Wednesday, August 8, 2012

Game and the Decline of the Church

Dalrock has an excellent post on the way a complicit male leadership has facilitated the transformation of Christianity into feminist Churchianity:
I’ll start with an admittedly contentious question, whether Christian women should cover their heads in church. Paul’s instructions to the church at Corinth in 1 Corinthians 11:2-16 seem to leave at least some room for interpretation. However, what is most telling isn’t just where one lands on this question but the reasoning used to arrive there. Consider for example the exegesis on the topic by Dr. Daniel B. Wallace at What is the Head Covering in 1 Cor 11:2-16 and Does it Apply to Us Today? Dr. Wallace lays out the case for several different readings. He tells us that he originally held the view that the passage means real head covering and is applicable today (emphasis mine):

The argument that a real head covering is in view and that such is applicable today is, in some respects, the easiest view to defend exegetically and the hardest to swallow practically. Since it is never safe to abandon one’s conscience regarding the truth of Scripture, I held to this view up until recently. Quite frankly, I did not like it (it is very unpopular today). But I could not, in good conscience, disregard it.

Later in the article he explains his new view that only a meaningful symbol of submissiveness is required today, although he isn’t able to suggest what might function as that symbol (emphasis mine):

Today, however, the situation is quite different, at least in the West. For a woman to wear a head covering would seem to be a distinctively humiliating experience. Many women–even biblically submissive wives–resist the notion precisely because they feel awkward and self-conscious. But the head covering in Paul’s day was intended only to display the woman’s subordination, not her humiliation. Today, ironically, to require a head covering for women in the worship service would be tantamount to asking them to shave their heads! The effect, therefore, would be just the opposite of what Paul intended. Thus, in attempting to fulfill the spirit of the apostle’s instruction, not just his words, some suitable substitute symbol needs to be found.

His argument is that head covering was intended as a gesture of submissiveness, and isn’t needed so long as the woman is in fact submissive. Yet at the same time he declares that actually being submissive would be humiliating to modern Christian women in our feminist world. There needs to be a meaningful symbol of submission, so long as it doesn’t actually symbolize submission. This is rationalization at its finest, and it also shows that when feminism and the Bible collide Christians very strongly tend to choose feminism while conjuring up a suitable excuse for disregarding the parts of the Bible they are ashamed of.
Now, I have to admit that I've never given any thought to the whole head-covering thing, but I have come to the point where I simply refuse to attend any church in which women are permitted to teach. Not so much due to the Apostle Paul or because Christian women never have anything appropriate or interesting to say - although the percentage of female "pastors" who do nothing but talk about themselves does tend to run a little high - but because I have observed that a woman in the pulpit is a reliable indicator that the church's true allegiance is to the societal norms of Churchianity rather than Jesus Christ.

It must always be remembered that the female rebellion against nature, order, and God is natural and intrinsic to the sex. The only thing new about feminism and equality is that for the first time in history, a number of men bought into it and permitted it. This will be corrected, of course, by the same mechanism that all imbalances in a fallen world are eventually corrected, by disease and war. The tragedy is that it was absolutely unnecessary, the irony is that a celibate monk like Thomas Aquinas understood the core concepts of Game better than the average man today.

I'm neither the first nor the only one to notice the intrinsic relationship between Biblical Christianity and the foundational concepts of Game: Women are fallen and women are inherently different than men. Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.


Jack Dublin said...

I have a suspicion,based on observing modern churches,that when Israel turned to other gods it had something to do with the women. Particularly if the religion had a goddess. I've noticed a disturbingly large number of women at several churches have a certain type of women's catalogs. Most with sidhe and mother nature themes. New Ageism within churches was another hint. I've only seen it in churches in which women have a leadership role. Has anyone else noticed this?

Brad Andrews said...

You say that women are fallen, which is certainly true, but does that prove anything in and of itself? Men are fallen as well, though through their own choice rather than being deceived.

Can you clarify your point there?

Spacebunny said...

I have a suspicion,based on observing modern churches,that when Israel turned to other gods it had something to do with the women. Particularly if the religion had a goddess.

Certainly from an Old Testament perspective Israel's turning from God was because of the women they married (of course the men were specifically told NOT to do this....). I see this as a great failing of men, not of women. If men are strong as they like to pretend then why are they constantly giving into women? I mean, even Solomon, supposedly the wisest did this.

Astrosmith said...

It is a given that men are also fallen.

David said...

Genesis 3:16:
"To the woman he said,
' will make your pains in childbearing very severe;
with painful labor you will give birth to children.
Your desire will be for your husband,
and he will rule over you.

Of all people, Christians should expect this from women.

VD said...

Can you clarify your point there?

Everyone understands that men are fallen, even the Churchians and feminists. But the Churchians and the Average Frustrated Chumps believe that women are less than entirely fallen and that they are the moral superiors of men rather than the fallen moral inferiors, as both Game and Christianity teach.

swiftfoxmark2 said...

Because, quite simply, men often times confuse beauty with purity. This is the Gamma/Delta attitude that is pervasive among the vast majority of men since the beginning of humanity.

Solomon fell because he grew arrogant and then he despaired as he reached the limits of wisdom. And so he buried his despaired in something tangible. It wasn't until the end of his life that he truly fell, although he quickly redeemed himself to some extent. I am reminded of how Vox mentioned that intellectuals over the age of 65 are usually way past their prime when I contemplate this.

As for women corrupting the modern church, it probably has to do with the natural tendency of women to seek out safety and security. Most of the more pagan gods offered such things while Jesus only offered a life of suffering and death with the promise of a second life that was better than this one.

Toby Temple said...

I think it was stated in RationalMale. That even if man is fallen he is more willing to give more for his family than a woman. I think it was about the sacrifice men do for their family.

RationalMale showed this in a post where most men would get insurance that would cover for his wife and children when he dies or become disabled. The same cannot be said about women.

Jack Dublin said...

Does this mean that societies on the decline have a higher occurrence of delta/gamma males and that feminism is more accurately described as one symptom of many?

Stingray said...

Vox, When you say you wouldn't attend a church that allows women to teach, do you mean preach only or something like Sunday school as well?

Pete said...

It seems to me that this is somewhat an apple and oranges argument, with incorrect terminology.

Mankind feel through Adam because he was the head, so both are fallen. However, scripture itself makes a distinction that it was Eve who was deceived, not Adam.

Adam fell because he disobeyed God. So it is correct that women's fall is more grevious and inherent, than Adam who saw the error of Eve, but loved her too much.

And, indeed, the story of Adam and Eve is cautionary against loving a woman to the point where he gives her fallacies his assent, and accepts her leadership, because he is afraid to lose her.

Pete said...

Mankind feel, not "feel". Sorry.

Pete said...

For some reason fell keeps coming out "feel".

VD said...

When you say you wouldn't attend a church that allows women to teach, do you mean preach only or something like Sunday school as well?

I'd probably include Sunday school if it's for adults. The point is that women are not suitable as spiritual authorities, presumably due to their solipsistic tendency to twist Scripture to suit their feelings.

Anonymous said...

"...the irony is that a celibate monk like Thomas Aquinas understood the core concepts of Game better than the average man today."

Funny that you said that, because I was thinking of saying the very same think over at Dalrock's. When I started listening to very traditional Catholic priests preach about marriage and the roles of men and women, often quoting St. Thomas and other Church figures from centuries ago, I was struck by how much they paralleled what the evo-psych Game theorists are saying, in a practical sense. One priest explained female shit-testing and male beta-tude -- not in those words, of course -- but tied it all back to Genesis and Original Sin, rather than evolution and reproductive strategy.

So not only did our grandfathers understand this stuff better than we do today, but so did pretty much everyone in history -- including, as you say, celibate monks. We seem to be in an especially stupid epoch where male/female relations are concerned.

jwshell said...

Something I've always found quite interesting about the woman's the Hebrew, God's command to Adam was not to eat of the fruit of the knowledge of good and evil for in the day that they ate of it "dying, you will surely die"...note that the literal sense of this is that the immortal Adam would then become mortal and eventually die, not that he would die immediately...this is not the sense we get in most of the English translations...

So note Serpent's actual temptation...he didn't tell a completely bald-faced lie...he really told a half-truth, in that they wouldn't die immediately, and certainly they would gain knowledge "like God"...except lacking the divine nature to handle the knowledge rightly

What did the woman do? She rationalized God's command away...she saw the fruit was good for food and that it was desirable to make one wise so she ate...then gave to other words, her sin was essentially brought about by the "hamster"

It is further interesting to me that a number of feminist churchian (redundant?) teachers have blamed Adam for not protecting (white knighting) Eve to keep her from sinning. Also, if we assume from the silence in the Biblical record of how the woman knew she shouldn't eat the fruit was because God left it to Adam to instruct his wife of the command, and that he did, we see that the woman's hypergamy led her to sin, in that she saw serpent's status as higher than her husband's, so she was seduced away from her husband's leadership by Serpent's false teaching...

And they say "game" has nothing to do with Biblical marriage...

Brad Andrews said...

Adam did immediately die, his spirit was quite dead. His body took a while to catch up.

Brad Andrews said...

That makes more sense. I have seen that view in many of the "family" radio shows.

Jeigh Di said...

"As for women corrupting the modern church, it probably has to do with the natural tendency of women to seek out safety and security. Most of the more pagan gods offered such things while Jesus only offered a life of suffering and death with the promise of a second life that was better than this one."

Also don't forget that many churches have not welcomed single men, doubtless considering them a danger to the women folk.

Jeigh Di said...

I understand that the word "desire" implies the desire to dominate. God uses the same word in chapter four, when he warns Cain about sin "crouching at the door".

Stingray said...

I agree with you. I have met at least one gentleman who goes to a church who won't allow women to teach boys past the age of 9-10. He told me about this several years ago, before learning about game and women's/men's tendencies and even though I was shocked and even a little bit perturbed by it, it made a lot of sense as well though I couldn't put my finger on it at the time.

mmaier2112 said...

It is further interesting to me that a number of feminist churchian (redundant?) teachers have blamed Adam for not protecting (white knighting) Eve to keep her from sinning

Which must mean that any woman (or man for that matter) that states this fully acknowledges that women are not capable of rational thought or responsibility. After all, Eve was too damned (!) stupid to resist evil or take care of herself.

Brad Andrews said...

The Biblical position is that she was deceived. I would certainly hold Adam accountable for his failure, especially as he seems to have stood silently by. I have heard a compelling argument that his "white knighting" was in sinning with her. Failing to protect those under your care is a major shirking of responsibility.

I am responsible now for protecting my wife the best I can, but that does not extend to other women. She has her responsibilities as well and we follow them to varying degrees of success.

Stickwick said...

Does this mean that societies on the decline have a higher occurrence of delta/gamma males and that feminism is more accurately described as one symptom of many?

Feminism is a deliberate part of a concerted effort to undermine and eventually eradicate Christian culture in the West. This effort relies on the ability of our enemies to manipulate the misplaced Christian sense of guilt, and men who do not have a strong sense of their principles (i.e. Gammas and Deltas) are much more susceptible to it. Since Christianity is, at its core, masculine, that's why there's such an emphasis on feminizing Western culture. But it's just one aspect of the overall effort to destroy Christianity. Bill Whittle explains this in an Afterburner video called "The Narrative," which I strongly encourage you all to watch.

JP said...

What then is your standpoint on Catholic Sunday Schools and Catholic Secondary Schools in which the instruction comes from nuns?

7man said...

I invite all to read and comment.

Modern Women Are Like God

jwshell said...

"Adam did immediately die, his spirit was quite dead. His body took a while to catch up"'re one of those...sir, if you're a Calvinist, I won't even try to talk sense to you because you're immune...however, for the record, in the Genesis context, what God was talking about when He said "dying, you shall surely die" WAS in fact, physical death...after all, for people who were built to live eternally, dying at all was a huge shock to the old system...remember the whole thing about making them clothing was about forgiving their sin...remember, the final foe Christ will defeat is death (physical), the death that defeated Adam

@mmaier...right you are, sir...and yet we men who really want to obey Scripture shouldn't "marginalize" the women who, after all, have just as much "right" to use their gifts as any man does, don't you know? And who are WE to say her little gift isn't the pastorate?

Yes, she was deceived...why is Adam accountable for her sin? Why is it his failure? "The soul that sins is the soul that shall die" (Ezek. 18:4) "He stood silently by"! Upon what basis do you make that statement? The statement in Genesis 3:6 that she gave the fruit to her husband who was with her does not prove he was there while Serpent was tempting the woman...In fact, as I've read that passage at least 100 times, I never got the sense the man was there at the temptation. How is sinning with her his "white knighting"? All we know from Scripture is she was deceived, and he sinned...his motives are not stated and to declare otherwise is purely speculation

Markku said...

dying, you shall surely die

Can't help but notice you are not quoting the "in the day that you eat of it" -part. Do the first two letters refer to Jehovah's Witnesses, perchance?

Markku said...

If you're going to act as if Adam dying in the same thousand year period is just obviously the same as Adam dying that day, whereas talking about Paul referring to spiritual death as just plain death is overspiritualizing the text, I'll have my answer.

little dynamo said...

The only thing new about feminism and equality is that for the first time in history, a number of men bought into it and permitted it.

feminism began with eve, leading her husband and desiring co-deification (immortality) with God

men have participated in feminism/female worship from Getgo, right thru history -- the bible teems with such examples and references, Ahab's subjugation to Jezebel merely one

This will be corrected, of course, by the same mechanism that all imbalances in a fallen world are eventually corrected, by disease and war.

only under Christ's direction, and not by some series of secularistic, scientistic, "natural," deterministic events demanded by logical humanism unconnected to God's intimate will

Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men.

CHRIST (anybody remember him?) is TRUTH (and life itself)

and he is the ONLY truth

Game is NOT truth, but a created thing of prideful, inexperienced men acting out of worldliness

Game is not a "subset of Christianity" nor has it anything to do with Christ except in the minds of those who insist it be so

Athor Pel said...

Having a little asperger moment are we Ray?

You really should relax and attempt to understand the message rather than defending something that isn't being challenged.

Athor Pel said...

Here are some verses illustrating some of the things being discussed here.

Some refugees from Judah respond to Jeremiah after he told them their doom was inevitable if they stayed in Egypt. Pay attention to who is described as talking back to Jeremiah.

Jeremiah 44
15 Then all the men who were aware that their wives were burning sacrifices to other gods, along with all the women who were standing by, as a large assembly, including all the people who were living in Pathros in the land of Egypt, responded to Jeremiah, saying,

16 "As for the message that you have spoken to us in the name of the LORD, we are not going to listen to you!

17 "But rather we will certainly carry out every word that has proceeded from our mouths, by burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, just as we ourselves, our forefathers, our kings and our princes did in the cities of Judah and in the streets of Jerusalem; for then we had plenty of food and were well off and saw no misfortune.

18 "But since we stopped burning sacrifices to the queen of heaven and pouring out drink offerings to her, we have lacked everything and have met our end by the sword and by famine."

Isaiah chapter 3 comes to mind as well.

Here's verse 12.
"O My people! Their oppressors are children,
And women rule over them.
O My people! Those who guide you lead you astray
And confuse the direction of your paths."

Anonymous said...

Vox, if you want to see a place of total female rebellion against submission look no further than a number of "liberal" Catholic parishes in Connecticut. Not only do the women not cover their hair as a sign of submission, they cut it very short, which of course goes against St. Paul's directive that women should keep their hair long as a natural veil. As such, these liberal parishes are dominated by a SWPL crowd who have very few children, have altar girls, produce no priests, and bear no good fruit. Women dominate these parishes which men hate to attend. And oh yeah, it was these emasculated parishes with effeminate priests (aka lavendar mafia) where the sex abuse scandal flourished nationally.

Want to see parishes bearing good fruit with large families: they're the parishes with masculine priests (real men) faithful to the church, Latin, altar boys only, Greek, vigilant fathers watching the priests, and oh yes, women with long hair are covering their hair. It's also curious that these parishes are much more diverse with whites, blacks, hispanics, etc. well represented. Ironically, the liberal SWPL parishes have none of the diversity that they go on and on about, and eventually that will all be corrected when the Visigoths (the vibrancy) are purified by the Church and dominate with discipline.

Brendan said...

There are today's nuns and then there were yesterday's nuns.

When I was in Catholic schools in the late 1970s and early 1908s, the changing of the guard was taking place. The older generation of nuns were very traditional, and stood under the authority of the church and its bishops, for the most part. Their authority in teaching the kids was exercised on behalf of that church authority, and not independently of it. The newer generation, however (who are now in their late 50s and 60s and running things like the body that was put under supervision recently by the Vatican), are critics of the church, the bishops and the authority represented thereby. Therefore, I would say that for Catholics (although I am no longer Catholic, I am EO now) teaching under today's nuns, unless they are part of a very clearly traditional order that operates under the authority of the bishop and not in criticism of it, are a bad bet for teaching your kids.

PC Geek said...

An interesting tidbit on the whole veil issue...

Anonymous said...

Come home to the Orthodox Church, guys. We still don't let women on the altar (well, except in Monasteries where there are no men other than the priest and deacon).

We're not uniform on the head covering as we see a lot of Middle Eastern women and Orthodox women don't want to look Islamic.

Markku said...

From the link:

"head" does NOT mean the same thing we mean by it in Western culture. From the standpoint of anatomical function, in Paul's day it was the 'heart' that made the decisions, guided life, etc. "Head" was much more the 'adornment department' of the body! In other words, when people wanted to make decisions, they used their heart; when they wanted to get all "gussied up" ["dressed up", for you colloquially-deprived readers ;>) ], they used their head (e.g. hair, makeup, jewelry)


Thus, I have to conclude that 'head' does NOT entail authority, but rather is used to focus on organic union (e.g. Christ/Church, Husband/Wife) and source/completion (e.g Christ/New Creation) motifs. The lexical data is simply too overwhelming at this point AGAINST the equation of the two.

1Cr 11:3 But I want you to understand that the head of every man is Christ, the head of a woman is her husband, and the head of Christ is God.

Ya right. "Christ/Church, Husband/Wife" No, but rather Christ/Husband, Husband/Wife. And are we to suppose that God the Father is a way for Jesus Christ to get "all gussied up"?

This here is spiritual poison.

Pete D. said...

You're on the right track, Aaron.
You're on the right track, Aaron.
No offense to my separated Christian brethren (Protestants), but I'm often saddened by the discussions that go on at AG regarding Christianity which leave out the orthodox theology and tradition of 1,500 of Christian hermeneutics. Veiling? Yes it is a sign of submission... to God, not man.
So why the veil in Church? A women isn't being submissive to her husband by wearing a veil at Mass any more than a man is being submissive to the wife by removing his hat in Church. Veiling represents the desire to humble oneself before God: When a man walks into church he removes his hat as an act of humility. The Bible calls out a women's hair as her glory. I believe this blog covered the importance and significance of long hair in Game theory in both young and old women and the butch-ing of hair in older women, and the suggestion to cut hair by jealous women.
When a woman covers her hair, her glory, she is humbling herself before the presence of God. Most traditional Catholic Church's have the tabernacle front and center with a red candle burning that signifies Christ is housed within in tabernacle. This is why Catholics [should] bow and genuflect in church. We are, literally, bowing before the True Presence of Christ. Sadly, most Catholics do this from habit, not from respect; they don't know or believe in the True Presence even though it's fundamental to their own Faith's doctrine.
This veiling of sacred things speaks to a kind of hidden nature that doesn’t seek to conceal in the negative sense, but rather draw folks into the depths of mystery, allowing for the mysterious to unfold. In the Old Testament, Moses veiled his face. The Holy of Holies was veiled. Brides are often veiled before the “veil is lifted.” Even Jesus, the infinite God whose glory is revealed in heaven, is “veiled” before us by the visual appearance of simple bread and wine. "By the very fact that something is hidden, it is allowed to become that which it is: mysterious and beautiful.”
How does this fit practically into the Game? Well my brothers, if you're not married yet, might be time to consider a trip to eastern Europe and get yourself a hot, orthodox Christian girl who veils and hasn't been tainted by jaded, modern feminist values. BTW, this isn't just armchair observations; I lucked out and got a hot wife (with nice, long red hair) who now veils along with an increasing amount of other young and old women who are rediscovering the intent and benefits of the Catholic veiling tradition. The strength of our relationship has grown in direct proportion to her own relationship and intimacy with Christ. This isn't empirical, but the (few) young women who also veil at church seem to have a strong, healthy relationship, with corresponding alpha-type husbands. It's a very empowering thing to have a wife who so boldly declares her love for God.
For dudes, I'd suggest putting on a suit and you'll derive the same benefits as veiling, both spiritually and practically. Nothing says "Alpha" on Sunday when other guys come in to church looking like beach bums, and I step in wearing a suit. If you think it doesn't matter, you're wrong. Put on a suit or tie for church these days, and observe the subtle reactions of single women and other wives (and the demure behavior of their frat boy husbands). You MIGHT get the rare ribbing, but it usually comes out like a baby that's trying to insult a big boy (as often displayed by betas trying to show off). As a final comment to an already-too-long post, I'd really encourage Game and Alpha behavior to be played within the context of a solid, orthodox, Christian paradigm that builds up the family, community, and country. If it's not about working towards being a stronger alpha male within a lifelong relationship and friendship that's going to honor the Lord, it's pretty much a worthless, empty, finite exercise in self-pleasuring.

Joe Blow said...

Don't pedestalize women. They are not inherently better than men. That's all it means.

Joe Blow said...

Pretty much. There are plenty of faithful, small-o orthodox Catholic churches that say mass in the vulgate. They are doing okay. But they are outnumbered by sixties-radical-influenced parishes that feature guitar masses, seats-but-no-kneelers, and really prominent female roles in the liturgy. They are characterized by an aging population, many of whom spend the best part of the mass sitting in back and chatting with each other. The last two popes have done what they could to reverse this slide but it's an uphill battle.

Axe Head said...

Adam was a beta. He chose the woman rather than God.

Axe Head said...

So Tektonics' Holding is committed to equality. Everything after that is FAIL.

Brad Andrews said...

Man is a body, should and spirit. The spirit died instantly. I am definitely not a Calvanist.

The Scripture says that Eve gave the fruit to her husband "there with her", which implies he was there.

Adam is responsible for His own sin, though I tend to see that as not protecting those under his care. If he was the as it implies, then he should have spoken up and squished the serpent. If he wasn't, he should have sought out God prior to eating the fruit and disobeying God himself.

We need to watch that we do not remove the responsibility a man has for his family in the name of fighting modern pressures to be stupid.

Brad Andrews said...

Celibacy in the RC Church is probably as much of a cause of sex abuse issues than anything else. Forcing celibacy to keep the church from losing lands as priests had children was not a Biblical requirement, but a man-made one.

Unknown said...

R. Bradley,

Jesus is known as the last adam in 1 Corinthians. Jesus knew full well that he was taking on our sin upon himself. I think a strong case can be made that Adam was standing by because Adam had no reason to suspect that the serpent was a bad guy at this point, and that when he did realize what had happened, he attempted to take Eve's sin on himself the same way that Jesus took our on himself. That is why death entered the world through Adam and not Eve. She was deceived. Adam chose.

Unknown said...

It's crap. Hebrews states very clearly that Jesus had the same flesh you and I have and overcame it without sinning. It's also stated that Anti-Christ will believe that Jesus did not come in the flesh. I think you are looking at an Anti-Christ teaching.

King A (Matthew King) said...

Game and Christianity are held to be at odds for three reasons.

1. Individual interpretation. While Christianity is a fairly straightforward set of "I believe" principles made explicit in the Nicene Creed, game is largely an empty vessel into which enlightened chumps pour their frustrations. So you get citations of Roissy's Poon Commandments for lack of a formal dogma, and they are set against uneducated assertions of what constitutes proper Christianity (a confusion resident in that insipid neologism "Churchianity," another all-things-to-all-people term).

As a result, you will see monomaniacs like GBFM on Dalrock's site preaching sophistry about how his understanding of game is irreconcilable with his understanding of the church.

2. The proper use of power. Game narrowly understood as evolutionary psychology deployed for the purposes of promiscuity has the greatest currency on the internet. Of course it does; "game" (what used to be known as savoir-faire, aplomb, suavity, confidence, mastery, sangfroid) and the "alpha" attitude (what used to be known as manliness, leadership, and thumos) was first put into practice against modern feminism by pick-up artists, motivated by pussy. This is how revolutions in ideas proceed. They begin in dark corridors motivated by low passions, because it is the potential satiety of those passions which give them the courage to be transgressive against the prevailing regime. But eventually the ideas are refined when the initial courage reaches enough of critical mass for it to be expressed openly, more generally, and without fear of reprisal. For a while euphemism and "dark arts" and samizdat are essential.

But, as in all matters, the Christian is suspicious of the use of power, though not allergic to it. Game is the first hint of a new, paradigm-shifting power, distinguished by its application to picking up drunk coeds. Since its modern rediscovery is rooted in the pussy pursuit, the cunt hunt is regarded as central to the creed. The Christian is enjoined not to sin, but he is not prohibited from wielding power. So the Christian will have disagreements about the ends to which game power should be applied, particularly since the undisciplined endless tail-chase of better orgasms is unworthy of an incipient power with the capacity to fell the cultural tyranny of our age, feminism.

This Christian approach leads to disagreement and confusion about whether the power of game is at odds with Christianity itself. But there is no contradiction between Christians wielding game for righteous purposes any more than there is between Christians wielding firearms in a just cause. That said, ignoramuses on both sides will insist on an eternal incompatibility.

King A (Matthew King) said...

3. The Christian roots of feminism. Without Christianity, women are chattel. Period. They were a man's property everywhere before Christianity obtained, they are his property everywhere that Christianity has not yet obtained. Christianity is the revolution in theo-political thought that universally calls for (among a very many other things) the dignity of women.

Of course, we have recently deracinated the faith from its divine soil and subtracted the Christ from Christianity. The result was the sprouting of secular substitutes which must end up, as Nietzsche taught, withering in the nihil: Marxism, feminism, environmentalism, pacifism. Absent the grace of a divine foundation, every -ism eventually devolves into a fight to the death for power.

The first Mosaic commandment is, "I AM the LORD your God..." The first Christian commandment is, "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..." These precede more specific directives and thereby frame those ancillary applications, such as "Do not murder," grounding them in the most essential thing. The secular substitutes such as feminism believe they can begin with the unaided assertion to "love your neighbor as yourself" independent of that grounding, or with the declaration that "all [wo]men are created equal" without referring first to "Nature and Nature's God," which dignifies it as something more than a fervent and impossible wish.

Christianity therefore shares many of the ends of its secular substitutes. But absent the understanding of how Christianity diverges from feminism at their essences, most will see the shared goals and assume both creeds to be in alliance. This is certainly true with evo-psych atheist PUAs who have no mental acuity to distinguish among whom they regard as their allied enemies.

It is a damnable weakness for MRAs and PUAs and MGTOWs and all them to contemplate the equal (infinite) dignity of women, simply because they are beleaguered by a feminism that has usurped the name of "dignity" as an instrument to reduce men. Can't risk giving aid or comfort to the enemy! But in the last analysis, we are all made in the Imago Dei. Women have dignity qua women within their submissive role, just as men become "no longer servants but friends" of their Lord by submitting themselves with all their "heart, soul, strength, and mind" to Him. These subtleties confound the game evangelists who adopted their creeds through half-baked seminars and websites, creating binary categories and inflammable straw men. But within those subtleties are the elements of reconciliation.


Stickwick said...

What then is your standpoint on Catholic Sunday Schools and Catholic Secondary Schools in which the instruction comes from nuns?

My parents and their siblings went to Catholic schools in the 50s and 60s. From what they've told me, the nuns were cruel and bitchy, and they were all traumatized by the experience. My dad got himself expelled by throwing a piece of wadded-up paper at mother superior's head, and was grateful to be in a public school from then on. My mother and her siblings all begged to be in public high school. Every one of them left the church; one became a Protestant, and the rest are atheist. In fact, most atheists I've met are veterans of Catholic schools (or ethnic Jews). I'm not anti-Catholic, so this is not coming from a place of malice. But based on observation alone, it seems that one of the best ways to produce humanists is to put them through Catholic school and subject them at a young age to the cruelty of the nuns.

realmatt said...

Women are weak and desperate to be led. It's a sick repulsive perversion of nature to force their leadership upon men.

realmatt said...

Vox, what did Thomas Aquinas say that was Game-related? Where?

jonw said...

IMO many churches unconsciously view the serpent as a phallic symbol. Da poor widdle woman was seduced by that nasty ol' penis!

Markku said...

he attempted to take Eve's sin on himself the same way that Jesus took our on himself.

Yeah, and then he whiteknighted for Eve with these truly courageous and inspiring words:

Gen 3:12 The man said, "The woman whom thou gavest to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate."

7man said...

You are accusing me of the Nestorian heresy, which was a false teaching. Nestorianism was denounced.

Jesus was a Divine person with a human nature and a Divine nature. He was a flesh and blood man. Jesus was fully man but sinless. This was affirmed in 431AD at the First Council of Ephesus. At this same council Mary was affirmed as Theotokos.

Lucas said...

"Being truth, Game is a subset of Christianity that happens to relate to an area of particular importance and interest to men."

And this is why I like Christian game theorists.

"I have come to the point where I simply refuse to attend any church in which women are permitted to teach.

Like I said previously, every Thursday night I receive (or used to receive) a SMS telling me that sister what's-her-name will be "preaching" that night.

Every Thursday night I skip that service.

It's not that I don't like to listen to women speaking about Christianity. It's just that preaching is one of the many things they are not made to do.

SouthTX said... The wife showed this as humor when I got home from work. The final comment that was made, that they would rather have a athiest or muslim than a Christian president cracks me up in a dark way. SWPL's atheists would be the first to go under the sword under islam. I've dealt with muslims here and in Saudi. Atheist leaders bring to mind Stalin and Mao.

SouthTX said...

I work for a very large global, six out of seven continents footprints corporation. My three levels of management above me I know, and they trust me to make sure what we make get's made safely. The military used it for the original thermobaric bombs. All men are religious, although maybe of different Faiths, still on wife #1 one. And have kids. They have made my life very comfortable and have compensated me pretty well. I do my best to mentor the younger ones that deserve it. I may be a dumb redneck. But as a redneck I can tell you that when it comes down to the nut cutting, I have survived 4 rounds of US layoffs and make more than ever.

Southtx said...

I may think they are delusioned, but I tend to trust them more than seculars.

JP said...

Hmmm, I dunno, I went to a regular public school and all the female teachers were cruel and bitchy. Hard to see how nuns could have been worse.

rycamor said...

Well said, Matt. It is ironic beyond measure that so many modern liberated women see Judao-Christianity as repressive. It was the only force in the world that introduced a measure of dignity for women. In fact, I would go so far as to say that wherever we find other religions that offer some scraps of female dignity, they have probably stolen it from the Judao-Christian heritage at some point in the distant past.

And women will see, in time, when Christianity fades from influence in various parts of the West, how men will take the reins of power once again and use them mercilessly. Game is just the warning signal.

rycamor said...

I grew up in a Christian sect that enforced head coverings and women's silence in church, except for the singing. I rejected much of it in my youthful rebellion, and find myself coming full circle in many ways. Ancient wisdom is hard to appreciate until you've seen what it gets replaced with for awhile.

Not that I particularly care about the head covering issue. Frankly it becomes outright ridiculous in many circles, where you see the equivalent of a tiny lace doily pinned on top of a woman's head--purely a token. I think as with many other things in the Bible there are cultural signals that don't apply in the same way now. I think the modern parallel to uncovered heads might be women dressing like sluts in church (an increasing phenomenon--I don't ever remember seeing cleavage on display in the pews until the past decade).

Brad Andrews said...

That was buyer's remorse!

Brad Andrews said...

I know it won't be loved here, but I have heard that the Greek in that text indicates that a women should not teach her husband, rather than a blanket condemnation. I am not looking to argue it, but I am wondering if anyone has delved into this question?

I would also ask if anyone can note several Scriptures that note this principle. Is it only this one reference by Paul? That would be a weak foundation for a doctrine. I haven't looked much at this for several years, so I am a bit rusty on the specifics. I am planning on digging into it a bit more in the near future, especially since my daytime schedule freed up a lot.

Anonymous said...

The American women are not worth alphaing up for. The real goal should be to repel American women as much as possible.

Jeigh Di said...

The more I think about it the more it seems that in the Bible, listening to women, especially their wives, is what got men in more trouble than anything else. There are plenty of examples; Adam and Eve; Abraham and Sarah ("take my handmaid..."), Solomon and his wives, Ahab and Jezebel, Job and his wife- fortunately Job was smart enough not to listen to his...

Anonymous said...

"Celibacy in the RC Church is... a cause of sex abuse..."

You got any facts to back that up?

Don't bother looking, there aren't any.

Anonymous said...

It is more than the limited precept "don't pedestalize women". It is specifically that women have a particular nature which men do not and that men must manage.

Anonymous said...

I Kings 11.

. said...

Adam wasn't responsible for Eve's actions in the Garden. When they were there, Eve was under the spiritual tutelage of God, who came and walked with them there.

It was not until after they got the boot from the Garden that God laid out that Eve must submit to her husband. This is a common mistake that people make about the Garden story, in that they try to lay the blame upon Adam for Eve's sin. Each was responsible for their own sin: Eve for being deceived, and Adam, as God spells out clearly in his curse, "Because you listened to your wife and ate from the tree about which I commanded you."

In fact, one might even go so far as to say that to try to pin the blame of Eve's sin upon Adam is, in fact, part the Garden parable itself - wherein we so quickly want to forgive women for the shortcomings of her rationalization hamster, that we grab onto the first available man and lay the blame upon him instead of her. This is essentially what Adam did himself, by listening to her - he wanted to go along with her rather than God, and in blaming Adam for Eve's sin, we go along with the same theme, in that, we bend over backwards to accomodate woman.

Adam was responsible for his own sin, and Eve for hers. Neither was in dominion over other in the Garden and each fell because of their own specific shortcomings.

. said...

I've often contemplated that the reasoning for celibacy in priests and monks might have to do with attempting to separate them from their sex drive, so that they are better able to seek the Truth. A married man, even if dominate over his wife, is still influenced by her thinking and her desires... and also knows that certain things are better left unsaid. But, priests and monks, who have no hope of ever having sexual relations with women, might be able to see the Truth more clearly because they are less influenced by a woman's rationalization hamster and the desire to please her and gain her favour.

SouthTX said...

Simple truth and warning. Your Husbands friends better tell him he can't deny them. You are cherished as a good Mom. Any doubt. If he has a sack you will be kicked to the curb. We boy's that understand realize the truth. My friends tell me they look like me, sorry Rebecca. You'll probably play div I volleyball.

Brad Andrews said...

Stuffing the natural sex drive is not a good idea. It was not good for a man to be alone. No Biblical command supports celebit ministers, though a few may have that call/grace. However that is the exceptIon, not the rule.

Believe what you want though.

Brad Andrews said...

Some men also get into trouble when they don't listen to their wives. Both parties in a marriage should be important or one is unnecessary. It is just as stupid to never listen as to never lead.

Trust said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Trust said...

I once made the mistake of going to a marriage class moderated by a (very nice) woman.

The general format was going through scriptural directives on marriage as follows:

1. Verse about husbands' behavior towards wives (i.e., love your wives, be willing to lay down his life for her, etc.) = absolute gospel truth that changeth not.

2. Verse about wives' behavior towards husbands (i.e., respect your husband, submit to him, don't deprive him sexually, etc.) = "well, let's move on." "that comes after the verse about husbands and is only applicable if he does so sufficiently (by the wive's changing standards of course)" "i saw/read about this from [insert famous pastor's name here] it really means for the wives to bark orders and keep their husbands in line"

3. rinse, repeat, and gang up to punish any husband who dares contradict the "gospel."

we didn't last long in this workgroup.

SouthTX said...

My wife has my respect. She's kept me from harm because a devoted wife forgives all. I take care of stuff also. I guess God got it right when two Flesh become One. Loyal wife means for the thinking man I am devoted to her and our children. I am willing to die for them.

Anonymous said...

I absolutely disagree with your conclusion. God himself used women over the centuries to both lead and teach (Deborah, for example, for leadership, and Paul's good female friend whose name I forget right now). The greek that Paul used had the same word for both wife and woman, and it's to the christian man's discredit that he didn't bother to notice the difference. Only in the marriage relationship is a woman supposed to submit herself (by her own choice) to the headship of her husband. Nowhere else is she expected to do that, or the world would be crazy with women having to submit to every man she comes in contact with. As long as it's OK with her husband, it's fine for a christian woman to teach and/or lead. Look at Joyce Meyer for example. She is fully submitted to her husband and he's wise enough to know that God himself called his wife to teach. God likes to shake up our stereotypes and this is one that definitely needs to be shaken up.

rycamor said...

Notice, Vox is making an empirical argument, not a prescriptive one. He doesn't say it is impossible for a woman to teach a man, nor does he even claim that this one passage from Paul is the last word on the matter. He just makes a generalization based on observation.

Yes, the Bible gives a few examples of women who lead, teach, and have authority over men in a "spiritual" setting. A very few. Men realize that not everyone can lead. The problem is nowadays ALL women hear is "you go girrrl!" We live in a culture in which banal self-absorption and false confidence has been fostered among women all their lives. When someone questions the capability of a male leader, the man usually handles it in a rational way: "you should follow me on this because", while the woman in leadership will almost always respond with some sort of tantrum: "how DARE you question me." or some caustic line like "What's the matter? Can't take orders from a woman? Poor baby..." Men who pay attention to causes and effects in modern culture begin to get very contemptuous after awhile, even if they hide it well.

So it's not quite the way it was in ancient times. The red pill woman that Athol talks about... that's what most women used to know because that's what they were taught. Nowadays they are taught that they can have it all, and at essentially no cost or sacrifice. Ironically, our modern culture, it its attempt to elevate women's status has made them even less fit to lead than ever.

paul a'barge said...

Huge sigh of relief, reading this.

woodenavaklu said...

Anon You haven't read the full story regarding Deborah. When she told a male to lead the army and he wouldn't unless she came along she told him that because of this the honour of winning the battle would be given to a woman and that would be a dishonour to him. Exactly how much of a dishonour it would be is made clear when one looks at the story of Abimelech in Judges. In his eyes it was the ultimate dishonour to die at the hands of a woman.

Jdg 9:53 KJV - And a certain woman cast a piece of a millstone upon Abimelech's head, and all to brake his skull.
Jdg 9:54 KJV - Then he called hastily unto the young man his armourbearer, and said unto him, Draw thy sword, and slay me, that men say not of me, A woman slew him. And his young man thrust him through, and he died.

Paul said...

Celibacy for the sake of God's kingdom is supported by:
- Jesus: Matthew 19:12
- the Holy Spirit through Paul: 1 Corinthians 7:7-8

It is a sign of our hope.

No one will be married in eternity (Matthew 22:30).

Markku said...

In some cases yes, except to one group to whom it is mandatory: bishops.

1Ti 3:2 A bishop then must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigilant, sober, of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach;

Trust said...

This may have been talking about the feminization of the church:

"For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine; but wanting to have their ears tickled, they will accumulate for themselves teachers in accordance to their own desires, and will turn away their ears from the truth and will turn aside to myths." -- 2 Timothy 4:3-4

Carey said...

This place is awesome. I continue to read each post and mentally note my status as somewhere between Gamma and Delta (in terms of how much resentment I allowed to brew until it resulted in this position I'm in). A change is a-comin', much in part thanks to the excellent abstract and concrete thinking here.

cdw said...

Even today when a beta male in the church asks if you have seen his wife, just, "only the top of her head". This ought to chasten the fool.

Anonymous said...

Good info. Lucky me I recently found your site by chance (stumbleupon).
I've saved it for later!

Feel free to visit my web site: wood floors in wayne
My website :: flooring in philadelphia

Anonymous said...

It's an amazing article in support of all the online users; they will get benefit from it I am sure.

My homepage ... tax preparation company in snohomish

Anonymous said...

Magnificent web site. Lots of useful information here.
I am sending it to several pals ans additionally sharing in delicious.

And of course, thank you in your sweat!

my homepage :: star smog in national city

Anonymous said...

Hi! I just wanted to ask if you ever have any issues with hackers?

My last blog (wordpress) was hacked and I ended up losing several weeks of hard work
due to no backup. Do you have any solutions to protect against hackers?

Feel free to visit my web blog - venta corta in riverside
My webpage - power of attorney in norco

Anonymous said...

Hi there, just became aware of your blog through Google, and found that it is truly informative.
I'm gonna watch out for brussels. I'll appreciate
if you continue this in future. Lots of people will be benefited
from your writing. Cheers!

Take a look at my webpage ... doors in fullerton

Anonymous said...

Thank you for your very nice article, do not forget to read my articles also hadirkanlah l Kata Kata Cinta l Foto Artis Korea l Kata Kata Galau l wallpaper keren and many other interesting articles on my blog that.

Unknown said...

To all of the people giving caveats that men have also fallen: yes, we know. There are more than enough messages bashing men for their shortcomings. Can we examine the other side of the coin equally just once without being hounded?

Also, Just because Eve was deceived does not mean she did not have a choice as to whether she ultimately ate the forbidden fruit. Even though she may have thought what Satan was saying sounded good and did not completely understand, she still could have stopped herself and chosen to trust God anyway, just like we can today. I don't condemn her, though, seeing as though I make that exact same mistake, but I think it's ridiculous how diligently a lot of Christians try to defend her and make seem like she had NO culpability.

Post a Comment