I am presently withholding judgement on the question of whether or not the bible actually condemns pre-marital sex. Depending on how you interpret various scriptures, and which Greek-English dictionary you happen to have lying around, the bible may or may not give contemporary Christian men some wiggle room that allows some compromise between God and Game.To put it succinctly, he is wrong. I will address each of his five rationalizations to demonstrate why.
In this post, I offer my best attempts to rationalize the peaceful coexistence of the two. If I’m right: Christian men, go forth and seduce. If I’m wrong, I hope learned men such as Dalrock, Bruce Charlton, Koanic Soul, Vox Day, Bonald, The Gentleman Poet, Patriactionary, Ulysses and ballista will set us straight.
1. Banging a non-virgin woman with a condom doesn’t violate the biblical injunction against adultery, because you’re not actually going to adulterate any of her children. Non-procreative sex upholds the spirit, if not the letter, of the biblical injunction against adultery.
The relevant Biblical injunction is not the one against adultery, but rather those against fornication and sexual immorality.
2. You are free to assume that any woman you bang is a virgin. If you make the (shocking!) post-coital discovery that she is not, let Deuteronomy 22 be your guide and divorce her.
This advice is applicable to Jews. Not to Christians, whose perspective is further refined by Luke 16.
3. In the time of Christ, marriageable women abounded. Those men who sought, found them. The world we live in is different, and requires different coping strategies.
Jesus Christ is the Alpha and Omega. He is eternal. The world is different, but human nature has not changed on iota. It may require different coping strategies, but that does not condone sin.
4. Since most contemporary American women are best viewed as whores with poor negotiating skills, we have a free pass to occasionally taste their wares, so long as we don’t let our pursuit of them cross the line from idle hobby to all-consuming obsession.
The Old Testament warns against prostitutes. The New Testament bars fornication and sexual immorality. Christians have no such free pass.
5. Christian sexual morality only applies to Christian women. Outsiders are fair game
Christian sexual morality applies to Christian men as well as to Christian women. Outsiders are not fair game, indeed, their outsider status is totally irrelevant with regards to the sexual morality of the Christian.
It is understandable why some Christian men, facing religious contempt from non-Christian women and seeing nominally-Christian women indulging their hypergamy by chasing non-Christian alphas in preference to them, desperately wish to carve out some sort of exception to the Christian morals imposed upon them by God and His Son. But Christianity is not the easy way, it is the hard and narrow way. One can no more rationalize fornication than human sacrifice or demon worship, it is a complete impossibility.
The SMP is part of the world that Christians are called to be in, but not of. Being in the world means it is important for Christian men to understand the reality and the principles of Game, but the existence of Game does not mean that all of the uses to which Game can be put are compatible with the Christian life.
79 comments:
"Christian sexual morality applies to Christian men as well as to Christian women. Outsiders are not fair game, indeed, their outsider status is totally irrelevant with regards to the sexual morality of the Christian."
If Christian morality is not predicated on the idea that we believe it is a morality suitable for all mankind, then it's a farce.
We cannot hold outsiders accountable to it, but we should certainly extend its good to them.
Several months ago (years?) over at Vox Popoli somebody asked if there was an equivalent for males to the female hamster. One commenter responded that men have a rationalization goat. Goats will eat almost anything. Men will consume whatever ideas will give them excuse for their behavior. Would this metaphor work?
As a recent convert to Christianity, this makes me very sad. Under the current legal framework, I think it is an absolute moral wrong for a man to marry (at least in a Western country), because it reinforces the current evil legal framework--as a man, getting married is the moral equivalent of voting for Stalin. I would be partly culpable for every man whose children are stolen away.
So if I'm going to take the rules of Christianity seriously, it means no more sex in this lifetime. I don't think I'm going to have the strength to make that work.
I think it is an absolute moral wrong for a man to marry (at least in a Western country), because it reinforces the current evil legal framework--as a man, getting married is the moral equivalent of voting for Stalin.
There would be your error. Even under the twisted and evil legal framework, it does not follow that it is morally wrong to marry. Christianity always comes at a price. Now, in these post-Christian times, marriage requires putting a man's assets and children at risk of being taken away from him.
Worse will eventually come. We are promised as much.
Most of those rationalizations would work, suitably reworded, for a Muslim.
Elihu, you picked the wrong team. Convert to Islam and plunder the infidel whores with a clear conscience...
@: "Now, in these post-Christian times, marriage requires putting a man's assets and children at risk of being taken away from him."
__________
I think female solipsism is problematic here too. Women and society are always trying to shame men into marriage by accusing them of having a "fear of commitment," yet marriage legally is a much more serious commitment for men than women. And we all know it is women who are three times more likely to not honor this commitment... or put another way, men are 75% less likely to break their commitment than the self-professed "more committed gender."
The solipsism comes into play as women want to have the upsides without acknowledging the downsides to men.
Welcom to iwin game for mobile!!!
The mind justifies what the heart decides.
Convert to Islam and plunder the infidel whores with a clear conscience...
Muslims seem more interested in plundering another demographic. If you want to admire some rationalization acrobatics, check out how Muslim men get around the Quran's rules against homosexuality.
I think it is an absolute moral wrong for a man to marry (at least in a Western country), because it reinforces the current evil legal framework--as a man, getting married is the moral equivalent of voting for Stalin.
There would be your error. Even under the twisted and evil legal framework, it does not follow that it is morally wrong to marry. Christianity always comes at a price. Now, in these post-Christian times, marriage requires putting a man's assets and children at risk of being taken away from him.
However, by marrying within this framework, it is just like voting for Romney - you are still voting for evil and by particpating, you are giving legitmacy to an utterly corrupt system.
The current legal marriage framework is utterly unbiblical, as it is a contract excluding God but including the state, and furthermore it has as it's basis total male submission and total female dominance. Legally, your wife is your master in America. There is no denying that.
Once your wife inevitably blows up your family and takes you to the cleaners, your now -fatherless children have a terrible future in store – we all know (and this blog has documented) the terrible life of the average children of divorce. Your money will be taken from you, and given to the state and to your ex’s new EPL lifestyle. So all that you worked for is now being stolen from you, and then used to support and maintain an incredibly wicked system.
Nice going!
Modern marriage is unbiblical because the divorce that almost inevitably follows is unbiblical and has horrific consequences for all involved. It destroys numerous lives and creates new slaves to the state, enabling the beast to live on that much longer. A Christian should not participate in an institution whose primary purpose ends up being the perpetuation of wicked system that he must find abhorrent.
However, by marrying within this framework, it is just like voting for Romney - you are still voting for evil and by particpating, you are giving legitmacy to an utterly corrupt system.
Marrying isn't voting. It isn't even like voting. This should not be a difficult concept.
The current legal marriage framework is utterly unbiblical, as it is a contract excluding God but including the state, and furthermore it has as it's basis total male submission and total female dominance. Legally, your wife is your master in America. There is no denying that.
It cannot be a contract involving the state if you don't sign anything. No matter what the state might claim.
Once your wife inevitably blows up your family and takes you to the cleaners, your now -fatherless children have a terrible future in store – we all know (and this blog has documented) the terrible life of the average children of divorce.
Most marriages don't end in divorce. Even in the USA, first marriages end in divorce between 35-40 percent of the time. That is very far from inevitable. This is not the right place to present arguments based on rhetoric and hysteria.
unsigned_integer, you have 3 choices:
1) Commit to a life of celibacy. This is honorable if done for the right reasons, but most of us aren't up to it.
2) Marry a Christian woman who holds the scripture as her deepest conviction and the law of her life. Have some very blunt conversations before signing and make sure your commitments are solid and irrefutable. Then do your job to be a good alpha-beta husband.
3) Take her as a common-law wife and don't involve the state. This relieves your "voting" conscience but hardly solves all the problems. Note that the state as dominion over you and your children and your assets with or without a marriage license. (By logic, just living here violates your "voting" problem.)
Note that none of the above are easy. None are risk free. There are no perfect solutions in a corrupt, fallen world. This world has failing core, a bad ALU, and a noisy bus. But we bugger on.
Thanks for this post Vox. It doesn't get said enough.
And for Christians who don't want to sign a marriage license, just get married in a church that doesn't require one. How hard is that?
Vox is wrong to dismiss the Old Testament. Deuteronomy 4:5-8
5 Behold, I have taught you statutes and judgments, even as the LORD my God commanded me, that ye should do so in the land whither ye go to possess it.
6 Keep therefore and do them; for this is your wisdom and your understanding in the sight of the nations, which shall hear all these statutes, and say, Surely this great nation is a wise and understanding people.
7 For what nation is there so great, who hath God so nigh unto them, as the LORD our God is in all things that we call upon him for?
8 And what nation is there so great, that hath statutes and judgments so righteous as all this law, which I set before you this day?
==========
And again, in Deuteronomy 30:10-16
11 For this commandment which I command thee this day, it is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off.
12 It is not in heaven, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go up for us to
heaven, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
13 Neither is it beyond the sea, that thou shouldest say, Who shall go over the sea for us, and bring it unto us, that we may hear it, and do it?
14 But the word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that
thou mayest do it.
15 See, I have set before thee this day life and good, and death and evil;
16 In that I command thee this day to love the LORD thy God, to walk in his
ways, and to keep his commandments and his statutes and his judgments, that
thou mayest live and multiply: and the LORD thy God shall bless thee in the land whither thou goest to possess it.
==========
The Institutes of Biblical Law, by John Rousas Rushdoony, is a good starting point. For a quicker read, "Understanding the Difficult Words of Jesus", by Bivin and Blizzard, will come to some of the same key insights in much fewer pages, and from a different angle of argument.
Vox, in Luke 16, which you use to justify your point of view, note what it says just before your verse on "putting away" a wife:
Luke 16:17 And it is easier for heaven and earth to pass, than one tittle of the law to fail.
Vox, I want to know, WHEN DID HEAVEN AND EARTH pass?
Then, moving on to the verse you mention, Luke 17:17. Jesus said if you put away your wife and marry another. He didn't say if you "put her away and put a certificate of divorce into her hand". The problem is putting her away without the certificate of divorce. Moses law even says, if you put her away, put a writing of divorcement into her hand. So if she remarries, she has proof that she is not guilty of adultery. (Deuteronomy 24:1-3)
Men don't have hamsters. We have guinea pigs.
Accuses a man of having a rationalisation hamster.
Believes in god.
I'd just like to understand under what circumstances it's okay for a Christian woman to remarry without incurring sin on the part of herself or her new husband.
I'm more than a little vague on that score.
Vox, I want to know, WHEN DID HEAVEN AND EARTH pass?
You keep failing to understand that CHRISTIANS ARE NOT JEWS. Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law. Jesus, Peter, and Paul all made this perfectly clear.
Now here is a question for you: When is the last time you sacrificed at the Temple. Or, for that matter, stoned anyone....
Accuses a man of having a rationalisation hamster. Believes in god.
You clearly don't understand the concept of "rationalization".
Vox, you say Christians are not Jews. True. But then you say Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law. That is false. Jesus, Peter, and Paul all made many comments to the contrary. You need to go back and re-examine the whole issue. I posted the names of two helpful books, the ones by Rushdoony, and Bivin and Blizzard. Christianity keeps getting into mucky messes because it abolishes the Law of Moses.
If the Law of Moses is irrelevant to Christianity, why is it that the past 2000 years shows Christian nations rise and fall in their fortunes, according to how closely they adhere to the Law of Moses.
Did you read Deuteronomy 4:6, Vox? If the the Law of Moses is "wise and understanding" in the sight of the nations, are Christians required to be fools? Indeed, in Korea and China, Christianity is known a the religion of whores, because the Christian churches accept whores into their membership, and even continue practicing. After all, forgiveness is divine. Week after week.
Yes, Deuteronomy 4:6 is very true; Christianity has abolished the Law of Moses, and the wisdom and understanding thereof. Lacking this wisdom and understanding, Christians are deemed fools, and suffer the consequences of their foolishness.
Johnny Caustic said...
...
So if I'm going to take the rules of Christianity seriously, it means no more sex in this lifetime. I don't think I'm going to have the strength to make that work.
September 23, 2012 6:59 AM
Good thing Christians have the Holy Spirit to provide the strength when we don't have it ourselves.
Tiger,
Did you forget to take your meds today? Cause you're not making much sense. In fact you sound like an addled Jew wannabe rather than a Christian.
Do you read your Bible yourself or do you have someone read it for you and then tell you what it says?
Tigger
Acts 15:20 is clear on the Mosaic Law to be followed by Christians.
but that we write to them that they abstain from things contaminated by idols and from fornication and from what is strangled and from blood.
You sound like a damn Judaizer. This nonsense was settled long ago by the Apostles. Clowns like you are always looking for ways to justify yourselves by putting yokes on others. If you don't want to accept basic tenets & teachings of Christianity, have some freaking balls and denounce it instead of attempting to make it something it is not.
TLM: quoting one verse out of context doesn't make your case. Your language is uncouth, and does no honor to the choir you are prancing for.
The entire New Testament is full of examples of upholding the Law of Moses, but modern Christianity has chosen a dozen or so texts, taken them out of context, and deemed the law to be evil. And so has the evil overtaken you, which you daily whine about on this very blog.
But then you say Christians are not subject to the Mosaic Law. That is false. Jesus, Peter, and Paul all made many comments to the contrary.
They are not subject to it. The Law is for condemnation, not salvation. You clearly have no idea what you are talking about.
What if I told you that the bible is a story and that Jesus probably didn't even exist.
I enjoy your blog, you make some excellent points. I just find it a little odd that such a seemingly intelligent person believes in a deity, and criticises another person for rationalising their own desires and actions based upon a different, subjective interpretation of the scripture of your common belief. Essentially "my interpretation of make-believe is better than yours."
But each to their own.
Tigger
Please correct me on how I'm taking 1 verse out of context. The false teaching of the Judaizers is exactly why the council came out with those Mosaic restrictions for gentile Christians in Acts 15:20. My language is uncouth because I'm under no obligation to treat any false teaching heretic with the courtesy I would extend to a stranger or other believer that had legitimate questions or inquiries. Your only goal is to enslave people to a works-based salvation which is no Gospel at all or to justify yourself.
TML: to quote a famous mathematician, the margin this blog is not big enough to contain the proof of this proposition.
Fortunately, the margins of this blog can hold links:
http://www.petahtikvah.com/Articles/jcouncil.htm
http://jerusalemcouncil.org/articles/commentaries/understanding-acts-1523-29/
http://loveandtruth.net/
If the Bible is heretical, TLM, then I understand your disgust. If you believe in accepting it as literal truth, as the Word of God, then pay close heed to what you say.
I never mentioned Salvation; it is you and Vox who bring the matter up. It is a category error. You are trying to set up a straw man. Don't throw straw men at me, they light up quickly. As Obadiah said, a flame in the stubble that devours.
There would be your error. Even under the twisted and evil legal framework, it does not follow that it is morally wrong to marry. Christianity always comes at a price.
I agree that Christianity always comes at a price. But Christianity does not oblige men to marry any more than it obliges us to vote for Stalin. If I remember right, there is a line of Scripture that says it's better for a man not to marry if he can handle being alone.
Worse will eventually come. We are promised as much.
Yes. And the prospect of life without sex makes it much easier to reconcile myself to the likelihood that we are now in End Times, and the last trumpet will sound by 2019. To some degree, I find myself looking forward to getting it over with as quickly as possible. I suspect this impulse is not entirely good.
Johnny Caustic, this end times fixation is not good at all. I grew up in a group that was expending Armaggedon "tomorrow". For the past 200 years. This group has several widespread branches, going by different names. You would recognize them if I told you. The fruitage of this end times fixation is NOT good. It gets people distracted from the business of living life, and living well.
Vox, well said.
Following Christ is restful for the spirit, but difficult on the flesh. For some, *extremely* difficult, up to and including a literally torturous death.
If someone thinks he will follow Christ but says "except in this area" or "only up to a point" then I don't think he comprehended it correctly.
Count the cost.
@Elihu
On the throne of your life where God should be, there is something else, namely sex. Trust in Him and let Him rein.
One thing I want to put out there since nobody else has mentioned it yet...
If a man restricts himself to not fornicating before marriage, he is restricting himself to women willing to wait until marriage, which means he is fishing from a dramatically smaller pool. Moreover, he loses the benefit of the power shift that happens in a relationship after the couple has sex a couple of times. So he will probably have to drop his standards for what quality of woman he's willing to marry.
(I don't mean this as a complaint; just something to take into account.)
Johnny: I've noticed the women in church are not nearly as good looking as the women outside. But good looking women are often eager for the social respectability of "attending church" once a man marries her.
I just find it a little odd that such a seemingly intelligent person believes in a deity, and criticises another person for rationalising their own desires and actions based upon a different, subjective interpretation of the scripture of your common belief. Essentially "my interpretation of make-believe is better than yours."
There is your mistake. I am criticizing someone for rationalizing his own desires which are in direct contradiction to the material textual evidence. I am not rationalizing anything, nor does my belief in God reflect my own desires any more than my belief in the NFL or automobiles.
As a materialist, you should know that there is nothing "subjective" or "make-believe" about historical documents. If the text says "X is black", you have no room to claim that it is actually white... at least, not on the basis of the text.
What if I told you that the bible is a story and that Jesus probably didn't even exist.
I would simply laugh, then inform you that you should probably examine my list of published books before thinking I haven't heard literally every argument you could produce.
As for belief in a deity, you may find this exchange to make for interesting reading. We're not finished with the debate yet, but there is plenty of food for thought.
Vox, you weren't fooled by the Trinity doctrine. You should give equal time to the matter of the Mosaic Law, for you have swallowed that one whole. Over and over the New Testament affirms that the Law is not done away with, and is good and righteous. If it is only for Jews, that contradicts that Law itself, which states that there is one law, for the Jew and the stranger alike. To follow Jesus and walk in his footsteps is to keep the Law, for he himself did so.
QUOTE:
The KJV adds, "saying, 'Ye must be circumcised, and keep the Law,' to whom we gave no such commandment." This addition is lacking in most ancient manuscripts, and is therefore not in modern English translations beginning with the James Duncan Version of 1836.
I saw this over at Susan's and thought it was worth a look, I lauged aloud and cringed at the same time at the cruel truth, from two women no less.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=H-gfxjAaZg0
If you are going to make a bible argument, then quote the bible.
"Trust me it's in there somewhere" is something I've learned to doubt from the ravings of the churchians.
Not saying it's not there, but really, verses please.
I covered the Beta Hamster almost a year ago:
https://rationalmale.wordpress.com/2011/10/27/the-beta-hamster/
The inherent problem with doubting what is intended as the noble motives of a guy to eschew casual sex is that you risk appearing shallow for doing so. Betas generally love to wallow in preconceptions of nobility and delusions of being more ‘deep’ than the general mass of men that they hear women complain of. They think it gives them an edge. It’s an integral part of the beta mating strategy; the more alike you are with women the more they’ll appreciate you as being unique and reward you with sex.
The Spinning Wheel
For beta men this mindset also has the added bonus of giving the perception that he is unique among men in his ability to place the importance of relationship above his natural impulses. In publicly confirming his stance on placing relationship (women’s first security priority, i.e. wait for sex) above his ever-present physical need for sex, his subconscious hope is to appear so in control of his feelings and so above his feral nature that women will have to appreciate him as a paragon of female identification. That’s some REAL pre-fucking-qualification there Mr. Alpha. This guy not only has the capacity, but also the depth and conviction to turn off his sexuality in order to better comply with the relationship security priority women need to enable their own sexual strategy. This is the ultimate in pedestalization of womankind – to put women’s emotional criteria above his physical need for sex. And the god of biomechanics laughed atop his throne of genitalia.
The Beta Hamster
It’s very difficult to criticize social dynamics rooted in personal feelings. All one need say is “it’s just how I feel” and the discussion grinds to a halt because who am I, or who are you, to doubt the veracity of what they’re telling me? Add to this that it’s men who are the true romantics of the sexes and it gets even harder to be suspect of an underlying self-serving motive. In fact it may not even be a conscious effort on the part of a guy to express this. Feminization has conditioned into society a greater, almost default validity for personal feelings. As men have become increasingly adaptive to a feminized culture, placing primacy on identifying with, becoming more like, women, so too have they developed their own version of the female imagination – the feminized-male version of the mental Hamster that spins the wheel in women’s heads. The doubts, suspicions and anxieties caused by the male Hamster are directed towards an idealized female-centric goal state which they mistakenly believe is a male-centric goal state.
Vox, thanks for the response.
I agree with your conclusion that pre-marital sex is a sin for Christians, hence why I titled the post as I did.
I do argue however that the bible clearly permits (though cautions against) polygamy. Like many of your commenters, I'm curious as to why you think the OT does not apply to Christians.
Cheers,
Elihu
The false teaching of the Judaizers is exactly why the council came out with those Mosaic restrictions for gentile Christians in Acts 15:20
I'll add Galatians 5 to the mix as well. Paul is quite descriptive on what he says Judaizers should do to themselves. Perhaps the problem here is that some people don't think that Paul has authority to say what he did? Otherwise, I just don't understand how someone can misread something so badly.
I do argue however that the bible clearly permits (though cautions against) polygamy. Like many of your commenters, I'm curious as to why you think the OT does not apply to Christians.
I concur that polygyny is Biblically sound. Christianity is a new covenant and Christians do not have the same covenant with God that the descendants of Abraham do.
Acts 15:5 "Then some of the believers who belonged to the party of the Pharisees stood up and said, “The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the law of Moses.”
That is the same argument that Tiger is making. And this is how the Council at Jerusalem responded to it:
The apostles and elders, your brothers,
To the Gentile believers in Antioch, Syria and Cilicia:
Greetings.
We have heard that some went out from us without our authorization and disturbed you, troubling your minds by what they said. So we all agreed to choose some men and send them to you with our dear friends Barnabas and Paul— men who have risked their lives for the name of our Lord Jesus Christ. Therefore we are sending Judas and Silas to confirm by word of mouth what we are writing. It seemed good to the Holy Spirit and to us not to burden you with anything beyond the following requirements: You are to abstain from food sacrificed to idols, from blood, from the meat of strangled animals and from sexual immorality. You will do well to avoid these things.
Farewell.
So much for the applicability of circumcision and the Law of Moses to non-Jewish Christians.
Rollo, you are missing a key point in all this: conviction. I admit this is a hard thing to find even among professed Christians, but it does exist. Beta hamster may indeed apply with many, but it is not the only explanation.
Avoiding premarital sex was not a "strategy" for me. In fact, sex was a hard thing to avoid, because there were girls throwing themselves at me, Christian and non-Christian. But I harbored no idiotic notion that celibacy made me more attractive, even to committed Christian women. I didn't advertise it. In fact, it was pretty much WHEN girls I was dating found out that they began to lose interest. Especially when they realized I planned to stay that way until marriage.
So no... I did it purely because I believed it was expected of me by God. No white-knight illusions. It wasn't easy. It damn near drove me crazy a few times. But I hesitated at the thought of committing easily to someone I wasn't sure of, for many of the same reasons modern manosphere members eschew marriage. It seemed like a loaded gun pointed in the wrong direction. Not having sex, and believing that one only has one shot at getting things right(more or less) makes the decision on who to commit to a *really* big deal. That's one thing you married former Alphas might not get. So I would date one girl after another and... waver. The Spock-like exterior that made girls interested would drive them away once in a relationship. Aloofness is good as an initial attractor, but women do NOT like to wait very long, either for sex or emotional intimacy.
So on the one hand, I was trying to live the righteous Christian life, and on the other hand, I was playing guitar in a band at trendy clubs, and working as a freelance graphic designer, all of which brought me in contact with many attractive young women. In my frustration I almost made the decision to abandon my convictions altogether and unleash the hungry cock. I figured I would just lie about the celibacy, and treat girls like the nothings they wanted to be treated as. It seemed pretty obvious.
I was probably a few weeks away from that when I picked up the phone and called one of my LJBF girls (yes, that is one female strategy I adopted--keep a few girls at flirty friend-length distance, just in case... easier to keep them in that state than in a full-flung relationship). This time I let the aloofness crack just a little bit, and she practically jumped me. Then I pushed things physically. Within a few evenings together, there she was, naked in my arms. I was the one who kept it from progressing to full sex, and kept it hovering on the border (yes, that wasn't easy either). I proposed to her a few days later, just on impulse as we kissed ("Well... will you...?--no, don't answer now.") but it was obvious that she indeed would. That was 15 years and 3 children ago.
Was she a virgin? Technically yes. She had mainly kept her Christian dating life clean, although she had had one other half-flung affair. I had already decided that I would make allowances for one other man, seeing as I had kept her waiting so long (years). In that sense, I guess I should consider myself fortunate to find a woman so unsullied in her 20s, but that was still a bit of a dark spot for me.
There, now you have a view of celibate man game... it's not easy, but it is possible. The hard part comes with the choosiness.
As a materialist, you should know that there is nothing "subjective" or "make-believe" about historical documents. If the text says "X is black", you have no room to claim that it is actually white... at least, not on the basis of the text.
Well of course a claim made in a given text is true "on the basis of the text" - it's not necessarily true on the basis of anything else though. A historical text can easily have been exaggerated or fabricated, no matter how many citations in other texts it has.
Anyway, a futile discussion, you're not going to change your mind and neither am I!
A historical text can easily have been exaggerated or fabricated, no matter how many citations in other texts it has.
By that logic all historical texts are to be suspected and not to be trusted at all. That is absurd.
Well of course a claim made in a given text is true "on the basis of the text" - it's not necessarily true on the basis of anything else though. A historical text can easily have been exaggerated or fabricated, no matter how many citations in other texts it has.
There's nothing subjective about it. It is either objectively exaggerated, or it is not. You fail to understand a fundamental component of historic documents.
The Protocols of the Elders of Zion, for example, is a historic document. Its hoax origin is an objective fact about it, not subject to the reader.
Vox won't change his mind because he understands the subject. You won't change your mind because you are ignorant of the basic difference between objective and relative truth.
"5. Christian sexual morality only applies to Christian women. Outsiders are fair game"
This is one big rationalization. A Christian is supposed to be a minister to all nonbelievers. How is one ministering if they are screwing with them? If this Christian man wishes to give up his pretense of being a Christian, it is a mere formality.
didnt read everything between tiger and vox. I am a little mixed about the old and new testament. How do you reconcile Jesus saying he didnt come to abolish the law but fullfill it? Also, I have thought of it in this way. The OT laws dont save you but they are there to show how a people of God live/their behaviors. I think it is dangerous to totally disregard the OT laws.
How do you reconcile Jesus saying he didnt come to abolish the law but fullfill it?
Easily. Did the Law apply to non-Jews before Jesus came? Then why would it apply to them afterwards?
Also, Acts 15.
Well of course a claim made in a given text is true "on the basis of the text" - it's not necessarily true on the basis of anything else though. A historical text can easily have been exaggerated or fabricated, no matter how many citations in other texts it has.
Then you support my point. This entire discussion is based on the text and the text alone. Furthermore, you should note that the potential for error is not synonymous with any actual error having been committed.
Be in the world, not of the world. We're in the world. Game is in the world too. Some aspects of game - using it for PUA uses - are of the world. Some aspects of game - using it to achieve leadership in your marriage, to allow you to truly know your wife and love her, to give her the preconditions she probably needs to do her duty to submit to you in an equally yoked sort of partnership - this is a higher use of game.
Game is just a tool, like a car. It can take you to church, or it can take you to a whorehouse. It's your call as to how you use it and you will be graded accordingly when The Man comes around.
Very nice post, Vox. Huzzah!
It looks like Tiger and Ted Walther are the same person.
This discussion has moved over to the main blog, Vox Day. Any answers I give, will be found over there.
Vox. What about the vine? Grafting wild vine and pruning of the "true" branches? My angle is, the Jews were a God's chosen people. Jesus came for the Jews first and only have him helping non-Jews a few times recorded in the bible (centurion and the woman with the demon possessed daughter saying to her "its not right to give the childrens bread and feed it to the dogs".
Also, you didnt have to be directly blood related to be Jew (Abraham's servants were all circumcised when he was and they are not from his body).
My point being, if you want to be Gods people/children, you behave a certain way, and I would argue that your behavior is inline with the OT laws. I am not saying that as Christians, you have to follow all the laws in the OT that the NT says you dont have to follow (food restrictions being the easist to list off the top of my head)
One of the purpose of the law was to condemn, rather, tell you what sin is. From here, i would say that if you followed the law to the T, you would be "sinless" or righteous.
Last thing i want to say for now, and i apologize that what I wrote down is not quite linear, is that you get into heaven through righteousness. OT, you gained righteousness status by following the law (though it says in the NT that Abraham believed/had faith and that it was credited to him as righteousness, also, this was before the law was given) Now, you gain righteousness through faith in Christ and living according to his will. Again, he said he was the fulfillment of the law, not to abolish it. I think it is reckless to completely disregard the whole law.
@Tiger
Colossians 2:14
That book of the law was fulfilled in Christ's sacrifice on the cross. The 10 commandments stand, the statutes and ordinances are gone (but still VERY useful for understanding God's character)
For reference to the book I speak of see Deuteronomy 31:26
Recruit, show us the place where the ten commandments are retained, but the rest of the law is abolished.
Fulfilling means "completing". Jesus "completed" the Law. Did he "complete" the Law by ripping out big chunks of it, and throwing them away?
You reference Deuteronomy 31:26. Very good! That book still exists, and it is a powerful witness against Christians. Why? Because they speak Love of Christ, but do not obey his commandments.
For this is the love of God, that we keep his commandments. (1 John 5:3)
Ted,
Don't mix "keeping the commandments" with "keeping the Law." In 1 John, they don't refer to the same thing, which is clear by simply reading the entire brief book:
"Keeping the commandments" refers to keeping the 2 chief commandments that Jesus elevated: Love God and love neighbor.
This is why there's so much talk about the importance of love. John is quite obviously talking about the hypocrite who pays loving lip service to God and hates his brother.
1 John is not about restoring the legal practices of Israel among the Believers. As a practical matter, it would have been blasphemous to do so, as it was believed by Christians that God's presence no longer occupied the Temple, but their hearts.
Daniel, "Loving God and Loving your neighbor" is defined by Jesus; he said that "the law and the prophets hang off of this". Like grapes hanging from a vine. In other words, the keeping of the Law of Moses is a visible manifestation of Loving God and Loving Neighbor. Jesus own words.
Matthew 22:37-40
37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.
38 This is the first and great commandment.
39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.
40 On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets.
Grapes: exactly. A fruit of the plant, not the plant itself. Jesus also said don't put rotting old grapes in a new basket. (technically old wine in new skins).
He didn't say these two commandments hang off the Law and the prophets, after all.
Judaizing is a simple mistake of the subset for the set.
I am not Judaizing. Your writing shows no knowledge of what Judaizing actually is. The Law of Moses is not Judaism. The Oral Law (Talmud) is.
You are saying the Law of Moses is rotten fruit? Where is this found?
Since you acknowledge that the Law of Moses is the fruit of Loving God and Neighbor, what does it mean when someone LACKS the fruit?
Also, are you saying then, that Loving God and Loving your neighbor produces rotten fruit?
*facepalm*
No Ted. I'm saying you don't know the difference between a vine and the fruit of a vine. Just because the Law and the Prophets hang from the two greatest commandments does not mean that the followers of Jesus are constrained or subject to the Law and the Prophets. In fact, they are not.
That's the amazing thing about Jesus: he does not overthrow the Law, but fulfills it, and in doing so, makes men no longer slaves to its standard.
Some people are so married to the Law that they recoil at the notion of God's grace. It's not easy: the Christian is not to disregard the law as if it is nullified and void, nor should he live as if he was living without Christ, who sanctifies, not by the blood of animals, but of Himself.
One thing that has been proven a thousand times over is that you can't really ever learn to recognize a sound enthymeme: either you get it or you don't. I can't help you if you don't.
The fact that you believe that it is possible for the Law of Moses to be a fruit of a person, and not the commandments, demonstrates your horribly muddled, and likely (unintentionally) blasphemous thinking. I'm guessing that sets, subsets and simple syllogisms may be quite beyond you.
Forcing a good, such as the Law, onto a people redeemed by the man who fulfilled it, discredits both the the redeemer and the Law: his disciples have made that much clear.
Self-necrophilia is a hypnotic lust: one that all Christians are called to be on guard for. Idolizing the Law is one such manifestation of loving one's old dead self.
BigBadBear, the meme thing doesn't really work without a photo. And a meme can never be confused with a substantive criticism.
@Ted
In Deuteronomy, it clearly states the book was a testimony against them. In Colossians, it clearly states that the same witness that was against them was removed and nailed to the cross fulfilled in Christ. That's also why we don't have temple sacrifices anymore.
To everyone else,
The 2 commandments Jesus gave were the 10 commandments wrapped up in a neat package. The first 4 commandments became love God. The next 6 became love your neighbor. You can't love God if you break one of the first 4 and you can't love your neighbor if you break one of the last 6.
For the sake of the conversation,
Jesus is spoken of in John 1 as being the Word and it is clearly stated that he made everything including the 10 commandments. When he says "If you love me, keep my commandments." He is referring to the 10 which are summed up in the 2. It's extremely simple.
Invoking the Old Testament is a complete joke. You could rape an unmarried woman and get away with it if you married her and paid her daddy off (Deuteronomy 22:29). Divorce was much easier. Polygamy and slavery (forced marriages of sexy slave women) were also allowed. Polygamy is not directly addressed in the New Testament, but many believe it is implied to be made obsolete. An even stronger argument could be made against slavery. So how are the Old Testament rules even close to the New Testament? They are not even close. God is unchanging, but His rules change, because you can’t be perfect through rules and regulations. That is a New Testament and Old Testament concept, which you are ignoring. Jesus fulfilled the Law, not any of you did. That is the entire point of imputed righteousness. You could never be perfect like God is.
Everywhere, women were always treated like property to the man up until less than 100 years ago in America, so the rules were always in reference to the man’s value of the woman. Marriage was never this sanctified mess you are making it out to be. Marriage was only sanctified in context of the man’s desires. Those rules no longer apply, so the standards have changed. You have missed the entire cultural context of Biblical times compared to now. For example an older man is shamed for marring a younger girl. The girl and the man must now burn and not marry.
Paul stated being single is better than being married (--a relative, not absolute rule. Get it?), but yet being married is deemed more important in modern churches. Being a player is not as evil as it once was. It’s more of a practical choice than it used to be. If a man could just marry as many women as he wanted, this would not even be a debate. If it is better to be married than to burn, then a married man with a gross wife is forced to burn under your standards. Also a single man must burn and not have sex at all. God made woman for the man first, so don’t get it twisted. This is your standard, and it is not Biblical.
You attack many strawmen. The rules are not absolute. I could go on and on about this, but I don’t have time right now. Your arguments are no longer culturally relevant and have no power. You need to learn more about the Bible and it’s cultural context. You also need to understand that you are reading the English translations of ancient texts, which are not 100% accurate; and even if you could understand the language, you still will not get the connotative meanings of the words. The jots and tittles are not relevant. The practical concepts are.
PS How in the hell do you logon?
---Obstinance Works a Christian Libertarian
'Rabbi Simlai said, Six hundred and thirteen Commandments were given to Moses' (a traditional 'count' of the number of Commandments in the Law). 'David came and reduced them to eleven' (Psalm 15). 'Then Isaiah reduced them to six' (Is. 33:15-16), 'Micah to three' (Micah 6:8), 'and Isaiah again to two, as it is said, 'Keep judgment and do righteousness' (Is. 66:1). 'Then Amos reduced them to one, 'Seek Me and live' (Amos 5:4). 'Or one could say Habakkuk: 'the righteous shall live by his faith' (Hab. 2:4).1
These 'reductions' or summarizations of the Law in no way did away with any of the other Commandments. They presented 'a rallying point' around which people could focus themselves. Paul did the same thing in Rom. 13:10 and Gal. 6:2.
QUOTE from http://www.seedofabraham.net/fulfill.html
@Ted,
You have completely ignored my argument where I give you proof from scripture that what you are saying is patently wrong. That's called willful ignorance.
Joseph, you didn't give any argument using proof from Scripture that I'm wrong. You misconstrued a few verses. Go back and re-read them. They don't say what you think they do. Deuteronomy, Colossions, John... you have each of these books saying things other than they actually do. That is why you haven't given specific verse references. You can't.
The Jews don't even follow the Old Testament any more. They don't stone people or keep slaves or do the sacrifices (at least not in the same way if they do). There is a lot of cultural relevancy to the Bible that is just common sense that is being ignored here.
As you said, Elihu has a furious rationalization hamster:
http://littlepdog.com/2012/04/26/men-have-rationalization-hamsters-too/
For all those who know the institution of marriage is evil but still do it saying "it's the price of being Christian in a post-Christian America", don't you know supporting an evil institution by partaking in it is also tantamount to sinning?
Besides Christ famously said "Give Unto Caesar What Is Caesar's And God What Is God's". I believe Christ meant follow the law if it doesn't contradict Biblical principles, and don't if it does not. Sadly there are too many laws that do conflict, and that includes today's marriage institution setup. This is why I refuse to partake in it. My two cents here, and I rest my case.
Post a Comment
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS.