think this is a matter of personal opinion. This is a objective statement about something almost as objective as mathematics, but far more complicated to understand.
          There’s some values that transcend human subjectivity. Steal is wrong. Murder is wrong. Love is good. Family is good. Those are objective value. It doesn’t need people’s opinions to validate it as something good and worthy or something evil and deplorable, It is pressing in all the history of mankind, worldwide. One only need to look at history, or just look around, to see what is right and what is wrong in the discipline of moral values.
          That’s why you can’t ignore an objective value and claim that you’re not wrong.
          You can play with several women all you want, but don’t try to make this sound like something honorable. It is not, it never was, it never will be. There’s nothing honorable in use romance as your playground. This serves only to inflate your pride, while at the same time degrine and invalidates the woman, destroying her purity little by little just for the sake of your own pleasure. Sometimes that woman will become broken and unsuitable for marriage. You can argue that you don’t fuck virgin girls, or that those women chose to degenerate themselves and this has nothing to do with you. Well, if you’re helping her to destroy herself than this has something to do with you. It doesn’t matter what a woman wants to do to self-destroy, don’t be the tool to it.
          Casual sex is for boys. Men marry.

        2. I see what you are saying and just happen to think you are completely wrong. That’s ok. I’m sure we have some points of agreement as well. Marriage and family life is great for some people. It isn’t for me. For you to make it a “real man” issue isn’t arrogant it is childish and naive

        3. Well, I already said what I had to say. I think you’re childish and naive, and you think the same about me. We’re even. 😀

        4. Just as a side note, while I disagree with your stance that there is only one way I appreciated your well thought out comments and look forward to reading more from you…..

        5. Thanks. I might as well look forward to your comments. There’s always something to learn here, especially from people with different beliefs.

    11. You’re children are you. The continuence of your germ line. In effect, the decision not to have children is permanent suicide.

        1. Yawnola? Am I not the first person to say this to you? Well the only thing that matters is what you think of yourself. However, your view could never be a universal principle. Again, not your problem if you don’t care.
          However your view is the opposite of selfless and reminiscent of the feminist view on family. I see it as a denial of adult responsibility. I too, do not have children but I see it as a personal failure rather than an accomplishment and it is an area I am working to improve. In my view there is no greater accomplishment than to raise healthy children.

        2. You know I have just never felt this to be true. Even as a young knee I always knew I didn’t want to have children. Leaving behind defendants just isn’t that great an achievement imo. Want to leave something behind? Write a novel or build a bridge or something. If you don’t think procreation is just as selfish as my desire not to reproduce yer nuts. At the end of the day I will have taken from and added to this world in commensurate measures with no long term annuity like a child. I really hate children

        3. What did children ever do to you? No don’t answer that. Children are right little shits. I can’t wait to have children so that I can teach them to beat the shit out of all the other little children. And then I can beat my own kids little asses when they get into trouble at school.
          Oh wait is that illegal now?
          Procreation is definitely a selfish act but that would kind of be the reason to do it.

    12. Wow lolknee, almost didn’t expect you to read or comment on a religion based article – as your swashbuckling, philandering ways may impeded you. But glad you see the wisdom and understand. I guess all is prodigal sons need to come home one day.

      1. That is literally the 5th time “swashbuckling” has been used as an adjective for me in the last 2 weeks.
        Just because I’m not a man of faith doesn’t mean I haven’t read the books

    13. Also to add to your God is necessary for wife/family statement – absolutely agree. How many times have you seen a beta cuck simp married to some whore and turns out they are godless? Quite the correlation if not causality

      1. I believe this to be correct. I do not think God is a necessary component for life but feel that it is a necessary component for marriage.

  5. I am not religious, but I understand that people may need religion to know how to act. The religious women I’ve met in rural areas of the US are great wife material. Pretty, respects men, knows the roles men and women should have, great with children etc.
    My buddy from the city met a farm girl from the country and told me ” I can’t believe there are women like this still around”. They have 4 kids now.

    1. I know a lot of men that are atheists. And I think most of them who have hit their 30s would say “Yeah, I’d rather marry the daughter of an old-timey Baptist church than some of these hos in the city.”

  6. Thank for this Post!
    I am working towards becoming like you!
    Me and my girlfriend have weekly spiritual direction with the same Priest (Separately), we are getting more involved with our local religious activity. Both the Pro-Life Movement and the local parish volunteer work.
    Hope to one day be the Patriarch of a large family!

  7. OT: I love that Zizek has endorsed Trump (though he is Slovenian and can’t vote he was asked directly if he was an American who would he vote for). It is so hard to take him seriously because he is such an extreme hard core communist and snorts more coke in a day than Mick Jagger snorted in the 70’s but the man is a true genius and it is interesting to hear his reasoning behind why he would vote for trump which essentially boils down to what I believe a lot of trump supporters honestly believe. “Trump is an asshole but Hilary is a dangerous evil lunatic….an asshole we can deal with”

      1. I guess it wasn’t an endorsement per se. He was directly asked “if you were an American citizen who would you vote for” and he said trump and gave his reasons….he says he is disgusted by trump but essentially that is better than the alternative.

    1. Zizek makes a career out of trolling the Left. He even made the case supporting Christianity as being better than Atheism.

      1. Indeed. He is a troll par excellence for people with a lot of education. He is a strict Marxist…but in an odd way I don’t mind that. He is exactly what a Marxist should be. An ivory tower academic playing with strange ideas who only a hand full of people have ever heard of. He is a curiosity….and a brilliant one. He is also, hilarious as a troll as you point out. Further, I am pretty sure he is on his way to comic con to cosplay hodor at any given moment and just stopped to snort 30 grams of cocaine.

        1. yeah, saw that. The problem with the left (and with the right for that matter) is that they are so self interested in the dogma of their beliefs that they are, on both sides, blind to the fact that so much of it is bullshit. If there is one thing that Zizek does well is stand back and disinterestedly cut through all the bullshit. The left loves him because he uses Marxist dialectics but they fail to realize the difference between academic and political Marxism. When the pendulum comes around and hits them in the back of the head they never see it coming.

        2. Yeah, even here there is too much appeal to “leftist” or “rightist” ideas instead of just good or bad ones. I don’t give a shit about leftism or rightism and don’t think the people in those movements even understand what those terms mean or where any of their beliefs originate from. Bullshit is bullshit but patriarchal religion seems like a good idea to me.

        3. Maybe. I have read my bible cover to cover, back and forth, along with secondary and tertiary material from ancient times to present day scholarship. I could two professional theologians as, not exactly friends, but respected colleagues and have come to the conclusion that there is a lot of value in the ancient texts….what that value is might differ for different people. As I have mentioned, I name myself apatheist (rather than atheist or agnostic) as I do not care whether or not there is a god. Nevertheless, biblical exegesis has proven very valuable in my life and I am not sure I do believe would prove at least somewhat useful in most people’s lives. Does that make it “necessary” well not like water, shelter and waxed cunt…but it does kind of give it some intrinsic value

        4. Me for instance. If I was thrust into a super patriarchal society today I would be fucking miserable. I plan on sodomizing at least 2 girls this weekend and eating and drinking well on the money I make at a job that is about 500 rungs above the station I was born in.

        5. ha….that’ll never happen. As for real Hell….I feel that once I get there I will be given a good job…like the devil will say “oh hey, lolknee, glad you finally made it…we are going to start you off in a senior managerial position over in sector Z. Really good work you have done top side. I see a bright career for you here”

        6. If you were thrust there today, sure. If you grew up in one, you’d be Super Businessman and likely, since it was how you were raised, have a glowing beautiful wife who organized social events for you to network in while you were at the office, and who would bear you a brood of beautiful happy children. I know in your current life that sounds like a nightmare perhaps, but in a patriarchal society it’s not a bad gig at all. Plus, and I say this knowing you, you’d probably have a string of secretaries that you’d be banging which your wife pretended not to notice.

        7. most likely true…but would’ve should’ve ya know….I said it would be bad for some….a fully formed me as of this moment is one of those people. That said, point conceded had I grown up like that of course.

        8. Just imagine a world where that would happen, and you’d have ultra high class Russian model chick at home organizing the homestead and giving you blowjobs and being arm candy for your weekly night on the town/social networking, five crazy happy kids who line up and sing in harmony like the Von Trapp children on command, and a rotating harem of secretaries that come and go through your office. Captain of industry, admiration of your fellow man, and everything just peachy. A freaking pillar of your community and possibly the next mayor of NYC. You’d be Don Motherfucking Draper on steroids. Heh.

        9. Yeah, I mean of course this is a life I would very much like. But you can’t put the toothpaste back in the tube. In the meantime, I do a pretty good job getting close to it now.

        10. I guess it depends on what you define as “right-wing”. If what you define as rightwing is Republican or conservative (American sense), I agree with you.

    2. I didn’t know that. Thanks for sharing. Pure Zizek! The crazy Slovenian communist. Maybe he has a thing for Melanija Knavs. She’s a Slovenian too of course. If memory serves, your family hails from the Italian side of the border? Maybe you have some of that crazy Slavic DNA too?

      1. I’m no commie but I can’t help burn like Zizek. It’s like a mix of Foucault, Hodor and Tony Montana

  8. Nice article, I’m glad to hear from men finding a righteous path to success in this modern quagmire.
    I’ve been searching of late for the same but the local religious groups seem to be corrupted and do more harm than good. My latest visits I had to endure lectures, almost browbeating on climate change, white guilt, accepting hostile immigrants as brothers and thinly veiled feminism. Quite depressing.

    1. One time I experienced that as well, and it was a dead church. Go figure that the parking lot had Obama bumper stickers on a number of cars.

    2. Any church asking me to acknowledge your last paragraph would have me lambasting the priest as a deciever and not of God.

  9. What bothers me about modern Christianity is that much of it has become a pussy goddess worship cult. Sometimes I can’t tell the difference between Christianity and New Age Wicca feminist bullshit. “God loves everyone! God is love!” No, that’s not right. God does not love everyone. God is not love.
    The Christian God is what is known in anthropology as the “Sky Father”. They are always gods of creation, kingship, law, and war. Exodus 15:3 specifically declared that God is a god of war. The Ancient Greeks associated him with Cronus at first, and then Zeus. The Ancient Romans associated him with Caelus and then later Jupiter.
    These were hardly gods of love and fluff.

    1. What made me drift away from Christianism was its need for dualistic, absolute and adynamic dichotomic antagonisms.
      The idea that God is love would be in oppostion to the fact that he created humans (and the Universe) in his own image. The Henosis is ALL, good and evil, pretty and ugly. If a distinguished being exists that is only half of that (only love, beauty, etc), he is not almighty at all.
      If the Church still had its Doctor Ecclesiae, these questions could still be worked on, but the institution(s?) has (have?) turned its head to social, political and caritative functions (in other words, rejected spiritual duties and focused in materialistic “feelgoodism”)… so, no, I’m definitely not a christian.

    2. Jupiter…iu-pater…dius-pater…deus-pater…God the Father.
      I like etymology.

      1. You are correct. Jupiter was not a proper name, but an epithet,much like Zeus. The Romans referred to the Jewish God as Jupiter.

        1. Zeus…deus… The Indo-European language that is the root of all of Europe’s languages except Finno-Ugric ones (and Basque), fascinates me.

      1. There is a difference between that commandment of “love one another” and “be a completely neutered beta cuckold and put women on a pedestal”

        1. Yep. Sometimes daddy loves his kids by spanking them when they act up. Jesus loved the bankers by driving them out of the temple with a whip.

  10. Why do religion to have these moral and societal values and traditions? Why do we need people believing in a magical sky daddy? Why can’t just doing what’s best for humanity be enough?

    1. How do you define what’s best for humanity? It’s subjective so we need some guidelines or rules. That’s what religion does.

        1. That reminds me of a tv commercial I recently saw about some sort of medication for shingles I think. There were several people supposedly afflicted and all of them but one appeared to be severely obese to the point of having rolls on the arms and neck.
          They can’t even have normal people on commercials any more.
          Fat people don’t rebel unless you cut off the vittles.

        2. Really fat people probably can’t hold their breath that long. They are going to want to get out of the water to eat anyway.

        3. It was a really good moment for me.
          For those of you who don’t know, while leaving work some kid with a clip board an an OXFAM T Shirt approached me and asked “Do you have any time to help refugees” and, without breaking stride, I looked at him and said “tell them they don’t HAVE to live like a refugee”

        4. you forget…he is some hippie dipshit college student and I am a corp exec. Homeland security works for me.

        5. ha…don’t let them make you seethe…have fun with it. Seething is an unhealthy waste of time. Over the summer someone asked me to sign a petition to help marriage equality and I said “shut up you degenerate faggot” hahaha you should have seen his face

        6. Class. I was approached today by a vagrant bumming for change in the part of town I work and I recognized her.
          “You asked me that question 2 years ago and my answer is still NO.”

        7. My stock response to the question “do you have any change” is to stop, put my hand in my pocket, smile and say “why yes. I have lots of change. Thank you for asking” and continue walking.
          If I must suffer the peasantry I should at least be able to amuse myself somewhat

        8. I’ve actually done the exact same thing before, while walking down near campus.

    2. The last office job I had, there was a janitor who always wore a T shirt with Jesus on it. Always wanted to talk to me about the Lord. Wanted to pray with me, all that. I grew up going to church and just told him I was Christian because otherwise he would make it his life’s mission to save me.
      I found out he used to be a heroin addict with a $75 a day habit. He didn’t have a job, so he stole at least $75 a day to support his habit. An absolute degenerate cancer on society, breaking into peoples homes and vehicles. And now he had his own janitorial business and wouldn’t take a penny off your desk. All because of Jesus.
      I could get frustrated at the lack of empirical evidence for a man named Jesus having supernatural powers. I could doubt the 2,000 year history of the church. Or I could accept that, whether true or not, this belief had more power than the police forces, the state, parental oversight, or anything else from keeping this guy on the straight and narrow, and making him a productive citizen.
      If telling my children (don’t have any) that there is a Santa Claus watching if they are naughty or nice makes them act like sweet angels for the month of December, you think I’m really going to lose much sleep over whether Santa is real?
      The bottom line is. It doesn’t matter. It works. If it’s true, that’s a whole different issue, but just looking at the cause and effect, religion can be a great force for moral good, and is vital for raising a family, as the author describes above.

      1. I could get frustrated at the lack of empirical evidence for a man named Jesus having supernatural powers. I could doubt the 2,000 year history of the church. Or I could accept that, whether true or not, this belief had more power than the police forces, the state, parental oversight, or anything else from keeping this guy on the straight and narrow, and making him a productive citizen.
        That’s what I’ve been trying to say for a long time. Basically a belief that judgement day is coming and you can’t hide from it,has more effect on ones mind and soul than any long arm of the law that has to catch you before being punished but there’s no escape from eternal salvation or damnation.

      2. I know atheists were drug addicts and they recovered completely.
        You don’t need religion to be a good person or improve yourself.
        Religion has caused more harm than good.

      1. Yeah it’s not so bad if you’re the one holding the whip. Also it would interest you to know that many of the skilled craftsmen building the pyramids were not slaves. 🙂

        1. Funny thing about holding the whip. Someone once told me that they liked the security of feudal society. You are born and you know pretty much right away how your life is going to pan out — at least in outline. There is a certain comfort in that that people forget to mention when they are telling everyone how terrible it was.
          I am born Lolknee Baker….well, terrific….now I know what to do with the rest of my life.

        2. As a direct line descendant of actual real life historical kings and vikings, I approve of that vision as well.
          I am born GOJ Viking King…well, terrific…now I know what, and who, I’ll do for the rest of my life. Heh.

      2. Actually…it turns out that they weren’t slaves, but rather, paid workers who went home at night to their families. Or so I’ve read not too long ago.

        1. oh for Christ sake you and @disqus_dtaTMBHScS:disqus can’t I just put a funny meme on the intertubes? As my mother would say, Jeez Louise!

        2. although I do suppose this is fine retribution for my 20/20 vision comment the other day.

        3. come get it GOJ. The drive uptown would have you in such a panic that you’d probably knock yourself out 🙂

        4. Well normally you’d be right, but in our hypothetical encounter I’d be sporting a minigun and a big ol’ backpack of ammo. Just mowing down waves of humanity as I chomp on a cigar and tell people that I don’t have time to bleed. A glorious, glorious vision….

        5. unfortunately you’d get shot down before hitting time square. I understand that homefield advantage is a big deal here which is why I won’t cede it.

        6. I’ve seen what piss poor shots NYC cops are. As long as they’re pointing their guns at me, I’ll feel mostly safe. Heh.

        7. the citizens, yes? The paramilitary force marching the streets in threes wearing full body armor and carrying M4A1s know what they are doing.

        8. Nah, as a gun community type of guy, the reputation of NYC cops (and most city cops) at the range is pretty low. What they lack in accuracy of course is made up for in sheer volume of rounds that they can chunk down range, which is why I think that they’re so keen on remaining militarized. If they had to deal with crime with six shooters, they’d be fucked.

        9. cops yes…you are right….however, street cops in NYC are basically just bullies with a badge who can shoot slightly better than the thugs holding the guns sideways. It isn’t them you would need to worry about (though the fact that there are 75 thousand of them helps) it is the people who patrol the good neighborhoods that are scary. Those guys aren’t you’re normal cops. You will see them in big tourist centers and neighborhood’s with very high income medians….those guys are legit no joke. That said, none of it would be necessary. The combined sense influx of 73k people per square mile would rattle you to such a point that you would probably shoot yourself in the foot while I stood there drinking a martini.

        10. and btw when I say jokers, the vast majority of regular cops are out of shape meter maids. They are like most lazy union guys. But I have guys like this in 3s at every mile patrolling and much more in tourist spots and I can say, without being too affected, they are real deal, ice cold warriors. I have met some. It is strange, I think for people who first come into the city, to just see this walking around everywhere.
          https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/c48dba65ac8d84e61e3d4a7622702fd1e4db015120592f5cc6a6386d871b8dc3.jpg

        11. As we carry guns openly out here in the Vast Wasteland, that kind of thing actually wouldn’t put me off too much. Except that it’s a cop, which as you know, pisses me off due to “authoritarianism”. We’ve had that conversation before of course, so no need to hash it out again.

        12. right the cop part puts people off I think not the gun part. To see what basically amounts to military troops (not to mention the actual nat guard guys patrolling in camo and sometimes in fucking battle vehicles) is what takes getting used to. I am at the point where seeing 20-30 guys like that on my way home from work is totally normal. I know your feelings about it. I don’t agree per se but I also don’t necessarily disagree. At the end of the day I feel incredibly safe in a city where only a 2 miles away from me are impoverished savages. I take the trade off knowing full well that if I wasn’t as useful to the government as I am I would be on the wrong side of these guys and that changes with what the government finds useful. Nothing is perfect, but we each make our beds.

        13. My max duration in a big city, and I know this from personal experience, is about 3 days tops. And that’s with a lot of self-medication (Scotch). By day three I am literally (Hitler) on the edge of a nervous breakdown. London, which I love, is like the super polite and clean version of NYC and I still can’t go more than three days without needing to flee to a lonely mountain out in the middle of the Alps to decompress and regain my sanity. The noise and bustle, Christ, it just wears on me.

        14. I’ve no beef with suburbia, but I prefer the rural countryside. I have some acreage here in central Ohio which I’m moving onto this coming autumn (2017) so I’m staying put, but I do regret that Ohio has no mountains. I love the mountains. Was going to move to Wyoming but decided against it ultimately, for family reasons.

        15. And I considered London to be too quiet for my taste. Just what you are used to I guess. I really did feel that London wasn’t for me as the excitement level just wasn’t there…not enough sensory input

        16. keep this one in mind. London is 11.7k people per square mile new York is 72.3k. I look at London as a quaint, but sleepy little town

        17. By the third day, even if I’m on the outs in Islington or what have you, I’m ready to be strapped into a crazy-coat and taken to an institution.

        18. I believe it. My Cousin who is pretty much my same age and so we grew up more like brothers, who is also named Ghost of Jefferson, lives upstate new York on the west of the Hudson on 10 acres of land with his family and owns a separate 10 acres of apple orchards behind his house. When I get him into the city he immediately starts drinking and I have never known him to stay more than a day. All my life he only stayed over night once…usually he will just jump on the last metronorth train upstate after a night of revelry. He is the one with the three daughters I am taking out to be city girls for a day next month. Oh boy.

        19. carrying M4A1s
          Whoa whoa whoa whoa here, how did I miss this? In what world is there any kind of gun other than an AR-15? Dude!

        20. When the city bought them there was a big write about about that particular kind of gun and, of course, some moronic token gun control opposition but I read a lot about the A1 variety of the M4. I don’t know shit about guns but it sounded like a pretty bad ass weapon to me at least by the descriptions. That said, I am fairly certain that they are just a brand of AR-15.

        21. They are just the evolution of the M-16, yes, that’s true. I find carrying .223 to be rather silly, but hey, everybody does. 7.62×51 for me, every time, no exceptions. I like one-shot one-kill, anything more is a waste of ammo. Heh.

        22. see I don’t know enough for any of that to make sense. Still…guns seem cool….the really crazy thing is when you see the APVs rolling down the block with these guys and their AR-15’s. There is a reason why even under our cuckold faggot lefty mayor none of our jiggaboo protests turned violent.

        23. a lot of people in nyc find our police reaction strange but I kind of dig it. What? A mall in Beirut had a bombing. Lets buy some fucking tanks.

        24. We don’t have protests here because normal citizens carry sidearms and likely have access to as much or more heat as your cops, in their homes.
          Works well for us. Heh. The Columbus BLM attempt a few months ago fell flat on its face, due directly to this fact.

        25. not having them is better for sure but you have what, like 8 people in the whole state of Ohio? If you have to have them, it is much better to tell them “ok, you idiots stand over there and scream all you want. if anything more than yelling happens or if anyone crosses this line we will not hesitate to kill you.” There were “mass protests” in NYC that I only knew about from ROK. They were in designated areas….areas that I wouldn’t go to on a dare.

        26. I have 50 (soon to be 80) acres out in the middle of nowhere Ohio, 39 of which I lease off to a nearby farmer to farm. It’s absolutely beautiful out there, and 10 of my acres are wooded and so full of plump fat deer that it’s staggering (get it? Staggering? Heh). While there aren’t any mountains, it’s otherwise as close to paradise as I’m bound to get in life.

        27. Population of Ohio 11.6 million.
          Population of NYC 8.5 million
          You have almost the entire state of Ohio contained in a 2 mile bubble. Christ almighty, that just makes the hair on the back of my neck stand up to think about.

        28. oh btw of those 22 habitable miles about 12 of them are where most people are.
          Further, that 8.5 million number is residents. It doesn’t account for the hundreds of thousands of tourists on any given day

        29. Nary a difference when considering how scary dense it is, in my mind. But yes, I stand corrected.

        30. it really is what you are used to. It is what I was born to. Everything else startles me

    1. If one works a minimum wage job in the US today, I’d argue they are worse off than being a slave owned by a non-abusive master (which most were).
      When you subtract the cost of housing, health care, food, and clothing, all of which a master would provide his slaves, the minimum wage worker today is far worse off financially. There’s the whole personal autonomy thing which it would suck being forced to do something with no choice, but hey, the world isn’t perfect.

      1. If one makes 80k a year and has three kids in college, medical bills and relies on revolving credit too. It isn’t just minimum wage slaves.

      2. Well, your master may not abuse you, but there was a good chance he’d make sure your balls were chopped off so you wouldnt bang his daughters.
        I’d rather keep my nads.

        1. I can see that people will see it that way. I really do.
          But I think if you really take a step back, and try to read the Law like someone in the Middle East 3500 years ago, or a Roman citizen 1900 years ago, you might see it differently.
          For example, you could not rape slaves or women captured in battle. Slavery was not intergenerational, but a slave was released after a time. And the New Testament laid the ground work for the eventual abolition of slavery: The Creator made us all equal, so treat your slaves like your equal. History shows us that this was the reason for the abolition movement:
          http://www-tc.pbs.org/wgbh/aia/part2/images/2amin0500b.jpg

  11. The Author as well as the authors of the Bible knew about human nature in general and female nature in particular. The Bible is not misogynist at all, notice how Job is essentially praised for providing an equal share of inheritance to his daughters along with his sons. The thing to remember is, it’s not “true” because it’s in the Bible, it’s in the Bible because it’s true.

  12. Beginning 2015 or so, I felt pretty down. I remembered this one time on Hawaii when I visited a little wooden chapel with my father. People were singing. It was beautiful, joyful, uplifting. I said to my father: Now I get why people like religion, if it brings them together like this.
    So I decided to go to a church in Munich. I was bitterly disappointed. There was a little singing, but most of it was just depressing sermon about how we are all miserable human beings and need to bow down and be saved by Jesus. Not uplifting at all. I thought to myself: This is what a slave religion looks like.

    1. Sounds like you hit a Calvinist church (or some descendant of it). Those and Southern Baptist places are mega depressing.

      1. I went to three different churches here in Munich. It was the same in all of them.
        I googled two of them just now. One is Roman Catholic, the other is designated just as Catholic.

        1. Well that sucks.
          I’m not into Happy Hippy Jesus churches, and I don’t mind a serious message about sin and redemption, but droning on about how awful humans are 24/7 doesn’t appeal to me either.

        2. Well, I’m fine with saying life sucks sometimes. But then, why not say: But hey, life goes on and we are strong men and we’ll handle it. And shit. You know. It seems to me more like those people (mostly weak old people and weird seeming young people like myself) go in there to bathe in their misery and getting validated in their feelings of guilt. Literally, I feel like they go there to trip on guilt.

      2. Southern Baptist used to be much more interesting with sweaty preachers banging on the pulpit talking of fire and brimstone, now it’s getting to be a weird sort of hippy thing about Jesus love and wearing gay polo shirts with khakis and having a gay haircut and bowing at your wife’s and everyone else’s feet. It was better when the message was ” your going to hell if you’re a screw up” instead of cume by ya or however it’s spelled.

        1. “a weird sort of hippy thing about Jesus love and wearing gay polo shirts with khakis and having a gay haircut”
          BWWWWWWWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA!!!!!!
          You just summed up my Protestant HS Education!!

        2. The Protestant churches have always seemed suspect to me, but of them all, I held out hope for the Lutherans, who were (at one time) basically Catholic Lite and were well on the path to folding back into the Catholic tradition. Then I went to a funeral this last July, and lo and behold, the staunch old German Lutheran church now has women priests. And it pissed me the fuck off.
          Orthodox it is for me, if I could only find one around here.

        3. That is quite beautiful.
          I was in an old Catholic church recently, a friend of mine had his dad pass away, and they’re staunch old school Catholics. Just breathtaking. Notre Dame de Paris is also spectacular, beautiful and somber simultaneously.
          I’ve yet to find an Orthodox church close by, I’ve always wanted to go into one.

        4. Drums and electric guitars don’t belong in church nor women preachers that stuff belongs in a hippy commune.

        5. Something just ain’t right about women preachers.
          The only time I’ve ever set foot in a Catholic Church was attending a friends wedding. Up until that time I thought Baptist preachers held the record on long windedness.

        6. The differences between Catholic and Orthodox are small and at times only subtle. The big one being that priests can get married and have families, so there is never a shortage of young men that take up the robe as a career. Good luck finding one. I have one near me, but then again Russians and other Slavs are pretty common in my area.
          I like somber. I like the lack of lighting — it brings out the Divine presence. I like the old style chant songs. They send chills up my spine.

        7. Catholics are funny. Attending a service feels more like engaging in Jesus Aerobics than actual worship.
          “Stand and..”
          “Be seated…”
          “Stand and…”
          “Be seated…”
          “Stand and..”
          etc.

        8. What bothers me about Baptist type mega churches is that they talk about Jesus as your hippie buddy that is a good Nu-male listener.
          In the Orthodox Church, Christ is staring down at you with a pissed off gaze, kindly reminding you that he’ll fuck your shit up if you stray from the proper path.

        9. He probably ain’t too happy with me most of the time.
          On another note that ceiling is awesome. I’ve never been inside such a place but I would like to see one in person.

        10. That’s my cup of tea. The Protestant churches really dropped the ball on the purpose of coming together into a house of God. It’s not supposed to be an exciting bundle of noisy modern entertainment, rather, it was clearly meant as a place to come and remove all worldly distractions in order to contemplate the beauty and wrath of God. That they’ve turned churches into concert halls seems to me to be quite openly blasphemous.

        11. Christ’s expression is just a friendly reminder that he’ll be stomping on your spine for all of eternity should you stray from the righteous path.

        12. That’s the way southern Baptists used to be and still are in some places far away from the hippy megachurch and the goof ball snake handlers and folks speaking in tongues.

        13. Episcopal was always Catholic lite for me. The Lutherans just seems like a bunch of kindly, bearded men from the midwest who talked about Jesus peripherally.
          There’s a gorgeous Orthodox church in Cleveland, where they filmed “The Deer Hunter”…probably a hike for you though.

        14. That’s actually good to know, I’ll look it up. I don’t mind a ride to a nearby city too much, now and again.

        15. Nah. If you look at a map, I’m north of Columbus, and just south of Delaware.

        16. I am proud to be an adherent of a patriarchal church in Greek Orthodoxy-it has balls unlike those sissy churches out there and I concur with you 100%.

        17. Man, this is ringing some bell in my memory. Like there was this dude who had a problem with commerce within the confines of a church wall….I think he did some kind of protest or something…his name is on the tip of my tongue….gosh, who was that?

        18. Curious, is there much real difference between Greek and Russian Orthodox theology? I’m sure there must be some (or they would be one church), but how much, do you know?

        19. Almost unrelated to the discussion at hand- lately I have been listening to Hank Williams on I Heart radio, they play some of his gospel music. I had forgotten how enjoyable it is to listen to that sort of thing.
          It’s kind of strang though when they go from playing Hank Williams’”I Saw The Light” or “Build Me A Cabin In The Corner Of Glory Land” to playing Tight Fitting Jeans by Conway Twitty.

        20. That really pisses me off to think about. I mean these supposed priests *KNOW* for a fact that this kind of thing is wrong, and they invite it in. It’s almost as if they’re setting up a false religion to lead people into hell, intentionally.
          Which really, I think is the case. Didn’t used to, but the last 20 years the Protest sects have all come out as the exact opposite of what Christ preached.

        21. They do it under the guise of being “modern” and offering convenience. They claim they are doing these sorts of things to appeal to younger crowds and a population more used to luxury.
          They’re just diluting the message at best and blaspheming at worst.

        22. As far as I’m aware I think they are fundamentally the same being that the Russian branch of the church comes under the aegis of the patriarch of Constantinople who is the overall spiritual head. Perhaps there could be some slight cultural differences in the conduct of liturgy and so on. I will have to find out.

        23. They are committing the ONE SIN that cannot be forgiven. Blasphemy against God the Father is one thing, but blasphemy against the Holy Spirit is an absolute NO-NO
          Matthew 12:31
          And so I tell you, every kind of sin and slander can be forgiven, but blasphemy against the Spirit will not be forgiven.

        24. Try a Christmas mass. Average is 90 minutes.
          My wife’s cousin goes to the xmas mass in Moscow and they go for 4 hours while standing.

        25. They differ in name and the country they came from only, and consider themselves “one church.” It is not like protestant denominations where one denomination disagrees with others over one or more points of doctrine or theology, leading to a split.
          The theology is exactly the same in both, as they are one and the same “Orthodox Church.” The different names have come about due to the fact that the Greeks’ home church, and the Russians’ home church, followed them here from the old country when they emigrated. Other jurisdictions in the U.S. came about the same way.
          There is usually one Orthodox Church per country, with language and culture unique to that country, but all the same church no matter where it is located. The U.S. and Canada are unusual due to the way we grew by immigration and the people brought their home churches with them.
          I’m close to being baptized into the Orthodox Church. Our priest recently told us that the different jurisdictions in the Americas are working together towards unity under one patriarch, an “American Orthodox Church” so to speak.
          In the meantime, we have nearly a dozen jurisdictions that usually differ only in the style of the music, possibly the translation of the text of the songs and liturgy they use (we all have the same liturgy each week differing only in the scripture read and the events and saints honored that week), and the cultures they borrow from for celebrations (i.e., Greek Festival). They also (except the Orthodox Church in America (oca.org, U.S. and Canada)), report to a patriarch who reports to a patriarch in the old country. The OCA patriarch is in the U.S.
          There are a few small style changes in the vestments, with Russian style vestments more suited to cold weather and Byzantine style vestments to warm weather, but a priest of any jurisdiction may wear either style by personal preference.
          You do not have to be of the ethnicity of the jurisdiction to attend any particular church.
          If anyone wants to find and visit an Orthodox Church, the oca.org website has a church locator. I also have an Android app called “Orthodoxy in America” (it’s free in the Google Play app store) with a locator for *all* the jurisdictions, though some information is outdated, so verify via the church or jurisdiction’s website before traveling to a nearby church.
          One of the Vespers services (an evening service of songs and prayers) is probably the best service to start with. Be prepared to stand for up to an hour.

        26. There are four or five Orthodox Churches in Columbus, including two OCA (Russian roots, from a Russian mission to Alaska in the mid-1700s, given independence from the Russian church about a century ago), and a Russian church. There is an Antiochian church east of Delaware in Sunbury.
          The closest one to you is probably the Russian one in NW Columbus, though the OCA churches aren’t much farther.

        27. The Missouri Synod Lutherans (LCMS) rejected what would become the Evangelical Lutheran Church over heresies such as these.
          You might see if you can find a good LCMS church, which still sings the liturgy and sings classic hymns together.

        28. My old church tried that, but it was highly ineffective. Instead, volunteers would sell donuts and kolaches at zero markup (to encourage early attendance – you could eat between the service and sunday school), and coffee was provided like a water cooler.
          Much more communal, and much more Christian, to my thinking.

        29. I have a cousin who starts holding up his watch where the preacher can see and begins tapping it if the sermon goes over an hour 🙂

        30. Thank you for the detailed information, you cleared up a lot of confusion for me.

        31. I think you should check this page mostholyfamilymonastery.com, they have radical views but their logic seems pretty solid, specially in view of what has happened.

        32. The only reason I am not Orthodox is because of crucial theology and objectionable practices like Ikons.
          Otherwise I would go right over.

      3. Ugh. I honestly wonder how much of the cucking of the American Protestant churches is due to Calvinism?

    2. You mentioned going to the little wooden chapel reminds me of attending something similar when I was a child.
      Our local churches (Baptist or Methodist was the only choices) had “homecoming” every year at the cemetery about a mile out of town. It was held in mid May which is VERY hot and humid in South Georgia. They had a concrete block building with open windows all the way around it (no AC) and a piano. There were large tables set up outside under some large pine trees in the shade with most any kind of Southern food one could ask for complete with a large galvanized washtub full of sweet tea with a big block of ice in it.
      Sitting out there under those big pine trees listening to the old folks inside singing could always make someone see the light.

    1. They are like copies of edits of faxes of copies of edits….so far removed from the original church that they are meaningless.

    2. Mainstream Protestant churches are a fucking nightmare. Most Protestant megachurches are a nightmare.
      A smaller, traditional Baptist church in the country, they’re usually not so bad.

    3. Female priests are ‘nice’, but niceness is not enough. Just look at the Church of England, it introduced female priests back in the 90s and congregations are at their lowest ever in it’s history, yet the Catholic church in England hasn’t decreased in the past 30years.

  13. You have to give away to keep it.
    Religion aside I think that,that should be the mantra for most marriages. I’m not married or have kids myself because the though of having to give it away when I clearly don’t have it is selfish in itself.

  14. It also restrained male behavior, which is something that is rarely mentioned. Men did not “date” around, and they married who their father chose. And scripture commands that a man love his wife “sacrificially,” not just to “lead” and “instruct.”

    1. Ehhh….almost. The families were normally tight with each other and would arrange meetings with other families in order to introduce the boy and girl. However, the boy could easily not be attracted to the girl and the family would then do more introductions to other families. It’s not dissimilar to how the Amish still operate. But otherwise, yes.

      1. depends on how far you are going back. Sometimes it doesn’t matter how ugly that bitch is, we need to seal this treaty with Poland with a marriage and a marriage there will be

        1. Yeah, that’s royalty and nobitility. And at times, super rich dynastic families. I mean generally, the non-elite.

    2. I agree. But this teaching is within the context of male leadership and authority. It makes no sense to tell a man to sacrifice for his wife until he finds a wife worth sacrificing for.

      1. In an older post on Vox Day’s Alpha Game (don’t remember when), he states that a wife’s duty of obedience has no qualifiers in scripture, I double checked at the time, and he’s right. The instruction for husband’s is the same in that it has no qualifiers, such as a wife worth sacrificing for:
        22 Wives, submit yourselves to your own husbands as you do to the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife as Christ is the head of the church, his body, of which he is the Savior. 24 Now as the church submits to Christ, so also wives should submit to their husbands in everything.
        25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her 26 to make her holy, cleansing[a] her by the washing with water through the word, 27 and to present her to himself as a radiant church, without stain or wrinkle or any other blemish, but holy and blameless. 28 In this same way, husbands ought to love their wives as their own bodies. He who loves his wife loves himself.
        Ephesians 5:22-33
        In both cases, the spouse is instructed either to obey or to love, respectively. There is no “if you agree with your husband,” or “if your wife has sex with you several times a week.”

        1. Goofed up my cut and paste – here’s the rest of the scripture:
          29 After all, no one ever hated their own body, but they feed and care for their body, just as Christ does the church— 30 for we are members of his body. 31 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh.”[b] 32 This is a profound mystery—but I am talking about Christ and the church. 33 However, each one of you also must love his wife as he loves himself, and the wife must respect her husband.

        2. Sorry, I was unclear. I agree.
          My point was societal. Most women are not virtuous, so men should be careful not to marry a woman who is not worth sacrificing for, because he IS bound to sacrifice for her even if she does not merit it by her works.
          The context of the grace of God is also important. We both fuck up, and seek to forgive each other as God forgives us.

        3. the model of women men must marry, are the model in 22. if she do not follow this model then she is not worth marrying.

  15. The Bible prohibits fornication and adultery. Anyone who believes in the Bible while also believing such acts to be lawful are disobeying God. They think themselves to be God, creating their own rules. It is indeed a hypocritical way.

    1. It is written, “Woe unto them that call
      evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for
      darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!”
      All this said, while it is not good, it is still forgivable. David committed adultery, yet he was still beloved and forgiven. Abram gave his wife to another man twice, and yet he was still beloved and forgiven.
      Many things that seem good in the world are sin. Praise be to the Almighty God that we can yet be forgiven.

      1. “‘How can you say, “We are wise, for we have the law of the LORD,” when actually the lying pen of the scribes has handled it falsely?”‘ Jeremiah 8:8.
        David nor Abram did those things. These are supposed to be role models and great people. Role models do not do those things. The Bible has been corrupted by Paul and some Jews. Even average men can avoid such heinous sin. Besides, belief in sin (what this PUA site is about) and making a mistake (what you are referring to) are very different. Yes, some may be good while seemingly evil and vice versa, but it is also clearly stated that adultery and fornication are sin. There is no way around it.

        1. It is so written in the Tanakh (the Hebrew OT), the Greek translations of the OT, and the modern scriptures alike. The Bible is not about men who never sin (except Jesus, but he’s the sole exception to the rule). In fact, in the New Testament we find even Peter and Paul fail.
          The same scriptures that say fornication and adultery are sin say even the best among the Saints are still capable of great error and sin. How can one accept one of these teachings as truth and the other as falsehood?

        2. This site was started by an agnostic who leaned atheistic. He lived as a hedonistic man and saw they such a life as fun as it can be at times, does not work. In much the same way Augustine did. No this is not a place full of saints, but many are coming to see that hedonism is as much a failure as feminism.
          Proverbs 30:5-6 Every word of God proves true; he is a shield to those who take refuge
          in him. Do not add to his words, lest he rebuke you and you be found a
          liar
          Dude the sins of David are talked about in the Bible. You may not like it, but that is a fact. No one has ever been in a position to rewrite the bible. There have always been too many copies, in too many lands to get away with it. Stop adding to the word of God. And stop trying to take away from the word of God. Learn from it.

        3. The answer is to consider it all doubtful; it may or may not be truth. The NT was made by Paul who was one of the scribes that handled it falsely. How can the best be the best if they do such great sin, while average Good Samaritans can avoid such sin easily? Akin to how a master is at the top of his craft, saints/great men do not blunder in such stupid ways. If anything, Muslims are the only major group left that adhere to such traditional religious teachings.

        4. And he was forgiven, but he never forgot and he never fully forgave himself. Recall that he called himself “Chief among sinners” – this is not the teaching of a holier-than-thou, perfect role model.

        5. Much of the New Testament was Paul’s teaching, this is true, but not all of it. In fact, Paul’s teaching regarding adultery and fornication is among the most clear.
          But can I trust the teaching that fornication and adultery are sins if the rest of the work is doubtful? If Moses’ teaching was doubtful (regarding Abraham), how can I not doubt his teaching regarding sins? And if the books of history and prophecy are equally doubtful, how can I trust anything in the OT?
          This is the problem with rejecting parts of the Scripture and upholding others.

        6. Exactly God didn’t pick perfect Flawless men He picked strong flawed men to to use as examples. He picked powerful men who, humbling themselves meant something. He did not pick men who are born on their knees and stayed there.

        7. Every word of God proves true, but not the words masquerading as God’s. There are many that had added to God’s word. No one has the original Bible; therefore, all is in doubt. If the root is diseased, so will the tree be. It doesn’t matter how many copies were made if the authentic was corrupted. And no one today knows what the original says, not even the Pope. Tons of people have found innumerable inconsistencies with the Bible. “The Truth Revealed” by Kairanvi is perhaps the most comprehensive study done on the subject, detailing the contradictions of each Book of the Bible. The Bible’s veracity is in doubt.

        8. Look at Moses – a murderer who fled prosecution, had a divorce, had a wicked temper (shown several times during the desert years), and tried to beg out of leading Israel. God used him anyway (though he did allow Aaron to speak to Pharaoh instead).
          God is glorified in our weakness, because despite the foolishness of preaching and our individual weaknesses His will is done.

        9. If God was real, then He would certainly leave something to people to believe in. It is the case, however, that the Bible is in doubt. An alternative or the original is needed. I do not know any Christian faction that claims to have an uncorrupted version. I know Muslims claim to have uncorrupted texts, and their actions seem like the bygone days of traditionalism, which seems closer to original. I’m not an expert, but from what I’ve read, it is considered another Testament and doesn’t have the ‘saint does evil action’ thing.

        10. Sorry but you are very pooly informed, The scriptures were all copied and sent to the far corners of the known world. The copies were then copied and yes minor transcription errors took place. But no one ever had the ability to change the bible. It was far to spread out. To do that was impossible
          Now to fix the transcription errors (which tend to as minor as a space between words, spelling, reversed sentences, things like that) you bring together all the copies you have. The 98% that has no disagreement is written down as is. The the 2% variances are fixed by a combination of which version is the most common and which on is oldest. It is a very effective system

        11. The Quran has the problem that most of the words had no Arabic meaning. Interestingly, many of the verses take on whole new meaning if you read the text as though it were Syriac. Moreover, their traditions (the Hadith) date back to around the 12th century, 600 years after the events they supposedly account. So it would be madness to say it’s the original religion, as they understand it.
          But moreover, the Bible itself claims to be reliable. Paul says that all Scripture is inspired of God; Jesus said not one jot or tittle would be removed from the OT until all was fulfilled. You can trust this or not.
          But if you pick and choose, you have formed your own religion.

        12. Islamic words on the other hand were kept in tight control for a very long time. They could easily have been changed. They may have been, as they were under the care of that times political leaders.
          But if they were say under the protection of Allah (God) then would not God have also defended his other words? The Bible

        13. The closest thing to authentic still suffers those problems. Not just transcription. Again, there is no authentic. It doesn’t matter how many copies there were if they were derived from a corrupt work (even then, the Bible was written well after Jesus, so even the original would have problems). There are many versions. Not to mention theological problems. Deedat, Ally, Dawkins, etc. have made arguments that refute the authencity of the Bible, as have many others

        14. Considering the lack of disagreement between scriptures the idea of some being real and others fake, does not hold up well

        15. There was a discovery I believe last year where they found the oldest version of the Quran. The oldest manuscript of the Islamic words were the same as the texts they use today. The early leaders did not have any incentive to change them, and risked political harm if they did.

        16. I have seen many supposed disagreements, but they usually have the appearance of disagreement without the substance of disagreement.
          Or the translators sucked. That has happened from time to time (1st Edition NIV had some doozies, like Goliath dying twice).

        17. And although the objective truth of what God was remained unchanged, the laws according to the times changed, hence no incorruptible text till then: hence Solomon’s various wives, etc.

        18. Im sorry that you are not bright enough to understand the impossibility multiple documents all being altered.
          As to the new testament. It was all written in the lifetimes of those who knew Jesus. And no there are not many versions with any differences in them. Your ignorance is astonishing. There is one total different ending in the Book of Mark. Now it says nothing different, but it is not found in all copies.
          Where do you claim the scriptures are altered? Or are you just making noise?

        19. Multiple wife’s are still not a sin. They are just not the thought of as the best way. Not all things discouraged are called sin.

        20. You mean like laws to be a Jewish priest being called laws for all? There is that but as you point out those laws never were for everyone

        21. Very much so. Or, to pick another example, Abraham had two sons (Isaac and Ishmael), but the book of Hebrews says he had one. However, in the context Ishmael had been driven out (and he was not the son God promised), so the sacrifice of Isaac was functionally the sacrifice of his only son.
          The Hebrews to whom the book is written would easily understand this as not a contradiction but an emphasis.

        22. I haven’t heard that one. I know there was the Uthmani script and the other, which was written differently but sounded the same, but was confusing to some non-native populations, hence the script change. I know some of the first verses of each chapter have no arabic meaning, but if it was originally sent to the Arabs, it would make sense for it to be understandable. The Hadith is not considered incorruptible as I understand it, only the Quran.
          The Bible says “the lying pen of the scribes” which makes it one of those “true if the former clause is a lie” circular things. The OT does have an interesting prophecy about the Comforter which prophecises something that Jesus could not give.

        23. Oh please no one gave you the authority to say what is and is not authentic. The new testament was written during the lives of those who knew Jesus. You say corrupted but of course just say it. You like to use names, but you have no idea what talking about

        24. The NT explains that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter.
          With regards to the Hadith, the original compilation of Hadith (never published – for the caliph only) took something like 300k hadith and pared them down to 3k that could conceivably be true. All teachings regarding Muhammad and the ways Muslims should live (the basis for the Five Pillars and Sharia) derive from the hadith alone, because the Quran says so little on the subject. Thus, in order to understand Islam, you are actually better served by learning the Hadith than the Quran.
          It is my understanding that the lying pens of the scribes were not lies in the Tanakh but lies in the teachings that would be incorporated into the Talmud. This explains the New Testament teachings that the Scripture will not be broken, but that the Pharisees and teachers of the law were a brood of vipers and sons of Satan.
          Interesting historical note: if a scribe miscopied a single character of the Tanakh, the page was destroyed. If that character is in the name of God, the entire copy job was burned. This is why the recovered ancient texts are so congruent with modern texts.

        25. Dude there is a vast difference between sin and the laws of man. polygamy is still not a sin. DO you have any examples of your claim? Or was that it

        26. The theory that the Holy Spirit is the Comforter seems not to fit as well as the successor theory.
          I’m not too familiar with Hadith so I can’t say.
          It begins to get subjective, making it more difficult to verify.
          Making this one also subjective.
          But at least we can all agree that either of the opposite poles, hedonism and feminism, are wrong, either through our own reasoning or through holy texts.

        27. I haven’t found a study that shows the effects on a man for promiscuity, but seeing as how this site is about traditionalism via the truth, there are some contradictions. Guys going out to get girls while also saying they shouldn’t be got. Complaining that they can’t find a good virgin woman while spending more time getting the trash ones and hardly any on a good one. But a lot of the articles are good, just not the pua stuff.

        28. Does drinking Jesus’s blood repeatedly over many events for the local pastor count? I know a few who’ve become alcoholics because of it. I was referring to what is lawful in the Bible which is not lawful in the Quran. Alcohol is bad for societies. Hitting and cursing is punishable by death according to the Bible. The Bible is full of unjustifiable violence. I do not believe God would make these things lawful, therefore, I doubt the Bible. I also don’t think 1+1+1=1

        29. Ever see what is commonly referred to as the wicked bible? It is a bible from the 1600’s where the word “not” was left out of “thou shalt not commit adulatory” it sold at auction not to long ago for nearly 500k

        30. From the Gospel according to John: But the Comforter, which is the Holy Ghost, whom the Father will
          send in my name, he shall teach you all things, and bring all things to
          your remembrance, whatsoever I have said unto you.
          The successor theory wasn’t doctrine until the 11th century, and then only among the Catholics (this is why the others called themselves Orthodox – meaning “Right Belief”).
          But, indeed, the hedonist paradox makes hedonism untenable, and feminism rejects fundamental truths about men and women.

        31. Yes Mohammads work seems to treat alcohol as harmful. Medical science says in moderation it is beneficial. While the bible says alcohol is fine.
          1 Timothy 5:23
          Just don’t abuse it..
          1 Peter 4:3 Try again don’t just make a claim back it up.
          As usual the lying pedophile Mohammad had his head up his self serving ass

        32. It’s worth 500k because the owner knows that in a year or so it will auction for 600k these things, these rare things, beat market returns 100% of the time. At no time will any major index be a better investment than a Patek Phillippe watch

        33. Which is why I said based on societies, not individuals. Believe it or not, some sluts don’t cheat after marriage. But as a society, its harmful.
          Pedophelia in the Bible: Numbers 31:1-18
          Mass murder: Deuteronomy 20:16
          Kill babies: Psalm 137:8-9
          There are many more, but you get the gist of it.
          Having sex with a prepubescent is paedophelia, not a girl who has periods and can experience sexual arousal. Actually, most of the women the Islamic leader married were old, so the pedo claim is highly unlikely

        34. No, paedophelia is a preference for prepubescent children. Also, you’re sadly mistaken if you think horny young girls don’t exist-now more than ever, actually. If the married couple are happy with it, that’s all that matters. And as for the other things, you’re rationalizing. Muslims do the same thing so you can’t complain either. But there are hundreds of other instances of these kinds of things in the Bible.

        35. A multiple wife family under a patriarch lord is a terrible threat to any modern western feminized nanny state and to any traditional historic matrilineal or matriarchal culture. You never see the two coexist in the same territory peacefully. They simply won’t mix. It would be a battle to the death to eradicate one or the other.
          Some Asian cultures invite the man to live with the bride’s parents which is a matrilineal arrangement also practiced by aboriginals. East Oceana is crawling with indigenous matriarchal lines frozen in time. Notice not much polygamy in East Asia either and the physical stature differentiating these Asian men and women has blurred over time.
          Typical Indonesian couple:
          https://thumb1.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/521287/121322674/stock-photo-senior-indonesian-couple-in-love-traditional-clothing-studio-shot-121322674.jpg
          Averaging 152cm (5’0″) These Asians (Indonesians) being the shortest Asian grouping in the world have roughly equal stature/height between male/female.
          Versus this Caucasoid specimin couple:
          http://farm9.static.flickr.com/8028/7636468124_13329cdba9_m.jpg
          Caucasoid male stature/height varies >15-20% over Caucasoid females of the same line. Also the prominent cromag (cainine) bicuspid teeth protrude in the Caucasoid while recede in the Asian. These trait differences are pretty uniform with the heavier cro-magnon influenced Euro-Caucasoid and original Sephardic lines. The Asian-Ashkenazi is where the smaller/shorter jew male stereotype originated.
          The Indonesian photo above is titled “Elderly Indonesian couple in love”. It seems plausible that spouses of equal physical stature would be content with monogamy and Indonesians are known for remaining romantically ‘in love’ throughout old age.
          BUT THE CAUCASOID disparity in M/F stature warrents TWO WIVES for the man. Thus the origins of natural polygamy in the original Abrahamic lines.
          Also in the feminized west, two wives are needed in this day to fortify the family unit with the extra needed structural integrity to ward off nanny state encroachment. (3 is a magic number). It takes three legs to make a table stand. Think of a poly family as an engineered bulkhead in an age of onslaught against the family. Like the triangular steel girders on a tressel bridge or like the three point fortifications on a beach being landed upon by enemy invaders.

        36. A friend io mine works with children and quite a few of them talk about sex. There is a significant minority of 9 year old girls who have had a period, mensturate, are horny, orgasm, and yes, have sex.

        37. You know why? Its because often they are the daughters of single moms which cause earlier puberty. Also the outcomes of earlier puberty is negative in terms of health and potential childbirth indicating that it is more of a disorder rather than something that is healthy.

        38. It may be a factor, but another factor is the hormones put in food like beef and chicken. Another thing is that they are sexually aware earlier. Gone are the days of wondering what was happening to you as you got older- as soon as it happens, kids watch porn. Hell, when I was in elemantary school, ‘boys will be boys’ were already talking about and showing each other dirty stuff. I already researched the topic and ‘google search’ed it. So. Unless one can resolve the food industry problems as well as feminism and sex all over the media, a shorter term solution is needed. And no, abstinence for close to a decade before getting to legal age doesn’t work. I’d like to hear your solutions.

    2. More specifically on the fornication and adultery “do not cast ye seed into the fire”. That includes shooting upon the pages of a porno mag, or in a faggotts asshole, or in a donkey’s or sheep’s snatch or in a whore’s clefte.

      1. Find an at least half decent family and get married to the girl as soon as she’s old enough to get horny. Wait too long and she’ll get set in her ways and be used by guys; molding her young mitigates that. Would have to go to a judge for that though, as it would be illegal otherwise.

  16. “In patriarchal religion, female sins, like rebellion, envy, dishonesty, hypergamy, dressing and acting like a whore, and “hamstering” or rationalizing sin are condemned”
    You know, the King James Bible isn’t bad, but it doesn’t use the word hamstering nearly enough. Must be a greek / hebrew translation issue

  17. jesus wasn’t jacked up like that pick shows. he ate the traditional middle eastern diet of the time, high in grains, olives, some goat cheese, fruits like fig, occasional animal meat. he labored with his body so he was fit, but thin.

      1. No not even close. Other than being a Jew who had zero European blood in him who worked outdoors. He would have been damn dark

      2. Problem with this assertion is that you’ll have to explain how many Jews were able to pass themselves off as Greeks and/or Romans. Were they black too?

        1. Yes the original pottery shows Greeks wuz black kangz all dem white statues wuz made by Shakespeare and Davincci

      1. Actually…he wasn’t a carpenter. The Greek says “tecton” (but in Greek) which was translated as a carpenter. However, – more accurate translation would be “day laborer”
        He was like the Mexican outside of Home Depot, not skilled labor. This actually adds to the story imo

  18. all men should strive to become the leaders of their households, workplaces, communities demanding the rights of leadership and embracing the hard work that the leader must endure

  19. I know a lot of people mock religion but I rather live in religious society (with exception of Islam and Judaism) than an atheist ones.

  20. Fight to good fight brothers and keep the faith. May your families be successful and may you raise up the future. God speed.

  21. Which ‘branch’ of Christianity do you belong to? I’m having a spiritual crisis in searching for a church and am about ready to give up altogether.

  22. Have you ever just wanted for someone to just receive information like Keanu Reeves in the Matrix, just download it into someones brain and they got it? That is how I feel about religion. I learned all about it about 20 years ago. It was a process that took over a year, and I easily could have tossed it aside at that time, but I didn’t.
    Actually, it was longer than that, I grew up in a household that was irreligious, but I was well acquainted with various Mormons in the community. They seemed nice enough, rather strict in their behavior though. Some of the hottest girls in my school were LDS, way out of my league at the time. I was disappointed with the trashy westernized girls that all of you complain about, so I completely understand.
    When I was 22, on spring break with some friends of mine, I had an experience that made me question if God was there. Returning to school, I picked up the Bible and read it on occasion. At that point, I done the bar scene, and was getting tired of that. I was growing up, and getting to the point of trying to find a decent girl to find and build a relationship. In a community of about 1/10 LDS, I started asking girls out in my classes that I thought were decent. 4 girls in a row, and they all turned out to be Mormon. The last one asked if I would go to church with her.
    Other than a couple dates, we didn’t develop any relationship. But, I did go to church, and eventually came to my self and realized that there was substance to what they were saying. What attracted me to these girls was something intangible, the spirit that they carried. So, you may say I got into the church because of a girl, well, not really. There was a familiarity and a sense of belonging that I find hard to describe.
    Two years later, I met my wife. Then I went on a missin to Ireland, she went to Florida, then we married about a year after we returned. Life is good.

  23. A very well written article. As a Muslim I feel saddened to see Christians losing their faith day by day and witness the rise of feminism and matriarchal beliefs instead. It never ceases to amaze me the fact that Christianity and Islam’s teachings are so much alike! and i will qoute (excuse my transliteral inaccuracy from arabic to english) “When a person gets married he has completed half of his religion, so let him fear Allaah with regard to the other half.” and,
    “Whomever Allaah blesses with a righteous wife, He has helped him with half of his religion, so let him fear Allaah with regard to the other half.”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *