The Wisdom of St. Paul

Post image for The Wisdom of St. Paul

by W.F. Price on February 23, 2011

It’s a good thing Novaseeker came in from the wilderness to post a characteristically rational, temperate post on the recent dust-up between traditionalist Christians and men who are struggling with state-sponsored dispossession and feminist assaults. Given my own circumstances and experiences, I certainly wouldn’t have been so charitable. The talk of “honor” and “duty” comes off as nothing more than a slap in the face to man who has sacrificed a great deal to be able to do his duty in a legal and political climate that punishes him for even trying to live by the code traditionalists espouse. Attempting to be a father and exercise some patriarchal influence is punishable by policy, and arguably by the law, although they don’t go so far as to be especially explicit on that count. No, caring about your children and trying to have some say over their upbringing is simply called “abusive” and part of the “control wheel” or somesuch other feminist contrivance. Real decisions are made in real courts every single day taking this policy into account, and only the willfully blind can ignore them at this point.

So, I’m glad I took some time to cool off before responding, because I personally don’t have an issue with traditionalists, and I don’t think we need to be at each other’s throats. Novaseeker explained the issues in a clear way, and in doing so gave cooler heads the opportunity to prevail.

Although I rarely make an issue out of it here at The Spearhead (obviously it is not the right place), I am a Christian, and live my life more or less according to that, i.e. I’m not perfect, but at least I make a genuine effort to follow the Commandments and the general philosophy behind the faith. As Novaseeker pointed out, however, the men’s movement is not distinctly Christian, but rather a broader political movement that encompasses men in general. This doesn’t mean it is anti-Christian by any means — traditional religions, including Christianity, have a lot to gain by fighting the state takeover of the family. Christian Americans generally supported the American Revolution despite the fact that many revolutionaries were clearly not Christian by strict definitions and some, like Jefferson, were deeply sympathetic to the arguably anti-Christian French Revolution and outright rejected much of Christianity. They did so because freedom for American men was understood as freedom of conscience and faith, which is necessarily a good thing for those of faith, because the state will always at some point try to manipulate religion to its own advantage.

So it seems that there should be a natural alliance between men who want to eject the state from our families and men of faith. There’s nothing that undermines traditional notions of the family in a real way like legions of social workers and attorneys getting involved in domestic issues, not to mention the insertion of police into the home on the slightest pretext. Even the most innocent, devout Christian, Jew or Muslim – despite his excellent relationship with God – has no guarantee that a decidedly ungodly state will not throw him to the lions for whatever reason. And those who think feminism does not demand these sacrifices are not performing their due diligence — the feminists do call for attacks on religious men all the time. Take Mary Daly for example:

Women who are Pirates in a phallocentric society are involved in a complex operation. First, it is necessary to Plunder — that is, righteously rip off — gems of knowledge that the patriarchs have stolen from us. Second, we must Smuggle back to other women our Plundered treasures. In order to invert strategies that will be big and bold enough for the next millennium, it is crucial that women share our experiences: the chances we have taken and the choices that have kept us alive. They are my Pirate’s battle cry and wake-up call for women who I want to hear.

Given that when it comes to the most important matters our interests converge very well, what could it be that is causing this trouble between traditionalist Christians and the wider MRM?

When we get to the root of it, it’s an old problem, and one that a very important Christian leader addressed in the early days of the church. St. Paul, who devoted his life to building and fostering Christianity when it was only decades old, foresaw that the church needed a set of guidelines to avoid the kind of infighting and discord that could kill it in its infancy.

One of the rules that he promulgated concerned women and their role in the church. He recognized that if given free rein, women would begin to place themselves in positions of authority, where they would inevitably cause trouble for the early Christians. Therefore, he made himself very clear about their role, taking special care to prevent them from teaching and preaching to men.

1 Timothy 2:

7Whereunto I am ordained a preacher, and an apostle, (I speak the truth in Christ, and lie not;) a teacher of the Gentiles in faith and verity.

8I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands, without wrath and doubting.

9In like manner also, that women adorn themselves in modest apparel, with shamefacedness and sobriety; not with broided hair, or gold, or pearls, or costly array;

10But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works.

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.

12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

13For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

14And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

15Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

This may not be a pleasant or comfortable passage for the modern Western woman, but there it is.

Unfortunately, a number of women calling themselves “Christian” have taken it on themselves to teach and preach to men. It is quite common these days, having become almost normative, and the results should have been predictable.

Take Katherine Jefferts Schori for example. Currently the head of the Episcopalian Church in the US, she has all but run that institution into the ground. Some may argue that this is because she is liberal, but I’m not sure that’s the case. St. Paul made no distinctions based on politics, but rather sex.

Certain conservative women have also taken it upon themselves to ignore Paul and start preaching in all but name themselves. They certainly don’t shy away from presuming to teach men when it comes to spiritual matters, which is also clearly proscribed by Paul.

So why is this a problem? Later in the epistle, Paul gives us some insight concerning women with too much time on their hands:

1 Timothy 5:

13And withal they learn to be idle, wandering about from house to house; and not only idle, but tattlers also and busybodies, speaking things which they ought not.

14I will therefore that the younger women marry, bear children, guide the house, give none occasion to the adversary to speak reproachfully.

He was writing about the issue of widows who had not yet reached old age, who at that time had little to do because their children were weaned and there was no man in the house to keep them occupied. I think today another cause of this behavior might be housewives whose husbands are away at work and children at school every day.

With little to do, these women go around gossiping and provoking people, and taking on inappropriate roles. They might pit men against each other for some little thrill, or simply as a consequence of getting involved in what rightly ought to be worked out amongst men. When the inevitable spat develops, men’s instinct to come to the defense of women is triggered, and next thing you know guys are raising their voices and balling up their fists. This is almost guaranteed to happen, and it proves Paul’s wisdom in his epistle to Timothy.

Fortunately, we had Novaseeker to throw some water on the fire, and now we find that the solution to the recent rancor between traditionalist Christians and the MRM already exists within Christianity itself. Perhaps for those of us who are both Christian and concerned about men’s issues, this can provide us with a greater appreciation of both.

{ 105 comments… read them below or add one }

Cybro February 23, 2011 at 10:05

Here is a better one.

8 Now to the unmarried and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do.

9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

Better to stay unmarried. Shove that up your ass marriage mandater bitches. It’s not my duty to marry you because you are an out of control slut. That is your problem not mine.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 63 Thumb down 6
CSPB February 23, 2011 at 10:08

1Tim2:11&12 has often been reinterpreted as women not preaching in church, but then that too has been rationalized away. Hard as I try, I cannot see that St. Paul limited his admonition to narrow circumstance.

Whether MRAs are Christian or not, most (if not all) will agree with the wisdom of this passage and that limiting the application leads to much misery.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
InT February 23, 2011 at 10:11

“Idle hands are the devil’s playground.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 18 Thumb down 2
Ken February 23, 2011 at 10:11

I hear ya, but I for one rejected Christianity years ago because it was always “strange” to me, an alien creed that spoke against normal human instincts and really was a Hebrew rebellion against the norm 2,000 years ago and picked up as a “religion” long after the execution of a carpenter.
I came to my own conclusion in three simple questions:
1) Have you ever had sex with a woman?
2) Do you own property/money?
3) Have you ever defended yourself violently against an attacker?
*I answer YES to all three so therefore I do NOT qualify as a Follower of Jesus (Yeshua) Christ as depicted in the Hebrew Bible since he preached specifically AGAINST all three.

It has come to my observation and personal experience that Christianity is part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Want to see for yourself? 1)Go sit in a few Churches this Spring all by yourself and se how you are treated as a man-alone in the congregation (They’ll see you as “recovering” from drugs or alcohol since you have no woman or kids with you~ask the Pastor and he or she will confirm such).
2) See for yourself how “feminized” the modern version of “Jesus” has become and how WOMEN hold up that mythical banner higher than men do, but miserably fail to adhere to Biblical precepts (i.e. Cindy-Lou-Who riding on the Cable Guy’s pole singing “Hallelu-yeaah-yeaah!”)

Take some time to see for yourself my friends!

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 40
Hadamard February 23, 2011 at 10:11

“First, it is necessary to Plunder — that is, righteously rip off — gems of knowledge that the patriarchs have stolen from us. Second, we must Smuggle back to other women our Plundered treasures. In order to invert strategies that will be big and bold enough for the next millennium”

Feminists smuggling plunder from us (men) and coming up with new strategies that are big and bold….

I don’t like the sound of that. What is left for them to do to us? 10% man tax? Getting child custody 100% of the time instead of 95%?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 26 Thumb down 1
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 10:17

If comparative religions were taught in Government Schools, there’d be no conflict between the groups.

Conservatives & Christians view fornication as immoral, and wish to preserve Marriage as a sacrament.

This is in direct conflict with secular Philosophical views on Hedonism.

All this arguing is the result of illiteracy and sub-standard education.

But, it makes for much0 hits.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 10
Paul February 23, 2011 at 10:19

11Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
12But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

Hmmmm… it is interesting how so many traditional Christian women tend to forget (or rationalize) that passage. And yet these same traditional women preach to us how gay marriage is a violation of God’s word.

Irony, thy name is woman.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 10:29

I’m not a christian, but it strikes me that these guys had a pretty reasonable grip on how things have worked out.

I think that some of the religious need to understand that just because atheists don’t believe in deities does NOT mean that they lack morality. I like the earth based morality of the original teachings of j.c. just fine. I just see no need to link ‘going to church’ with ‘doing the right thing’. And you will never get me to agree (I’m not an atheist by accident or by lack of will or by lack of thought about the issue).

Another reservation I have with the religious is I do not want ‘religious leaders’ running my life any more than feminist ones. The Spanish Inquisition is what happens when the religious facists get to run things, the current state of the world is when feminists fuck things up. Both look like crap options to me.

When the traditionalists start spouting ‘man up’ / ‘step up’ in blatant disregard of the welfare of men, I see red. Please use your religious values to fix the problem, not screw other men over for your convenience (Bonald). And with all due respect, paedophilia in the priest hood is a fucking disgrace. Almost as big a disgrace as the cover ups that happened. I will NOT buy into traditionalism as it shows no link between what it says it values and what it does.

So, by all means believe in anything that you want to, as long as as non-believers are left the eff alone.

I naturally want to see equality between the sexes, it’s just that as many here have found; feminists aren’t after equality, they are a hate-movement against men.

If women prefer real equality to the ‘keep-ye to ye kitchen, and shutteth thine mouth’ perhaps THEY ought to start complaining about feminazis as well.

Personally, I prefer MGTOW; I won’t be white knighting or manginaing but neither will I fight against “where’s my sammitch”?

‘Normal women’ need to grow up and take responsibility for the shite-hole feminism has left us, or STFU and go back to the kitchen. I prefer the former, but I’m not fighting your battles ladies.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 28 Thumb down 10
Justin February 23, 2011 at 10:29

A Christian man is called to have nothing to do with sexual immorality. Anyone who promotes a life of sexual promiscuity, for men or women, is rightly avoided and condemned. Unfortunately, many promiscuity-promoting writers have grafted themselves onto the online MRM.

In the end, the two groups are speaking totally different languages and coming from completely different places and motivations. There is a fundamental conflict of values and worldviews.

From a Christian perspective, there is no room for Satan in Christ’s house. Satan is to be battled, even if, no ESPECIALLY if, he claims to be fighting on your side.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 29 Thumb down 27
AfOR February 23, 2011 at 10:35

A Man can be good or bad irrespective of his religion.

A man’s religion is neither guide to or guarantee of his behaviour.

I am a male skank ho, let’s examine the 10 Commandments as they apply to me…

ONE: ‘You shall have no other gods before Me.’

Since I am atheistic, I can say honestly that I abide by this one.

TWO: ‘You shall not make for yourself a carved image–any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth.’

Everyone who had a plastic model of the Saturn V rocket broke that one.

THREE: ‘You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.’

I don’t, when I invoke his name in profanity it is anything but in vain.

FOUR: ‘Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.’

Yup, I do no work on a Sunday

FIVE: ‘Honor your father and your mother.’

Oh yes

SIX: ‘You shall not murder.’

nope, not even when given adequate reason by being falsely accused

SEVEN: ‘You shall not commit adultery.’

Serial monogamist and fucker of friends with benefits, only once married, so I obey that one too.

EIGHT: ‘You shall not steal.’

yup, honest to a fault

NINE: ‘You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.’

LMfAO, go tell this shit to my FRA’s and everyone who took coin to profit from their false witness against me.

TEN: ‘You shall not covet your neighbor’s house; you shall not covet your neighbor’s wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor’s.’

Again, see point #9

So there you are, a good christian am I…

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 23 Thumb down 21
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 10:44

AfOR,

damn I had a SaturnV airfix model.

I just never put it together with the ten commandments before.

I certainly agree with “A Man can be good or bad irrespective of his religion.”

There is no correlation between the two issues that I can see.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 2
SingleDad February 23, 2011 at 10:47

@ Hadamard

I think things will get much worse in ways we cannot imagine today. Why do you think our secretary of state has done nothing except meet with women all over the world non-stop.

I mean, we’re in two wars, North Africa is coming undone and where is Hitlary.

I’ll tell you. She is meeting with and creating a world feminist Cabal to be a non-elected shadow government.

What can we expect, more men in prison, less boys graduating high school, less and more dangerous jobs for men, more wars (to reduce the male population, a win/win for Hitlary), and world wide demonization and extermination of heterosexuality.

They hate men, women that like men, children and families.

Use your imagination, they are, read what Mary Daly wrote above, they are doing all this in secret as they know what they have in mind is unethical and could not tolerate the light of day.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 31 Thumb down 2
aharon February 23, 2011 at 10:49

This past Sunday, I stopped in at a local liberal metaphysical Christian Church (Unity) in my neighborhood since I’m always open to considering new ways of living and new ideas in my lifelong quest to figure out what is spiritually true for me. On occasion, I enjoy joining with other people in worship services (I usually pray on my own) and even if I do not strongly share their particular beliefs.

The place was led by a mother and daughter minister team. The female office manager came up to me and introduced herself. After chatting for a few minutes, she mentioned that if I have kids they have a children’s program (duh). When I replied no kids, her eyes grew flat and cold and I realized that the kid comment was a move to help her judge me. While there was a big poster pushing for the Church’s men’s group it was obvious by the percentage of men there that males were in the minority.

Think I’ll stick to studying spirituality, praying, and meditating on my own.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 32 Thumb down 4
Anonymous age 68 February 23, 2011 at 10:50

In the 70′s a temporary brother-in-law told me there were army surplus jeeps for sale $50, all unassembled, and covered with cosmolene. I tried to get him to see the light, with no luck. So, I told him when he found them, I guaranteed, no time limit, to take 15. Gosh, he must have forgotten.

Likewise, I am told there are churches in the US where no one preaches if a wife sins, it means her husband is far from God; it’s his fault she sins. In the same sense as the $50 jeeps, I have not actually found one. I have visited such churches, and in the end, they all have the same stupid heresy.

I say stupid only because I cannot think of a more expressive word that is printable.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 17 Thumb down 2
Anonymous age 68 February 23, 2011 at 10:53

My wife reads the Bible, but like most women, doesn’t really understand it very well.

She does get pretty pissed off when I say things like:

“Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord, and what is good enough for the Lord is good enough for me.”

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 22 Thumb down 4
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 10:55

Conservatives & Christians view fornication as immoral, and wish to preserve Marriage as a sacrament via limitations.

This is counter to those males brought to the MRM “movement” via PUA sites that promote unlimited sexual activity.

THAT is the major source of the conflict – nothing more.

Anything more
is just those who like hearing themselves talk.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 9 Thumb down 11
W.F. Price February 23, 2011 at 11:03

A Christian man is called to have nothing to do with sexual immorality. Anyone who promotes a life of sexual promiscuity, for men or women, is rightly avoided and condemned. Unfortunately, many promiscuity-promoting writers have grafted themselves onto the online MRM.

In the end, the two groups are speaking totally different languages and coming from completely different places and motivations. There is a fundamental conflict of values and worldviews.

But yet you are welcome to confront and denounce sexual immorality here, and you know it. The only thing I can’t guarantee is that people will take it well, especially if it’s a confrontational approach, but that shouldn’t deter a zealous Christian. However, I think you might find on closer investigation that the biggest issue many of us have with a certain female marriage promoter is the ease with which she trivializes what’s been done to us and our personal experiences, dismissing us as damaged goods in so many words. Only a thoughtless woman could be so tactless and crass, and that is exactly why Paul advised Christian men to have these types shut up.

From a Christian perspective, there is no room for Satan in Christ’s house. Satan is to be battled, even if, no ESPECIALLY if, he claims to be fighting on your side.

-Justin

This isn’t Christ’s house we’re operating in, Justin — it’s Rome.

Did Paul run away from Rome?

Ken February 23, 2011 at 11:16

What can we expect, more men in prison, less boys graduating high school, less and more dangerous jobs for men, more wars (to reduce the male population, a win/win for Hitlary), and world wide demonization and extermination of heterosexuality.

The marginalization of Hetereosexuality the NOW types want is in their literature and you can see it in the push for more and more films, books, etc. denigrating straight couples and glorifying the nation-wrecker that is the other “lifestyle”. I guess CLONING will be there answer for the coming birth-dirth in the next 50 years?
Yep SingleDad, that is Hillary 110%
and if it’s not true….I’d bet she WISHES it were!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Herbal Essence February 23, 2011 at 11:19

Justin-
Christianity has been a primary vector of the spread of Feminism through it’s female pedestalization. If you want to be a Christian I respect that but let’s not get ahead of ourselves labeling who’s the saint and who’s the sinner. I think you’d be surprised how many non-religious men’s advocates practice abstinence.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 4
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 11:23

@Firepower

Conservatives & Christians view fornication as immoral, and wish to preserve Marriage as a sacrament via limitations.

This is counter to those males brought to the MRM “movement” via PUA sites that promote unlimited sexual activity.

THAT is the major source of the conflict – nothing more.

Anything more
is just those who like hearing themselves talk.

No, not really mate,

I’m an atheist BUT

1) I do NOT agree with the PUA attitude of it’s female with a pulse – shag it (it’s fucking sad for a real-man ™ to value himself by how many skanks he can shag)

2) Bonald and his trads saying men should marry whatever the issue – FUCK THAT. Trads should fix the fucking problems, not ignore it and push men under the marriage bus.

So I, at least, don’t fit into your cosy two state model. I do not think that I’m alone and will NOT sign up to either side.

Churchiosity (as opposed to actual religion) is in out and out denial of the state of things for men – DO NOT GET MARRIED.

PUA? If it is about “how great a man you are is judges by how many women you have shagged” that is SAD. Grow up.

Game to understand women is an entirely different subject. Game does not equal PUA.

Men should read the material and use it to improve their understanding of 50% of the population.

Women (as the wise paigeu said on another thread) should read it to understand that hypergamy is a shitty way for women to live their lives. Basically they should have more self-respect. She was a worthwhile contributor IMHO.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 6
Robert February 23, 2011 at 11:37

InT February 23, 2011 at 10:11
“Idle hands are the devil’s playground.”

I have heard it said like this;

“Idle hands are the devil’s tools and an idle mind is his playground.”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
SingleDad February 23, 2011 at 11:42

So if you absolutely must live with a female, despite all the warnings men here are giving you, make sure she works. This is the best way to keep it going for a while. At least she’ll be bitching about her boss instead of you and you know where she is 8 hours a day…

…not plotting against you.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 5
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 11:43

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 22
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 23, 2011 at 11:44

Welmer,
the number ONE way women control men is to tell lies to incite men to fight each other. Women tell lies and seek out the white-knight to ‘defend her non-existent honour’. And these stupid white-knights do so. THAT is what Paul is talking about. We’ve ALL seen LOTS of women do this.

Being ever interested in presenting SOLUTIONS to the MRM area? Here is my test for ‘man-hating, white-knighting, mangina apologists’. Any man who refuses to take the test or fails the test is, in my opinion, a ‘man-hating, white-knighting, mangina apologist’. It’s only 8 questions. It only takes 5 minutes. Until MEN are willing to hold women accountable for crimes then MEN are going to be abused. It has now got to be clear to even the DIMMEST man that women have no sense of justice and can’t possibly control themselves. Doesn’t it?

http://www.peternolan.com/Forums/tabid/420/forumid/57/threadid/702/scope/posts/Default.aspx

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
dragnet February 23, 2011 at 11:54

I think today another cause of this behavior might be housewives whose husbands are away at work and children at school every day.

With little to do, these women go around gossiping and provoking people, and taking on inappropriate roles.

I assume this is a thinly veiled reference to Laura Wood, aka “The Thinking Housewife”…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 4
Paul February 23, 2011 at 11:55

I am not sure why the traditional conservatives are opposed to “Game.” Game is a colloquial expression that describes the importance of male dominant behavior. 2,000 years before Mystery and Roissy, the apostle Paul was explaining to men the importance of men assuming a dominate role. One of the functions of marriage was to check the hypergamous instincts of women. It was to prevent women from having multiple “baby daddies” with their feral bastard children running amok. Traditional marriage and the family was the foundation of Western Civilization.

The traditional church should be embarrassed that atheists such as Roissy have better articulated and defended what were the cornerstones of Christianity and Western Civilization. The idea that men should become submissive to women and put women on a pedestal has no basis in historic Christianity (of Judaism for that matter).

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 3
Novaseeker February 23, 2011 at 11:57

Bill –

Good post.

Yes, St. Paul had it right about a lot of things, of course, but these days it’s fashionable to view him as an outdated misogynist, particularly among liberal Christian groups like the Episcopalians.

As for the incompatibility of worldviews, this again assumes that MRA is one consistent worldview, when it is not. And certainly not about what Christians consider sexual immorality. Again, it’s a clearinghouse, not a worldview. I think this is a part of the problem that traditionalists, including traditionalist Christians, have with MRA — they’re looking to discern its “worldview”, find PUAs and Game advocates and so on, and dismiss MRA as embracing a hedonistic worldview which is inconsistent with Christianity. That overlooks the many people involved in MRA who are obedient to a non-hedonistic sexual morality, or who are simply celibate by choice, because the desire to to discern the worldview and then determine whether it is compatible or not, instead of seeing it for the clearinghouse of various ideas and approaches that it really is. Another factor that comes into play, often, is the desire of traditionalists to not get their hands dirty — that comes up a lot, and not only in this specific context — by “collaborating” in any way with people who may have a different worldview to theirs, or with a system that is based on a different worldview.

Bonald understands it better than most trads, I think, and I will respond to his ideas separately at his more recent blog post on the topic.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 2
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 11:59

Firepower

I fucking assure you that I am an atheist. You are over-simplifying when you say that men are either religious or a PUA.

I have enough history here that you can check that.

I’ve seen your posts and it is clear that you are a mouthy hot head, at time I am too.

But you are fucking wrong, and “You’re a weak Straw Man Arguer “- stick it up your arse. Don’t pigeon hole me you twat

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 21 Thumb down 8
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 23, 2011 at 12:02

Justin February 23, 2011 at 10:29
“A Christian man is called to have nothing to do with sexual immorality. Anyone who promotes a life of sexual promiscuity, for men or women, is rightly avoided and condemned.”

Justin. Yet. My ex admitted adultery when we were starting our relationship and lied to me, her father, her mother and everyone else that her first divorce was final. This lie only came out when, as a matter of routine in our divorce proceeding 23 years later, I asked for a copy of her first divorce certificate. She refused. When we first started out the first question out of my mouth was ‘is your divorce complete’. She said yes. I asked because we were both ‘christian’. Her father was devastated when I told him his daughter had lied to his face about that.

Further. There is evidence my ex was engaged in prostitution after our marriage. Not conclusive. I make no accusation. I just presented the evidence to the women around her and suggested THEY might ask her what she was doing in these many and varied locations for exactly 70 minutes. There is also evidence she was committing adultery in our marriage. She was sleeping overnight at another house just weeks after ‘separation’. Hhhmmmm. Yet christian women will NOT ‘avoid and comdemn’ her. My ex is also PROVEN to have committed perjury, kidnapping, theft and extortion. She also committed child abuse. Yet christian women will NOT ‘avoid and comdemn’ her.

Indeed. Despite the fact my ex was NONE christian at least ONE christian woman I know LIED on her behalf on a personal reference claiming she was ‘hard working’ when that christian woman knew FULL WELL she was bone idle. This to help her get a job. This christian woman KNEW my ex had stolen EUR18,000 from our company and that she was lying in the courts about me.

So? How about you f*** off and get your christian WOMEN to obey their bibles before you come preaching to EX-christians, eh?

One of the reasons I tell young men that christianity is a LIE is that NO CHRISTIAN WOMAN OBEYED HER BIBLE when asked by me, a christian men, for assistance with a ‘fallen’ wife. Something about ‘log in your own eye and speck in others’ comes to mind, eh?

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 23 Thumb down 5
AfOR February 23, 2011 at 12:02

@ Genedau

I do NOT agree with the PUA attitude of it’s female with a pulse – shag it (it’s fucking sad for a real-man ™ to value himself by how many skanks he can shag)

mm, you’ve conflated two things there…. I’ll fuck anything non fugly and female, but you can’t draw a line from that to making an assumption that I value myself by the quantity of them.

I do it cos I enjoy it.

Is everyone who enjoys a beer blackballed just because a few value themselves by the quantity of beer they put away?

etc

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 14 Thumb down 7
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 12:18

AfOR,

okay, fair enough, you might well have a point.

My post was more addressed to out religious friends who think that you are either a ‘Christian’ (whatever that means – action NOT words) or a shag-monster – I am not either, and will NOT be pigeonholed as either.

As to shagging everything with a pulse? I don’t like the attitude (as I said) but as long as it’s consensual (including her regrets) then fuckit it’s your life.

I’d just prefer to live in a society with morality but without pompous facist prigs telling me how to live.

But that’s pretty much what I said first time round, isn’t it?

Pro-morality, anti-the faux superiority so often brought about by religion. If you treat religion as your private issue – fucking great. Telling men to get married anyway? Stick it, stick it right up there

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 3
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 12:18

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 23
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 12:19

Oh and one thing more

mmmmm…beer

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 12:21

AfOR

@ Genedau

mm, you’ve conflated two things there…. I’ll fuck anything non fugly and female, but you can’t draw a line from that to making an assumption that I value myself by the quantity of them

Conflation…inflation…making false assumptions and stretches of the imagination.

Purely normal. I suspect a Welshman lol

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 5 Thumb down 18
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 12:24

Firepower,

Day one?

whooo well done you loud mouthed dick head.

What has that got with the price of meat?

I wasn’t showing off, I was pointing out that you could check that I wasn’t a ‘Lara’, ‘Skabby’ or ‘Bonald’, you dick. It wasn’t an appeal to authority, it was an offer of verification.

Usual maneuver? WTF are you on?

You and Kathy have anger issues in common – why don’t you, her and her cats get it on?

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 15 Thumb down 9
Uncle Elmer February 23, 2011 at 12:42

Women who are Pirates in a phallocentric society are involved in a complex operation. First, it is necessary to Plunder — that is, righteously rip off — gems of knowledge that the patriarchs have stolen from us…

Feminists shore are funny!

http://www.freebookspot.co/Comments.aspx?Element_ID=94944

Product Description: Love on the High Seas

He is the Sea Wolf, a dreaded pirate who stops English navy ships and frees impressed American sailors. Few know Morgan Drake’s name, and none guesses at his past. Except, that is, a nosy Savannah reporter named Serenity James. Determined to protect his secrets at any cost, Morgan sets sail for Savannah…and Serenity.

All her life, Serenity has longed for adventure. As a woman, though, she’s lucky even to be tolerated in her father’s newspaper office. Then she’s kidnapped by the bold, sexy pirate whose story fired her imagination, and his embrace Serenity finds adventure beyond her wildest dreams.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Keyster February 23, 2011 at 12:44

Great rebuke of WSJ Hymowitz article, “Where are all the Good Men?” from Dr. Helen.

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/manning-up-or-wimping-out-men-dont-exist-to-serve-womens-desires/

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
Uncle Elmer February 23, 2011 at 12:45

Product Description: A Pirate’s Love

Sailing westward toward the Caribbean sun, young Bettina Verlaine obediently sets out to fulfill the promise made by her father–but not by her heart — a prearranged marriage destined not to be…once the notorious Captain Tristan’s pirate ship appears on the horizon.

Abducted by the bold and handsome brigand, the pale-haired beauty surrenders her innocence in the warm caress of the tropical winds — detesting her virile captor for enslaving her. . .yet loving him for the passionate spell he casts over fragile, yearning heart.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 12 Thumb down 1
Uncle Elmer February 23, 2011 at 12:46

This book constists of three beautifully told tales of three friends who look out for each other.

The Pirate…. When Katherine Inskip, a romance writer, finds herself on an island for one months vacation she blames it on her two best friends who are also writers.The island used to be owned by a pirate who happens to currently be owend by one his decendant, Jared Hawthorne. Kate is going to actually live one of her books when she gets together with this local pirate.

The Adventurer…. Sarah Felltwood is a adventure writer, and for on of her books she uses Gidion Traces’s articles as a source. After a few months of writing each other, Sarah wants to meet Mr. Trace, to see if he can help her on one of her own treasure hunts.

The Cowboy… When Margaret Lark returned home, from her best friend Sarah ‘s wedding, she finds an old flame sitting in her living room. Rage Cassidy wants to rekindel the love that they had a year past. And in order to get his dear Maggie to cooperate he blackmails her into going to his ranch in Arizona, to convince her that he’s changed and wants another chance.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 12:46

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 21
Uncle Elmer February 23, 2011 at 12:47

Katherine Cross escaped a confining life and now lives as Captain Kit Savage. She embraces adventure on The Black Rose and her relationship with fellow pirate, James Kingsley. James has a lusty body and a bad temper, but Kit revels in the sexual pleasure he provides. Quinn Blackwell has two solutions for a financial crisis: find his lost fiance or find Silas Watkins’ plans for an amazing invention. Quinn finds both on The Black Rose, and his arrival creates a powder keg of sexual tension. As Kit, James, and Quinn vie for dominance in the captain’s quarters, the mystery of an elusive journal leads to an explosive showdown. A pirate’s life for three isn’t easy, but there’s never a dull moment. ** A Siren Erotic Romance

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 12:52

Dear Uncle Elmer,

would you mind posting a content warning, ‘emo-porn – high brain damage potential’ springs to mind, before posting that…that…whatever the hell you want to call it!

I thought Orca Quimfree plumbed the depths, but hell, that is pure emo-crack (crack-crack?)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 12:56

Uncle,

just seen the second ‘chunk’

the next time a woman takes the piss out of man-porn I am going to laugh my head off.

man porn is nothing to be proud of, but five minutes and you’re probably done and dusted. Do women do multiple orgasms to emo-porn? How many hours of that stuff can they lap-up?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 13:01

You’ll fit in well with the “your argument is wrong because fuck you” crowd.
You must have great teas with the girls, whilst discussing fashion.

Yeah, yeah, whatever. You clearly didn’t bother to read what I posted if that’s what you thought I said, you tedious, rabid toss-pot.

Why don’t you go fuck yourself? You must be pretty good at it by now.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 4
Punchline February 23, 2011 at 13:04

All of this talk about the bible, moral codes and scriptures is just another layer of madness to conceal women’s deceit. If any man still believes in the 1950′s, idyllic Fred McMurray concept of dating and marriage, then you must be a card carrying mangina and i hope you drown in walrus piss.

Hot debate. What do you think? Thumb up 13 Thumb down 9
aharon February 23, 2011 at 13:05

“The idea that men should become submissive to women and put women on a pedestal has no basis in historic Christianity (of Judaism for that matter).”

Agreed. Possibly (not sure) the first we saw of it occurred during the medieval ages during the era of chivalry with the knights, ladies, and damsels in distress. It’s one thing to have laws, rules, and codes for treating women with human decency and kindness, yet one step too many has led to the present situation. Women of course are the supreme ‘manipulators’ and survivalists and use their superior acting skills to let men go down with the Titanic while they run to the life boats. Even the ultra-orthodox hassidic rabbis (especially the younger ones) are starting to be swayed by the false-claims and stats of feminists about how horrible women have it.

Currently, governments worldwide (China, India, elsewhere) use ‘women rights’ as a political tool or weapon and perhaps not so much for decent fair treatment of women but ultimately to exploit, oppress, and intimidate men.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 21 Thumb down 2
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 13:11

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 19
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 13:23

I have the accent of the country I was born and raised in, same as you I suspect?

If you want to show ANY example of me claiming superiority because of where I came from…no? didn’t think so, because they don’t exist.

Similarly, where did I say the UK was better than the US…no, again eh?

The UK and US may be in slightly differant parts of the shite hole, but it is the same shite hole – I’ve said things to that effect a few times. (I like the States, I’ve visited a few times)

Hmmm, I’m arguing facts (like a man) while you, welllll…you’re projecting your perceived inferiority.

I just don’t see where all your anger with me (there have been others) came from? It wasn’t from what I wrote as far as the red-green things say. Are you on drugs? Should you be?

Anyway, can’t be bothered with you anymore – get help you prat, you need it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 2
Firepower February 23, 2011 at 13:35

Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 23
RMM February 23, 2011 at 14:23

To be honest, if the traditionalist Christians think they’re better off avoiding me, then they’re very welcome to it, and jolly good luck to them; I ain’t gonna be the one seeking them out. Doesn’t really steal any more of my sleep than the thought of feminists not wanting anything to do with me either.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 1
Keyster February 23, 2011 at 14:45

If we still followed “traditional” Christianity to the letter of the Bible, this would be a far different world. (Think Fundamentalist Muslims unwavering devotion to the Koran.) Christianity has adapted its marketing strategies over the centuries to keep its appeal with popular culture.

According to the Bible we’d still have slavery and arranged marriages to young virgins and stonings (sound familiar?). I don’t recall God weighing in on these matters. I hope he doesn’t mind that we interpreted the Bible to be far less oppressive and patriarchal than it was originally written.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 10 Thumb down 3
woggy February 23, 2011 at 15:02

@Justin

Do you shop at convenience stores- you know, milk, bread, eggs, gas in the car.
There’s usually plenty of porn on the rack too.
You buy your eggs and milk. You don’t buy the porn; although by giving the proprietor your business, you support someone who sells porn.

MRA isn’t some “take it all or leave it all” type thing. If someone told me that I had to submit- as significant token of my concern for men’s issues- a fresh pair of underpants (each worn by a different woman) every week, then no, I couldn’t be here with a clear conscience.
Fortunately, for me and others like me, that isn’t the deal.

Here’s something to chew on that one of the other posters alluded to: Just why is it that we’ve had to wait 50-odd years for a guy like Roissy to expose the filthy underside of feminism for what it is and where it is taking us?
Why didn’t the Christian clergy, en masse, ever set about to show society-at-large the ugliness and injustice of feminism?
I submit to you that most of them are either too afraid to offend the ladies in their congregations or they’re too afraid of muddying themselves in the trench- where the fight is- because the subject matter might offend the priggish.
They are to be held more responsible – rather than less, owing to their responsibilities of leadership – than the angry, dispossessed men who’ve been forced to take up the mantle; the clergy ought be ashamed of themselves for being such “hirelings”.

All one needs to do is examine the brazen feminism/misandry rampant in the churches today and ask “what have you been doing for the cause of Truth lately, reverend?, there’s a cultural war going on here, and men – be they monogamous husbands and fathers, bachelors, or PUA’s- are the intended casualties.
A pick up artist named Roissy had to expose the enemy because you wouldn’t.

“Game”?
It seems the definition for “Game” is as broad as that of MRA; but many of the basics are what fathers and uncles used to teach sons and nephews back before the feminists ENCOURAGED us to think with our glands instead of our brains….
and then incrementally began emasculating us…while the preacher watched…above it all, I guess.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 2
Lovekraft February 23, 2011 at 16:23

Congrats to Welmer for putting his conviction out there for all to see. He understands Christ’s message is separate from the Organized Religions and is a subjective way of living: answerable to God and God alone on Judgment day. A long, hard haul but one with immeasurable rewards in the afterlife.

A brilliant man by the name of Dave Sim provided a ‘key’ to reading the Bible and I am happy to share it with you:

in the Bible, there are two Gods. There is the all-knowing, all-merciful Most Holy, whose mercy and grace and patience abounds at his most beloved creation, Man. Then there is the little god, living in the earth, a rebellious child wishing to be like the true God and trying every devious trick imaginable to become Him.

This pattern of the wise elder advising the brash younger of the error of its ways, yet ultimately letting him try (again and again) to see its folly is evident in many verses and stories.

I recommend tracking down Cerebus Latter Days collected edition, in which Cerebus reviews the Pentauch for a better description of this dynamic.

And as for Firepower and Gendeau’s squabble: guys, save your energy for the true enemy. We are being watched and any discord will be manipulated by them to our dismay. Take a deep breath and try to find some common ground.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 3
John February 23, 2011 at 16:36

While I am glad that this discussion is being had, several of the atheists have several misconceptions about Christianity. First off, I do not intend to be hurtful or to attack anyone – it is just that this discussion will go far better if certain misconceptions are cleared up:

1.) Slavery – what the Bible refers to as slavery is actually more like a (very mild by historical standards) indentured servitude – http://christianthinktank.com/qnoslave.html

2.) 2nd commandment talking about graven images – this is referring to gods – people worshiping carvings of animals or whatnot – NOT an action figure or simple illustration or photograph or anything like that – it is referring to worship. The Bible even mentions cases where the Hebrews had carved stuff that they did not worship – they even decorated temples with it!! Many artists throughout history have been devout Christians.

3.) The Inquisition is extremely overblown – here is a good article that also has secular historical works as references to follow up if you are curious: http://www.tektonics.org/qt/spaninq.html

If you are curious as to what Christianity actually teaches (so you can either believe it or not on honest terms – no one is asking you to believe something you cannot honestly accept) I think that C.S. Lewis’s “Mere Christianity” or “The Screwtape Letters” would be a good starting point. I think each side needs to learn more about the other and respect each other more – atheists and Christians may disagree, but at least we both actually care enough about important ideas to discuss them and to think about them – much more than can be said for most people. I really hope both sides can extend a bit of an ‘olive branch’ to each other, and learn to respect each other even despite their differences.

God bless everyone here, Christian and otherwise!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 3
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 16:50

“We are being watched and any discord will be manipulated by them to our dismay” take a deep breath and stick that up your pompous arse.

Your patronising ways are exactly why I have no time for those claiming ‘higher-values’ through believing in sky-pixies…I guess by now, most people understand me when I say I’m an atheist?

Firepower and I established over three hours ago, that no common ground existed. As neither he, nor I, posted again on that, I guess we had already ‘moved on’, okay grand-dad?

And ‘squabble’! LMFAO

goodnight

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
Observer February 23, 2011 at 16:58

One of the reasons I tell young men that christianity is a LIE is that NO CHRISTIAN WOMAN OBEYED HER BIBLE when asked by me, a christian men, for assistance with a ‘fallen’ wife. Something about ‘log in your own eye and speck in others’ comes to mind, eh?

When you make sweeping exaggerated statements like that, you sound more emotional than knowledgeable on the subject. We’ve got to try and look past our pain.

Peter, take a step back and look at the big picture. It’s not just you either. How many men do you know follow their Bible to the letter? Both catholic and protestant traditions will tell you it’s impossible. Yet, there are still provisions to help bridge the gap between the intention and the outcome. Of course the matter becomes much more complicated from there.

I mean if you don’t work on something how do you expect to get good at it?

Good women are hard to find. Somewhere along the way, it seems our culture stopped applying original sin to women. It might have something to do with women being the largest consumers (take that any way you want) and the “customer is always right” mentality. To be fair, this consumer culture affects everyone. However, since women are less likely to be honest about their culpability, they turn into perfect beasts.

While men are forced to look at their faults all day long, the women are told a fairytale. So that’s all they know to look for in themselves and others. Self awareness is virtually absent and replaced with this vague sense of insecurity, which is then imputed to unreasonable male pressure.

On the other hand, there is such a thing as an “examination of conscience” in catholicism. It is supposed to take place before every confession starting around the age of seven or so. What secular equivalent out there has anything resembling this? Psychology generally reduces culpability by attributing bad behavior on biological or likewise uncontrollable forces. Speaking of which, I know so many women obsessed with their meds and they’re not forty yet! I remember wanting to say on a few occasions “Is that a stacking doll collection in your medicine cabinet?”

But I digress. The point is that women are not the enemy, it’s our adherence to an intellectually bankrupt (brain-dead) culture. Christianity as practiced used to have a rigorous and demanding presence in people’s lives. Of course there were other problems, but the one thing I don’t believe most people counted on losing was the sense that truth was something to be attained and held to. What truth is there today that can’t be dismissed as relative to experience? Every man and woman define their own “truth” today but they have to lie to everyone else to get it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 2
NWOslave February 23, 2011 at 17:05

People will call me a hypocrite or a bad Christian for pointing out an injustice being perpetrated. They all just love to jump all over the old, “judge not lest ye be judged,” routine. Either that one or the fall back of, “let the person without sin cast the first stone.” Of course I have to tell them that entire mission of Jesus was to tell the truth, when someone is doing is something wrong, that person needs to be told. It’s neither judging or stoning.

The worst part is the now fallen catholic church indulges in this same ideology, as if political correctness is the true faith of Christianity. Yes you should forgive the sinner, but this is contingent upon repentance. You don’t tell a thief, Aww go on ya little scamp. They’ll just do it again. The same goes for divorce. If a woman after divorce hold’s a man’s children hostage and extorts weekly fund’s, he isn’t the bad guy. He’s angry and bitter for a damn good reason. Until she give’s equal custody and stop’s accepting support she has not repented.

Jesus did not suffer massive humiliation, torture and a horrifying death for political correctness. He suffered for telling the truth, not for keeping silent and concerning himself with who he might offend. Forgiveness yes, but on condition of, “go and sin no more.” Political correctness is the enemy of true Christianity.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 14 Thumb down 1
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 17:11

God bless everyone here, Christian and otherwise!

Why can’t you believe what you believe privately, without spouting this tripe?

Live your morals, I’m happy that you have found salvation(tm)* I’m sure that we share many morals and values.

You certainly seem to have transcended reality, or are a well indoctrinated troll.

* trademark registered by many, many religions through the years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 11
John February 23, 2011 at 18:01

@Gendau – if you wish to feel to feel that way, then that is your choice. However, you have clearly shown yourself to be filled with irrational hatred. Can’t you just respectfully disagree? Do you feel that much better having mocked the beliefs of myself and many others, both some on this forum and those elsewhere? You had no actual argument, just hatred. The whole point of this discussion is that men of Faith and those without have more common ground than they realized, and while they may disagree on many things, they need to all try and get along a little better. We will all be better off for it.

If you want to go living that way, you are more than welcome to do so. Just don’t drag this debate down with you. Either have arguments where facts and logic and not vitriol are the most salient feature or just agree to disagree and move on with your life.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
DirkJohanson February 23, 2011 at 18:23

Justin wrote:

Unfortunately, many promiscuity-promoting writers have grafted themselves onto the online MRM.

In the end, the two groups are speaking totally different languages and coming from completely different places and motivations. There is a fundamental conflict of values and worldviews..

@ Justin: I resemble those remarks, so let me explain where I am coming from.

In part, I view the noble goals you seek as almost certainly a losing battle in my lifetime. Even if we get there, the transition may not be worth the price of the upheaval.

Much of my promiscuity is with hookers, which I personally believe is more moral than getting women in bed by fooling them into thinking you may want to marry them.

As discussed daily on this site, marriage is, for the most part, a fairly dreadful option. And if everyone suddenly got married in a traditional 1950′s style to a woman around their own age with fewer financial resources, I’d be stuck spending the rest of my life with some spoiled, already-middle-aged, entitlement princess with a couple of kids, an attitude, no child support, and a legal or otherwise drug habit.

At some level, there’s conflict of interest between guys like you and guys like me, but that hardly makes guys like me Satan, and quite frankly, the more time I’ve spent on The Spearhead, the less my heart has been in promoting promiscuity. Actually engaging in promiscuity as opposed to promoting it, well, that’s another matter, but I believe that there is a certain value in having guys who get laid a fair amount standing up to women, as well, since their first line of attack on guys who stand up for men’s rights is to call us sexual losers.

For now, there’s plenty of common interest for us to work together on to keep us busy.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 11 Thumb down 2
King Alfred February 23, 2011 at 18:38

“But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.”

Amen, bother! Say it again!

If a man were to quote this in almost any church these days, the response from the congregation would be loud and clear, “Crucify him!”

Thank Heaven (and all the good men out there) for the MRM.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 0
King Alfred February 23, 2011 at 18:41

I meant “Amen brother!”

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 18:41

However, you have clearly shown yourself to be filled with irrational hatred

oh noes shaming language! How very feminist of you.

I find it irrational to go round saying that you’re a better man just for believing in sky-pixies. That’s what I find irrational. I’m sure that the real victims of the Spanish Inquisition would be most comforted to be told that it’s “all been blown out of proportion”. All the Catholics and Protestants burned at the stake for being on the wrong side, a mere trifle. Whatever the true level of paedophilia in the priesthood is, it does exist.

If I have to choose between ‘living that way’ or signing up to your faith…well I won’t be sending you any xmas cards. But hey, just shows how civilisation has moved out of the dark ages – your lot no longer gets to burn my lot at the stake.

And, exactly what ‘facts and logic’ are you bringing to the table? I can’t wait!

The ‘vitriol’ (‘not believing in sky pixies’ is vitriol? You should get out more) didn’t start until after the patronising started; “God bless everyone here, Christian and otherwise!”

You wrap yourself in the cloak of religion and start commanding us little people to ‘man up’ and get married. Divorce raped? oh dear, how did you let the little lady down?

Where’s the concern for your fellow man? Where’s the iron will to stand up for what is right in the name of GOD? nope, just push the little men under the divorce bus.

And then you get to the crux of the matter, in order to be on the side of trads we have to moderate our language and not point out the gulf between what the church says and what it does.

How about you restrict yourself to talking about morlity and the reality of the world? That’s what you could bring to the party, the god bit, not so much.

BTW
I don’t hate the church, how could one raise any emotion over the CofE?
Most of your values are fine with me.
It’s the ‘I know better than you because god told me’ I can’t stand, coupled with the reality of what the various churches get up to.

How about condoms for Africa and the other poor regions? To counter disease and prevent too many mouths to feed (leading to poverty and starvation). Show us your ethics, don’t just talk about them…

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 8
Gendeau February 23, 2011 at 18:48

It’s far too late to continue tonight, so I’m unplugging immedia

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 7
Alcuin February 23, 2011 at 18:51

In my early adulthood I spent time studying theology. It was an unmitigated disaster because of the women. This was a feminist church (what church isn’t) that has expunged from its culture anything ever done by men, especially by strong men, and all masculinity. The male profs, such as there were, were the biggest manginas I’d ever met.

The women, who are now pastors in the church, used to gossip about the profs and each other constantly. They used to complain non-stop about the profs. If you asked them who Christ was, they had no answer. But they could talk a storm about rape and misogyny. Anyone who disagreed with them was a woman-hater. I’ve never seen so much entitlement and resentment.

Ironically, I joined that church because I felt that my church of birth, the Roman Catholic, was far too feminine.

I think that women should quietly sit in the pews.

Religion should make men more masculine and women more feminine. Islam makes men more masculine and Buddhism makes women more feminine, but I haven’t seen a religion that can do both. Christianity is in serious trouble. Even the evangelicals push for manginatude.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
John February 23, 2011 at 19:12

@Gendau

Your tone makes it clear that reasoning with you won’t really help. So I will be as quick about this as I can. Only respond if you can do so with restrant, civility, and facts.

1.) I never said anything about encouraging you or anyone else to marry – where did that whole screed come from? I am MGTOW as well, and have no interest in marrying a western woman. I hate the divorce industry as much as you do. Lots of us Christians (take Elusive Wapiti, Novaseeker, and Welmer for example) would agree about how horrible marriage is and how sick the family courts are. The fact that you started to scream (so to speak) at me for advocating such things shows that you are beyond thinking clearly. Either make factual claims or simply move on. No vitriol, no hatred, just respectful discussions and arguments.

2.) Let me get this straight – I am wishing everyone the best by saying “God bless everyone here, Christian and otherwise!” and that not only offends you, but drives you veritably insane. Seriously – I am someone on the other side of the debate wishing you all the best and you have to flip out on me. Couldn’t you just have taken it as generic well-wishing and moved on…?

3.) In terms of “concern for your fellow man” – the overwhelming majority of both charitable contributions, not to mention charitable organizations, of all shapes and sizes, are related to some form of Christianity. That is a simple fact. This does not mean there aren’t many generous secular people, but it does go to show that your ludicrous claim that Christians don’t care for their fellow man is pure tripe.

4.) Also – please note that you are conflating traditional Christianity with modern American evangelicism – calling the latter traditional. None of the mangina crap that you see in some churches today has anything to do with Christianity at all – even a quick glance at the Bible or the works of the early church can confirm that. Our biggest disagreement is on the issue of sexual promiscuity. I think we all share a hatred of the family courts and the current feminist culture. Christians have been preaching against that since before you were born. Like any group of people, do some act like idiots, yes – but that is clearly (again look at the Bible and the early Church) not the beliefs of Christianity. Christianity is no more a feminist, woman-deifying, man-bashing religion than all atheists are Pol Pot, Mao Tse Tung, or Joseph Stalin. (Oh – note that most of the early feminists leaders were staunch atheists and feminists have always hated Christianity since it is Patriarchal)

5.) If you are so sure that the facts are on your side – I provided a few starter links there that have some good articles backing up what I was saying. I provided both claims and backup to my claims. This isn’t really the right forum for that so that is why I am going to just provide the links, but once again, I had fact, and you just had sputtering hatred.

I wish you a good night – and oh yeah…sorry to say…God bless!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Uncle Elmer February 23, 2011 at 19:25

* trademark registered by many, many religions through the years.

Gone A’Whorin(tm), trademarked by Uncle Elmer.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 1
Observer February 23, 2011 at 19:30

in the Bible, there are two Gods. There is the all-knowing, all-merciful Most Holy, whose mercy and grace and patience abounds at his most beloved creation, Man. Then there is the little god, living in the earth, a rebellious child wishing to be like the true God and trying every devious trick imaginable to become Him.

Lovekraft, this sounds like a repackaged demiurge concept. Does this mean we can call you a gnostic? Come on, it’ll be fun.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
The Caliph February 23, 2011 at 19:34

Christians and Moslems and all monothiestic faiths that subscribe to Adam and Eve have a lot more faith than i can ever hope to muster.

I mean just Genesis alone is incredulous beyond believe, i mean in just over 6000 or so years Adam and Eve, ascribe to them whatever race you will. You can even make them an interracial couple, your races of choice is insignificant.

Them two (Adam and Eve) gave rise to Blacks, Arabs, Native American, Australian Aborigine, Polynesian, Centreal Asian, Far east Asian and White people and eskimos? All over 6 billion strong in roughly 6000 years?

COOOOOOOME OOOOON!!!!!!!!

I mean if Genesis out the gate defies logic, i mean seriously? You expect me to believe the rest of the good books (Islam included). The Quran is simply the bible plus Mohammed’s story.

I’m sorry but – DOES NOT COMPUTE-.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 7
Kel February 23, 2011 at 19:36

As a traditional Catholic, I think there is extreme wisdom in “Game.” I was, and am, a traditional Catholic. But when I read Roissy and learned about game, it’s as if many delusions of women were swept away in one fell stroke. I realized how blinded I was to the existing culture, and how manifestly corrupt things have become, because I was pedastalizing women. In reality, Christianity teaches that no one should be pedastalized, that all are sinners. But in practice, especially today, the stink of Satan exists even in the Church and this stink has at its source the pedastalization of femininity.

Patriarchal traditionalists claim that proponents of Game are engaged in an objective evil because Game treats as its baseline assumption the idea that a woman is at her core a biological organism that primarily responds to her biological influences instead of rational/moral influences, which is dehumanizing, objectifying and therefore evil. Women listen to their “tingle” instead of morality or reason, and the science of Game is to understand that fundamental female motivation.

To this objection, I think that the patriarchal traditionalists are overreacting. Saying that a hungry man will eventually grab for food is not objectifying him by reducing him to fundamentals of gastro-intestinal chemistry. Likewise, it is not objectification to understand that a woman who wants exciting sex will therefore grab for exciting sex. Biological functions are a reality to be dealt with. If society made gluttony a fetish (and in some way, it has) and proclaimed that eating to obesity is the right and should be the desire of all women, and that 400 pound women were living life to the fullest and the subject of movies like “Eat, Pray, Eat Some More”, understanding the dynamics between that public call to gluttony and everyone’s basic need to eat would be very useful for a person looking to find a thin partner. Likewise, understanding society’s pervasive promotion of hypergamy, and how it turns a natural sexual desire into a fetish of misandry, is useful for a person either looking to avoid it or deal with it in his own way. That is what Game is about. It deals with the intersection of basic, fundamental biological urges and the cultural reality we are in today.

Furthermore, patriarchal traditionalists objectify women anyway. They treat all of them as objects. Glass objects, to be revered and fawned over, but objects nonetheless. They have made femininity into its own God, violating a fundamental commandment that they claim to uphold. Yes, to the outside observer, when the traditionalist patriarch places women on a pedestal, he is making femininity into a New God to be worshiped in violation of the First Commandment. The actual teaching of Christianity is not so blind, which proclaims that all people (including women) are sinners and that the flesh is weak in all of us (including, and sometimes especially, women). Patriarchial traditionalists, with their pedestalization of femininity, have violated their own core beliefs and mock the tenets of their own faith. And God will not be mocked.

I’m a practicing Catholic but I think that so-called “patriarchal traditionalists” are fundamentally blind to a big part of reality. In reality, Christianity is not going to improve things here. It has always failed to conserve its political strength, and it will continue to fail, because Christianity is not about practical politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth,” He said. And Jesus was right. His Kingdom IS not of this earth, and the world hated him and will continue to hate him. You want to be Christian, you’re going to have to bear a cross. And so Patriarchal traditionalists are chasing a dream if they think that their strong faith will produce practical results. It will not. Jesus has all but said it will not. There is NO prosperity gospel. Being a believer won’t earn you riches nor will it make society more fair towards men. If anything, it WILL get you thrown to the lions. And while a pagan society that fed Christians to the lions eventually converted to Christianity, it took nearly 300 years and the blood of countless martyrs. And unfortunately, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 15 Thumb down 1
greyghost February 23, 2011 at 19:43

I

am not sure why the traditional conservatives are opposed to “Game.” Game is a colloquial expression that describes the importance of male dominant behavior. 2,000 years before Mystery and Roissy, the apostle Paul was explaining to men the importance of men assuming a dominate role. One of the functions of marriage was to check the hypergamous instincts of women. It was to prevent women from having multiple “baby daddies” with their feral bastard children running amok. Traditional marriage and the family was the foundation of Western Civilization.

The traditional church should be embarrassed that atheists such as Roissy have better articulated and defended what were the cornerstones of Christianity and Western Civilization. The idea that men should become submissive to women and put women on a pedestal has no basis in historic Christianity (of Judaism for that matter).

This Paul is outstanding. This is one of the things christian leaders need to understand. One thing I have noticed going to church and actually speaking and hanging around “christian” people is that it is for appearances. Traditional christians do traditional christian things and talk the talk. But it is all appearance and not reality of the world based. PUA with game will do more to advance traditional christianity than the current “traditional christian” pedestalizing of women. The MRM will greatly strengthen christanity for we haven’t sold our souls for the favor of women. The traditionalist have and dressed it up as christian faith.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 13 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft February 23, 2011 at 19:44

@ Gendeau:

read the Gospels, then come back and tell us whether you think Christians are all about worshiping, as you so eloquently put it, ‘sky-pixies’.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 4
Kel February 23, 2011 at 19:54

greyghost:

PUA with game will do more to advance traditional christianity than the current “traditional christian” pedestalizing of women. The MRM will greatly strengthen christanity for we haven’t sold our souls for the favor of women. The traditionalist have and dressed it up as christian faith.

Amen to that. You have said all that I wanted to say much more eloquently. Bravo, sir.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 1
zed February 23, 2011 at 20:08

atheists and Christians may disagree, but at least we both actually care enough about important ideas to discuss them and to think about them

Not being a Christian does not automatically make one an atheist. There are 5 major religions in the world, and thousands of minor ones. Christianity itself comes in dozens of flavors.

There was an old saying when I grew up that if you wanted to keep people as friends there were two things you didn’t discuss with them – religion and politics. Deeply held beliefs, around which people organize not just their lives but the entire way they structure their interaction with the world, are never changed by argument. And, arguments have a way of escalating to the point of aroused passions that the original subject of discussion gets lost.

There is a time to proselytize, and a time to analyze and cooperate. The decision must be made whether it is more important to try to convert someone, or to enlist them as allies in dealing with a perceived common problem.

I welcome the religious community’s awareness of a severe imbalance and breakdown in relationships between men and women. But, I must confess a perception that this awareness, or at least visible manifestations of it, seem to be of relatively recent origin. The incursion of feminist thought into the churches has happened at the same time as its spread through the rest of the culture, which means that the beliefs themselves are neither the prevention nor the cure if they are not applied in an effective manner.

I would love for men as a group to be able to put aside any need to convert other men and focus on what this culture requires of men to do today to assure their own personal survival, and to do on an ongoing basis to try to contribute to the long term survival of the culture.

The point is that women are not the enemy, it’s our adherence to an intellectually bankrupt (brain-dead) culture.

Since you used the terms “women” and “enemy” in the first clause of that statement, it is also their adherence to a brain-dead culture that we have to address.

Seeing them as dangerous and potentially destructive is not the same as seeing them as being malicious or having malicious intent. Stinging insects and poisonous reptiles may bear no conscious malice, but that does not change their potentially dangerous nature.

No approach which does not take into account the potential for destroying a man’s life which the current legal climate gives women is going to work for most men. Neither is simply dismissing their experiences which have led them to regard women as dangerous, and as generally unpleasant and unrewarding to have to deal with.

There is a certain age cohort – mostly 2nd wave feminist boomer women – who are clearly not going to repent their sins nor change their ways, and whose potential mates have no reason to do anything except avoid them whenever possible. They are incapable of making amends to boomer men in any way which might give us reason to engage them again. And, they definitely need to suffer the full consequences of their not just adherence to the brain-dead culture, but their vigorous defense and enthusiastic spreading of it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
zed February 23, 2011 at 20:17

@Kel – very eloquently said.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
novaseeker February 23, 2011 at 20:17

Christianity is not about practical politics. “My Kingdom is not of this Earth,” He said. And Jesus was right. His Kingdom IS not of this earth, and the world hated him and will continue to hate him. You want to be Christian, you’re going to have to bear a cross. And so Patriarchal traditionalists are chasing a dream if they think that their strong faith will produce practical results. It will not. Jesus has all but said it will not. There is NO prosperity gospel. Being a believer won’t earn you riches nor will it make society more fair towards men. If anything, it WILL get you thrown to the lions. And while a pagan society that fed Christians to the lions eventually converted to Christianity, it took nearly 300 years and the blood of countless martyrs. And unfortunately, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.

Yes, yes and yes.

This is exactly it.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 7 Thumb down 0
Kel February 23, 2011 at 20:28

zed and novaseeker, thank you. I’m a longtime reader but on this I felt the need to comment. Thanks again.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 0
Denis February 23, 2011 at 20:51

I would never teach that to my daughters.

In such a technologically advanced society with low birthrates, housewife is boring and easy work. They need to be sent out of the house to get a job and keep their idle hands busy. Either they accept their role as servants and STFU or they understand “equality” so that they respect the men who built society.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 4
fmz February 23, 2011 at 22:49

As one who goes his own way, spiritual dogma (religion) and spiritual institutionalisation (religion) are contrary to how I operate. l take a spiritual view of existence, cherry-picking insights from the traditions of various thinkers, prophets, sages and philosophers, whilst rejecting all structures for or against. Including atheism and nihilsim. All of their moral interpretations and everyone else’s re-interpretations. Rejecting all ideologies, rhetoric, politics, isms and all conceptual frameworks for achieving spiritual awakening and living in spiritual awareness. l take the path of abiding non-dual awareness, in and of totality or ‘one-ness’ and this pretty much explodes everything and negates all socio-psych constructions. It has the added utility, within the social/political game, of making one pretty much untouchable.

I recommend that activist type men and those navigating the shiatstem, learn about post-modernism and relativism, as these perceptual frameworks for the basis of modern isms, especially feminism, neo-marxism and socialism. The conservatives and religious have also become immersed in it. Once it is understood, it makes it very easy to read their game and see them miles before they’ve spilled the beans on themselves. It makes it very easy to see thru them and for those so inclined, very simple to turn their perceptual framework back on them and get them exploding themselves.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0
Alcuin February 23, 2011 at 23:18

Kel: “, we can’t wait another 300 years between the time Christians are fed to the lions and the State officially blessing Christianity. Men have problems now and can’t wait for the blood of martyrs to fertilize the ground.”

By then we’ll be an Islamic civilization. Christianity’s infighting and tendency to emasculate men has meant that throughout history, Islam has been nipping at Christianity’s skirt. Only rarely – Sicily and southern Italy, Spain, Portugal, the Ottomans in the Balkans – has Christianity been able to push Islam back. Remember, Syria, Egypt, Turkey (Asia Minor; the Byzantine Empire), all of north Africa, even Iraq and some parts of modern Iran were at one point Christian, heavily dotted with monasteries and ascetics. Many forgotten church fathers wrote in ancient Syria’s languages, Aramaic and Syriac (both Semitic languages). Now they are Islamic.

Because of Christianity’s weakness, we are in the process of giving the West over to the Muslims. And women, including “feminists”, will enter first in search of a framework with which to live their lives (Planned Parenthood is not a framework for living one’s life).

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
Anonymous February 24, 2011 at 01:27

“Your tone makes it clear that reasoning with you won’t really help. So I will be as quick about this as I can. Only respond if you can do so with restrant, civility, and facts.”

And yet you blather on again, with more shaming language, and tell me how I should act – JUST FUCK OFF, this is NOT your website. You do not make the rules. Shaming language is well past its use by date around here, and feminists are sooooo much better at it than you).

As I said in my first post (before Firepower – peace be upon him).

“So, by all means believe in anything that you want to, as long as as non-believers are left the eff alone.”

I DO NOT believe what you believe.

I am not interested in reading any gospels (Lovekraft), you lot had your chance to idoctrinate me forcibly as a child – it did not work. I am not an atheist by accident, or lack of being lectured at.

But you guys sweep grandly into the room and start poking people with your alleged moral superiority, “I know better”, “don’t talk like that”, “the lord is on our side”, “god be with you”

You cannot comprehend that there are other viewpoints who don’t want to hear about your beliefs. Stop poking people with your patronising finger.

The faith side of your religion MAKES NO SENSE, the moral side (real world morals) do (on the whole).

Good luck with telling women to go back to the kitchen because god told you that you should lord it over them – best wear an athletic cup when you try it.

I’m sure that their bible and their church (it used to be yours) will provide full justificaton for them ripping your nads off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 01:27

“Your tone makes it clear that reasoning with you won’t really help. So I will be as quick about this as I can. Only respond if you can do so with restrant, civility, and facts.”

And yet you blather on again, with more shaming language, and tell me how I should act – JUST FUCK OFF, this is NOT your website. You do not make the rules. Shaming language is well past its use by date around here, and feminists are sooooo much better at it than you).

As I said in my first post (before Firepower – peace be upon him).

“So, by all means believe in anything that you want to, as long as as non-believers are left the eff alone.”

I DO NOT believe what you believe.

I am not interested in reading any gospels (Lovekraft), you lot had your chance to idoctrinate me forcibly as a child – it did not work. I am not an atheist by accident, or lack of being lectured at.

But you guys sweep grandly into the room and start poking people with your alleged moral superiority, “I know better”, “don’t talk like that”, “the lord is on our side”, “god be with you”

You cannot comprehend that there are other viewpoints who don’t want to hear about your beliefs. Stop poking people with your patronising finger.

The faith side of your religion MAKES NO SENSE, the moral side (real world morals) do (on the whole).

Good luck with telling women to go back to the kitchen because god told you that you should lord it over them – best wear an athletic cup when you try it.

I’m sure that their bible and their church (it used to be yours) will provide full justificaton for them ripping your nads off.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 10
DirkJohanson February 24, 2011 at 03:45

@ Caliph: I used to think the same way as you, but much of the Bible is an allegory, not to be read as if it happened exactly as related.

For instance – and perhaps one of the religious guys can correct me if I’m wrong – the general point of Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is essentially the same as if today a wife who was happy shopping in Target suddenly learned about the existence of Nordstrom’s. Next think you know, she’ll only want to shop at Nordstrom’s. Meanwhile, Adam, instead of having a financial-pressure free-life in the Garden of Eden, sort of like MGTOW have today but even easier since we MGTOW’s savings is really mainly from having women part-time instead of full-time, suddenly has a harder life since he wants to be able to still get some ass (remember, Eve is the only broad around), but its harder to make her happy since she now insists on wearing $250/pair jeans.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 8 Thumb down 0
mgtow February 24, 2011 at 03:58

All the wisdom from St. Paul comes to naught in the hands of ‘pick and choose your theology’ feminists and their born again virgin believers.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 1
Observer February 24, 2011 at 04:04

Since you used the terms “women” and “enemy” in the first clause of that statement, it is also their adherence to a brain-dead culture that we have to address.

This is true of course. Though I believe that if more men begin to abandon it, then the women will follow suit however begrudgingly. I don’t think any of these “isms” would have originally had a chance without the men financing or helping to provide the philosophical basis for them. Let’s also not forget those high-rankng white knights in business, politics, and religion who fall all over themselves to abdicate the power they have out of a misguided obligation for the feminist agenda.

In the meantime we can treat the symptoms. I don’t really know what it would take. There’s no easy way out of this one.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 04:28

I have a non-sweary(!!), non-confrontational(!) way forward for ‘us’ all!

Why don’t the guys coming from the religious direction go fix their churches first?

It’s win-win – genius idea.

They fix them:
1) the world has a beacon of morality, if it’s not compulsory, I’m happy with that. Just lead by example (what you do, not what you say).
2) they have their churches back, again as long as it isn’t compulsory to join – fine
3) they have proved that their methods work (with a large subset of people) – oh joyous day (for almost all men, pedestelisation in private is fine for the others)

They don’t, we’ll no downside as we’ll just be where we are now. Some of us maybe more educated in reality, but that’s a good thing.

Clearly it’s not a battle that I’m interested in, for two reasons:
1) I don’t do religion, I don’t want to do religion
2) I don’t want to subjugate women, I’m fine with true equality (unfortunately this is not what the feminists call equality).

Game (the best real-world researched approach to understanding women (NAWALT)) suggests that true equality will be tricky. ‘Women’ always push the boundaries, trying it on waiting / wanting(?) to be put ‘in their place’.

That’s a shame from my point of view, but for the religious types, this could work out well.

I’m only interested in fighting for male rights, if women can’t do equal-equality (so they force me to choose to be under or over), bad luck ladies – but it’s your own fault.

Have a nice day

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 3
John February 24, 2011 at 04:31

@Gendau
Well i have to get off to work, but once again you did make my point for me – you are seething with hatred, and are not even trying to respond to anything I am saying – just hurling insults over and over again. It is simply not worth any further discussion. I merely try and point out a few misconceptions you had made about Christianity (since this post is dealing with it, this would be the appropriate place – if you don’t want to get called out on misrepresenting someone’s faith then you should not do it in the first place.)

So while I hope to be able to make other posts on this excellent website, I will make no more related to you. You are no more rational than any feminist or western woman, and I am just wasting my keyboard strokes.

To those who are discussing MRA issues in general or at least not viciously attempting to curb-stomp Christianity (the great majority of the people here) – thank you for the great discussion. This website is one of the few out there today that is worth the time to login and see what the community has to say.

God bless you all and good night/day (depending on where you are geographically in the world.)

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 04:31

“we’ll have” / “well” – take your pick

so much for proof reading

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 5
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 04:42

“and are not even trying to respond to anything I am saying”

seems fair, where did you answer mine?

“seething with hatred”
“just hurling insults over and over again”
“You are no more rational than any feminist or western woman”

more shaming? tsk tsk – it doesn’t work.

have a nice day at work, missing you already

BTW (more seriously)
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 04:28
does that float your boat?
no swearing, no belittling your beliefs, what’s not to like?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 4 Thumb down 5
Peter-Andrew:Nolan(c) February 24, 2011 at 07:41

Justin February 23, 2011 at 10:29

I see justin put his mangina tale between his legs and f***ed off.

I think there is a GREAT deal to be said for men to denounce and attack the maginas that so continually show up in places like this. As well as having mangina halls of fame like I created.

Women actually only get their ‘power’ by inciting manginas to white knight for them. Once men realise that other men are going to attack them and dis-respect them for being a mangina they will stop doing it. After all. They will become Omegas immediately among men. And we all know women won’t f*** Omegas if there is any man above that status nearby.

When man-hating, white knighting, mangina apologists are immediately accorded OMEGA status by the REAL MEN, especially the Alphas, you will see them drop their maginaness faster than a hot potatoe.

Gents. dis the manginas….dis them good and hard.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 1
Firepower February 24, 2011 at 09:04

Lovekraft

… save your energy for the true enemy. We are being watched and any discord will be manipulated by them to our dismay.

Don’t you see the problem? There is no reason to save energy as there is no expenditure of energy in the mrm. It’s not even a movement.

It’s a large force outside the gates of Rome, threatening to sack the city, but asleep in the tents watching TV, rubbing one out to Hun Porn.

You can’t sow discord in a group that has no accord in the first place.

ALL of us could scribble letters to Mr. President Obama and he’d toss them in the trash. Even a large shock group like the Tea Party is dismissed by the status quo. One million could trod on cliche, overly-trampled Washington Monument grounds and it wouldn’t raise as much response from Power as a gun ban demand from one gay, transgendered, African-Hispanic-Bi-Polar-American/Lesbian nicked in the Gabby Giffords spree.

The MRM has no source of quality in which to recruit.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 2
zed February 24, 2011 at 09:13

@ Caliph: I used to think the same way as you, but much of the Bible is an allegory, not to be read as if it happened exactly as related.

For instance – and perhaps one of the religious guys can correct me if I’m wrong – the general point of Eve eating the fruit from the tree of knowledge is essentially the same as if today a wife who was happy shopping in Target suddenly learned about the existence of Nordstrom’s. Next think you know, she’ll only want to shop at Nordstrom’s.

(zed hops right on the opportunity provided by Dirk to harp on one of his favorite themes.)

I interpret the story as a warning about women’s common (almost universal) tendency to believe that they are morally superior to men.

If one has “eaten of the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil”, what has one ingested? Well, obviously, the knowledge of good and evil – or, in other words, moral consciousness.

Women have a tendency to believe that they, in their “special woman’s way of knowing” absolutely know what is good, and what is evil.

Ever noticed how one of women’s favorite words is “should”? They all seem to know exactly how things “should” be (good) (which is of course never how things actually are) and how things “should” NOT be (evil). But, this certainty of knowledge is not based on actual knowledge or moral consciousness, but instead on narcissism and The Eternal Solipsism of the Female Mind. What they want, RIGHT NOW, is “good”, and what they don’t want is “evil.”

Now the problem with this is when Adam (Man or Men) abdicate their own moral responsibility and put themselves in thrall of women’s attempts to control them. Men’s normal tendency to want to make the women in their lives happy must be counterbalanced by an awareness of when that which might make them happy at the moment is potentially very destructive in the long run.

Adam was the original mangina, and being a mangina was, indeed, his original sin.

The single biggest reason there is so much distrust of Christian men by non-Christian men is because many of us see them as putting themselves in service to the serpent.

There are many of us who would resist the siren song of the seductress, and when she tries to feed us what we know to be nonsense refuse to swallow it.

But then, an entire army of White Knight manginas jumps on their white horses, passes “Violence Against Women Laws”, then uses them to knock down our doors, knock us to the ground, shove automatic weapons in our faces, and forcefully shove that poisoned fruit down our throats no matter how much we resist.

I saw recently a comment on another blog by a supposedly “Christian” counselor something to the effect of “I always start from the assumption that in any conflict, the man is entirely to blame.” Thus, he positions himself as the enemy of the man in that situation, and as the ally of evil if the woman in that case is simply flat wrong. No matter how correct a man might be, no matter how moral his actions might be in that situation, it certainly does appear that most Christian leaders and operatives will position themselves as his enemy, no matter how wrong or evil what they are supporting might be.

So, unless and until we see people who identify themselves as Christian acknowledging that women are every bit as capable of evil as men are, and are not somehow inherently more moral than men, the perception that many of us will have is that they are acting as agents of the serpent.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1
Lovekraft February 24, 2011 at 10:30

@ Firepower: this is self-defeating and nihilistic, your opinion that we are not making any impact on the world. But if you look at the MRM another way, that we are trying to POSITION ourselves to come out on top, then you may see things in a different light.

I am quite aware of how little ‘market share’ we MRAs have in the world, but even you must recognize that our movement is gaining momentum and doing real progress in deflating and rendering flaccid all of Feminism’s great lies.

As for Gendeau, he has a huge target on his back on this site and he will have to change his tune if he doesn’t want to be relegated to Skadi-ville.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 3
mgtow February 24, 2011 at 10:31

Also, just as a reminder to everyone: if you adhere to the Biblical narrative, Eve was the first and original sinner. Not Adam.

And the woman said unto the serpent, We may eat of the fruit of the trees of the garden: But of the fruit of the tree which [is] in the midst of the garden, God hath said, Ye shall not eat of it, neither shall ye touch it, lest ye die.

God never mentioned anything about touching the fruit in the previous chapter of Genesis. Eve added her own little lie.

Somehow, modern day preachers twist it around and blame Adam for not reining in his wife in the garden – so he’s at fault.

The same BS that’s presented in ‘Christian marriage counselling’: the wife cheated because the husband failed to ‘show leadership’. It’s always the man’s fault.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 2
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 10:56

As for Gendeau, he has a huge target on his back on this site and he will have to change his tune if he doesn’t want to be relegated to Skadi-ville.

Ah well, at least you stopped the shaming, now come the threats? Ooooh scary! Are you serious?

If the price of ‘not changing my tune’ is being downvoted by the likes of you – fine.

I thought ‘Men’ judged the argument by its content…but apparently you are more swayed by whether I kowtow to your beliefs. Sounds more like the feminist approach to discussion doesn’t it?

I’m sure that there are feminists who hold their beliefs just as tightly as you hold yours, does that mean I have to pay lipservice to the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) manifesto?

What makes your beliefs more important than theirs?

I prefer your values to theirs (as long as you don’t try and shove your beliefs down my throat). As I said in my first post

Another reservation I have with the religious is I do not want ‘religious leaders’ running my life any more than feminist ones. The Spanish Inquisition is what happens when the religious facists get to run things, the current state of the world is when feminists fuck things up. Both look like crap options to me.

That tune will not be changing.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 5 Thumb down 4
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 11:04

Zed,

So, unless and until we see people who identify themselves as Christian acknowledging that women are every bit as capable of evil as men are, and are not somehow inherently more moral than men, the perception that many of us will have is that they are acting as agents of the serpent.

That’s an excellent point. In the ‘excitement’ yesterday, I failed to spot that whatever was said about “we don’t like feminism either”, “we hate family court as well”, “we don’t deify women” (these aren’t direct quotes), I don’t remember seeing any of them blaming women. Only feminism / family courts / pedestals etc

I could have missed one, but I am only human.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 4
Firepower February 24, 2011 at 11:59

Lovekraft

@ Firepower: this is self-defeating and nihilistic, your opinion that we are not making any impact on the world.

No, it’s the truth. I’m not saying roll over and take it and give up.

Real life actual examples abound of inspirational talk taking the place of REAL concrete action. Hitler in his bunker. Winning the War on Drugs…on Terror…on poverty.

But if you look at the MRM another way, that we are trying to POSITION ourselves to come out on top

Maybe it’s time to quote the children’s favorite real-life Philospher: Yoda, who said “There is no try, only do.” or wtf ever a muppet can philosophize.

All this trying has been going on in the face of DECADES of evidence of atrocity…and nothing is ever done.

I am quite aware of how little ‘market share’ we MRAs have in the world, but even you must recognize that our movement is gaining momentum and doing real progress in deflating and rendering flaccid all of Feminism’s great lies

I agree, but the time for winning mere arguments has long passed into complacency.

It’s like if America was still ONLY discussing the proper reaction to Pearl Harbor… in 1975.

I had great hopes for The Spearhead as a tool for movement, but it’s bogged down into a bunch of ill-educated kids standing around the latest traffic accident-news story, discussing their BOTTOMLESS communal outrage – when they need to put up street lights, speed limit and stop signs.

Better to light a candle, than curse the darkness.

This leads nowhere: All this leads to is in 20 years, a bunch of fatter, balder dudes griping about how bad things got over the last 20 years.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 3
Lovekraft February 24, 2011 at 12:41

@ Gendeau: your argument with Firepower had degerated into name-calling and insults, which is why you attracted my attention. Now you are back-pedaling and trying to appear accommodating now that you realize that your argument was emotion-based, which is exactly the type of female reasoning we are trying to rise above.

And this is especially noxious considering it is in the comments section of an article about Christianity, about rising above the selfish and immoral.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 9 Thumb down 4
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 12:57

Please give examples of the back-pedalling.

I’m not swearing as much (my choice, not your shaming), but where has the message changed?

Answer, I have NOT changed what I think about the subject, nor what I say about it.

While you’re at it, how about a quick answer to:

I’m sure that there are feminists who hold their beliefs just as tightly as you hold yours, does that mean I have to pay lipservice to the SCUM (Society for Cutting Up Men) manifesto?

What makes your beliefs more important than theirs?

I am sorry that any answer from me (should you answer me) will be tomorrow, last night ended at about 3am.

But seriously, why should I hold your deeply held beliefs higher than a feminist’s, or mine?

Political correctness making any ‘religious’ belief sacred, means your religion is as offensive to my human rights as my atheism is to yours.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 6
Gendeau February 24, 2011 at 13:02

And this is especially noxious considering it is in the comments section of an article about Christianity, about rising above the selfish and immoral.

Putting the shaming aside, if you’re accusing me of advocating immorality, could you show me a quote?

Also, why would I be being more selfish that you are?

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 7
John February 24, 2011 at 15:32

@Zed – you will find many Christian MRA/MGTOW folks who blame women (and their government stooge enablers) for the current predicament.There are examples of such people around here on the spearhead site and the mra world in general – elusive wapiti, myself, markymark, novaseeker, among others who not only blame feminism, but also believe (correct me if I am wrong guys – I can’t presume to speak for you, but I have read lots of stuff you have written) that women, and the choices that they have made (lifestyle, political, and so on) are a huge part of the problem.

“So, unless and until we see people who identify themselves as Christian acknowledging that women are every bit as capable of evil as men are, and are not somehow inherently more moral than men, the perception that many of us will have is that they are acting as agents of the serpent.”

- It is also completely anti-Christian to say that women are more moral then men – that flies totally in the face of the Christian Gospel. I acknowledge there are “Christian” leaders who say stuff like that, but the important thing is look at the actual definition of Christianity, not what a bunch of power hungry false prophets claim to say in the name of God. There is no shortage of such people, and there is no surprise that they will receive far more media coverage and money and visibility, given that they are exactly the type of people the the world (the government and media complex) wants to hear. Christianity, at its most basic definition, is no friend to feminism, and in fact has always been hated by feminists for being patriarchal.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 2
Karma-o-matic February 26, 2011 at 16:56

Here’s a little something about that other major religion:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1360799/Sex-brothels-REAL-tyranny-threatening-Arab-world.html

It appears we have a white knight bemoaning the oncoming plight of the women of the middle east. Day after day, I see it more likely that the enterprise of feminism may (in some places) choke to death on a big ol’ sharia sandwich. When the money and food starts running out, the hobby horses of the left soon become horsemeat – fed to hungry dogs.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 3 Thumb down 0
Lovekraft February 27, 2011 at 16:37

My reply to Firepower and Gendeau will likely be ignored as it is past its ‘freshness’ date, but I will state for the sake of posterity the following:

Any meme has a certain undefinable dynamic of growth, lethargy, action and buildup, and the ones that are on the fringe and reacting against powerful societal forces (of which the MRM undoubtedly can be counted among) will be accused of being insufficient in various ways.

What is distressing isn’t defending against attacks from blatant oppressors of truth and justice which hardened feminists and progressives take center stage) but the in-fighting and defeatists among our own ranks.

This means that I will give someone the benefit of the doubt that they are a troll and underminer. The benefit of the doubt that means I will consider your input either constructive, or defeatist. In the context of this article and comments thread, if you really think that the MRM is a lost cause, or that applying Christian principles to the struggle is wrong, find another blog.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 2 Thumb down 1
gender foreigner February 27, 2011 at 18:26

Dear All:

aharon, NWOslave, King Alfred, Alcuin, greyghost, Kel, zed, mgtow & John: Agreed.

As per the claim sincerely made that there is some disconnect between the here and now and ther hereafter, the Scriptures do not support such a juxtaposition (although many religious businesses do push the idea).

For example, contrary to the religion-trade workers (religious peddlers, sellers of a bastardized gospel), Jesus Christ did not say, “Here is my collection plate: fill it.” Instead, he taught:

Matthew 25: 31-46(Revised Standard Version)

“31 ‘When the Son of man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, then he will sit on his glorious throne. 32Before him will be gathered all the nations, and he will separaate them from one from another as a ashepherd separates the sheep from the goats, 33and he will place the sheep at his right hand, but the goats at the left. 34Then the King will say to those at his right hand, ‘Come, O blessed of my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; 35for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, 36I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.’ 37Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry and feed thee, or thirsty and give thee drink? 38And when did we see thee a stranger and welcome thee, or naaked and clothe thee? 39And when did we see theee sick or in prison and visit three?’ 40And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brethren, you did it to me.’ 41Then he will say to those at his left hand, ‘Depart from me, you cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels; 42for I was hungry and you gave me no food, I was thirsty and you gav me no drink, 43I was a stranger and you did not welcome me, naked and you did not clothe me, sick and in prison and you did not visit me,’ 44Then they also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see thee hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and did not minister to thee?’ 45Then he will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it not to one of the least of these, yo did it not to me.’ 46And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.’”

Recall Jesus Christ’s teaching as per providing medicare to a stranger (the right thing to do here below). The very context of this teaching was that Christ himself was HOMELESS and he did not say to the lawyer, “Here is my collection plate: fill it.” (And Christ was of the highest rank, the HEAD OF THE CHURCH, the King of Kings, the Son of God.)

Notice the utter connection between the above teaching of Christ as per who is supposed to be recipients of one’s worldly treasures: THE NOBODIES. In furtherance of such teaching, he taught as follows:

Luke 10:25-37 (RSV)

“25And behold, a lawyer stood up to put him to the test, saying, ‘Teacher, what shall I do to inherit eternal life?’ 26 He said to him, ‘What is written in the law? How do you read?’ 27And he answered, ‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your strength, and with all your mind; and your neighbor as yourself.’ 28And he said to him, ‘You have answered right; do this, and you will live.’

29But he, desiring to justify himself, said to Jesus, ‘And who is my neighbor?’ 30Jesus replied, ‘A man was going down from Jerusalem to Jericho, and he fell among robbers, who stripped him and beat him, and departed, leaving him half dead. 31Now by chance a priest was going down that road; and when he saw him he passed by on the other side. 32So likewise a Levite, when he came to the place and lsaw him, passed by on the other side. 33But a Samaritan, as he journeyed, came to where he was; and when he saw him, he had compassion, 34and went to him and bound up his wounds, pouring on oil and wine; then he set him on his own beast and brought him to an inn, and took care of him. 35And the next day he took out two denari and gave them to the inn-keeper, saying, ‘Take care of him; and whatever more you spend, I will repay you when I come back.’ 36Which of these three, do you think, proved neighbor to the man who fell among the robbers?’ 37He said, ‘The one who showed mercy on him.’ And Jesus said to him, ‘Go and do likewise.’”

The Law of Moses was similar in spirit in that it prescribed 4 or 5 recipient groups for the produce of the food tax (the, “tithe”). See: Deuteronomy 14-22-29. If one is close enough to Jerualem, the recipient groups are: 1. the Levite, 2. the sojourner, 3. the fatherless and, 4. the widow. For those for whom Jerusalem was too far to travel, the recipeint groups were the above four plus YOU YOURSELF (Deuteronomy 14 23). Under the Law of Moses, interest-free loans were to be given by the rich to the poor and such loans, if not repayable, were to be cancelled. Many other practicalities as per the here and now appear in Scripture.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1
John T. February 28, 2011 at 22:17

I wouldn’t consider myself a Christian by any stretch but I am not unfamiliar with the scriptures and I certainly don’t join in the popular fad toward bashing them. There is a lot of wisdom in the Bible.

I am particulalry fond of Proverbs 21.9; It is better to dwell in the corner of the housetop, Than with a contentious woman in a wide house.

Apparently nothing much has changed in a couple of thousand years.

I would also have to wonder why the meditations of Marcus Auerilius are not more widely read and promted, especially for young men.

He seemed to also have it pegged when listing characteristics to avoid..” A black character, a womanish character, a stubborn character, bestial, childish, animal, stupid, counterfeit, scurrilous, fraudulent, tyrannical”
Marcus knew what he was talking about.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 0

Leave a Comment

{ 1 trackback }

Previous post:

Next post: