Writing plans

As you may know, there’s pretty much zero Christian literature out right now on the Truth of the nature of men and women from the Bible. Dalrock has pretty much exposed almost every pastor for pandering and pedestalizing wives in marriage.

Unfortunately, the “red pill” has a bad reputation, even though much of the information is true due to users using it in immoral ways. The only way you could possibly make any sort of in-roads into a Church is through a book based solely on Scripture. That’s why such a book is needed.

I talked with Don of A Christian Man’s Guide to Love and Marriage in the 21st Century: Why Everything You Think You Know Is Wrong. His book is available free through commons license on Donal’s sidebar. The goal is to rewrite much of the book to eliminate RP terminology and expand upon the concepts in order to reach the single and married Christian men without having the stigma of the secular manosphere weighing over it.

This is easy to do because the full nature of men and women are clearly and thoroughly explained in the Scriptures. Pulling out those examples and contrasting them against the culture is what this book will aim to achieve. This will show that God’s Truth trumps the cultural and churchian indoctrination that has demonized men and angelicized women for decades.

My writing goal is to have a rough draft by the end of the fall.

We may or may not post sections on my blog for critique. We will see.

I will continue blogging in the meantime.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Godly mindset & lifestyle and tagged . Bookmark the permalink.

46 Responses to Writing plans

  1. I offer copyediting services if you wish.

  2. donalgraeme says:

    Sounds like a good idea. I’ve been doing this in small bits face-to-face, but an overall composition is definitely needed. One of my long term goals has to do this, aided by the writings of the Church Fathers and saints.

  3. @ Moose

    Will definitely run some things by you then.

  4. Jonadab-the-Rechabite says:

    I’m here to help. A hermeneutic that is Biblically red-pill is needed to oppose the women worship and dualism that plague the church.

  5. Daniel says:

    That’s great. I read the original and it’s pretty good. Couple of things to consider:

    You might take exception with the idea of joint decision making (with husband as final authority.) The husband is the head and makes the decisions, including delegating responsibility. The pilot and copilot analogy implies that they take turns flying the plane. That’s not exactly right.

    God commanded Adam alone, before Eve was created. “But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou [singular] shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die.” Eve misconstrued it when she says to the serpent “God hath said, Ye [plural] shall not eat…”
    But God reiterates to Adam “Hast thou eaten of the tree, whereof I commanded thee [singular] that thou shouldest not eat?” Eve obeyed the serpent rather than her husband. God brought her unto the man to be his helper, but she was deceived when she decided to trust her own judgement.

  6. @ Daniel

    We’re definitely removing the MMSL references.

    And yeah, God commanded Adam alone bolsters the headship prior to the fall argument.

  7. @ Donal

    No better time to start than now!

  8. @ Jonadab

    Excellent. Will run stuff by you as well.

  9. theasdgamer says:

    Men are abrasive…”As iron sharpens iron, so one man sharpens another.”

  10. dvdivx says:

    I think it should cover headship of the family and church. The church now is suffering from estrogen poisoning. Courtship and marital roles covered as well. Very good idea on your part and look forward to it. It really is needed and needs someone of faith to write it.

  11. pamelaparizo says:

    I’m not sure how you are going to do that. I’ve read the book. It is EXTREMELY secular in nature. There is nothing in the Bible that says Eve followed relative truth over absolute truth. She was deceived plain and simple. He seems to ignore the fact also that Eve was given justice—God made her a promise that her seed would crush the serpent’s head. The marital roles of men and women is not a societal contract. It is Biblical order and while he states that, he seems more concerned with the way society has played it out than what God ordains. He incorporates Rollo Tomassi’s FI and game ideals which have NOTHING in common with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry, they don’t. They are vile and evil concepts that demonize women. Jesus was not an alpha male by the definition I’ve seen. I don’t see any alpha males around climbing on a cross for others. The Sexual Market Value concept is repulsive since it makes sexual objects out of women—is this REALLY what Jesus died for? Funny that Ephesians 5 makes no mention of it. It emphasizes physical attractiveness over spirituality, which is contra the Bible. I’m not going to get into the rest of the book, but I find the whole Red Pill mentality so contrary to the Spirit of Jesus I don’t know how anyone can call themselves Christian and adhere to it. I am not a feminist; I believe in Biblical Marriage; I believe in the man as head. I’ve also read Ephesians 5 and done a deep study on AGAPE LOVE. This whole manosphere thing minimizes the idea that men should show their wives affection. This is contrary to AGAPE LOVE, which by the way is the basis for the sexuality in Song of Solomon. Don Riefstahl agrees with the ideal that men see sex as love and that it’s ok for a man not to hug or kiss his wife or tell her he loves her. There is no joy or love in the Red Pill mentality, and the Bible is replete with love because GOD IS LOVE. AGAPE LOVE is commitment to love, affection and high esteem (Greek meaning). Affection, liking, caring, fondness, kindness. A commitment based only on obligation and duty is a joyless love indeed.

  12. earl says:

    This whole manosphere thing minimizes the idea that men should show their wives affection. This is contrary to AGAPE LOVE, which by the way is the basis for the sexuality in Song of Solomon.

    That view is secular.

    ‘The noun form first occurs in the Septuagint, but the verb form goes as far back as Homer, translated literally as affection, as in “greet with affection” and “show affection for the dead”. Other ancient authors have used forms of the word to denote love of a spouse or family, or affection for a particular activity…’

    Now the Christian meaning:

    ‘Within Christianity, agape is considered to be the love originating from God or Christ for mankind.In the New Testament, it refers to the covenant love of God for humans, as well as the human reciprocal love for God; the term necessarily extends to the love of one’s fellow man.’

    ‘Agape was also used by the early Christians to refer to the self-sacrificing love of God for humanity, which they were committed to reciprocating and practicing towards God and among one another.’

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agape

    The love is about God to man and man to God.

  13. @ pamelaparizo

    I will give you a serious answer in the hopes that you’re not a troll and concerned over the Biblical aspects of the project.

    I’m not sure how you are going to do that. I’ve read the book. It is EXTREMELY secular in nature.

    I am going to assume you have not read any posts on this blog. This blog looks at things only in the context of the Scriptures. This re-write will also do so.

    There is nothing in the Bible that says Eve followed relative truth over absolute truth. She was deceived plain and simple.

    Both are true. Following a ‘relative truth’ over ‘absolute truth’ is being deceived. A bold faced lie is easy to spot, but mostly the truth with a little lie is the hardest to spot.

    He seems to ignore the fact also that Eve was given justice—God made her a promise that her seed would crush the serpent’s head.

    That has nothing to do with the book though.

    The marital roles of men and women is not a societal contract.

    Yes and no. Biblical marriage is not something that is ‘regulated’ by any type of society or government. It is a covenant between God, a husband, and wife.

    Yet we also live under governments that regulates marriage. Therefore, it is important to understand the distinctions between each, especially as God’s definition of marriage starts to conflict heavily with society/governments definition of marriage.

    This is one point I will be making a clear distinction about. Marriage, as regulated by the government, used to hold up some of the standards of Christian marriage (definitely not most or all), but as it has continued to deviate on numerous principles there is a more obvious and more rapid break down.

    It is Biblical order and while he states that, he seems more concerned with the way society has played it out than what God ordains.

    Rewriting that currently.

    He incorporates Rollo Tomassi’s FI and game ideals which have NOTHING in common with the Gospel of Jesus Christ. I’m sorry, they don’t. They are vile and evil concepts that demonize women. Jesus was not an alpha male by the definition I’ve seen. I don’t see any alpha males around climbing on a cross for others.

    References to game and such concepts are being removed.

    If you scroll to the bottom of my ‘categorized lists of posts,’ you will see that I’m anti-game.

    The Sexual Market Value concept is repulsive since it makes sexual objects out of women—is this REALLY what Jesus died for? Funny that Ephesians 5 makes no mention of it. It emphasizes physical attractiveness over spirituality, which is contra the Bible.

    Attractiveness (or I suppose more crudely put as SMV) is important to marriage, but not in the way that you would expect.

    https://deepstrength.wordpress.com/2016/06/29/a-christian-understanding-of-attraction-and-the-role-it-plays-in-marriage-part-2/

    I’m not going to get into the rest of the book, but I find the whole Red Pill mentality so contrary to the Spirit of Jesus I don’t know how anyone can call themselves Christian and adhere to it.

    Hence, the rewrite.

    I am not a feminist; I believe in Biblical Marriage; I believe in the man as head. I’ve also read Ephesians 5 and done a deep study on AGAPE LOVE. This whole manosphere thing minimizes the idea that men should show their wives affection. This is contrary to AGAPE LOVE, which by the way is the basis for the sexuality in Song of Solomon. Don Riefstahl agrees with the ideal that men see sex as love and that it’s ok for a man not to hug or kiss his wife or tell her he loves her.

    This is false.

    If you’ve read my blog at all, I’ve pointed out numerous Scriptures to where the husband is to be affectionate and understanding.

    Ephesians 5 states 3 times that a husband is to treat his wife as himself and as his own body. Specifically, to nourish and cherish his wife.

    1 Peter 3 states that husbands should dwell with their wives with understanding as the weaker vessel and co-heirs in Christ.

    There is no joy or love in the Red Pill mentality, and the Bible is replete with love because GOD IS LOVE. AGAPE LOVE is commitment to love, affection and high esteem (Greek meaning). Affection, liking, caring, fondness, kindness. A commitment based only on obligation and duty is a joyless love indeed.

    To be honest, I’m pretty tired of this sentiment.

    In general, although the “Christian manosphere” is associated with the “manosphere” in the context that we value truth over the deception that the society and government are purveying, the ideals of each are fundamentally different. Christians believe in the Way, the Truth, and the Life, while the secular manosphere only believes in their own version of ‘truth.’

    The secular manosphere believes that a man is to make himself into his own idol and do whatever with those around him to achieve his goals. The Christian manosphere believes in the gospel of Jesus and by extension Biblical marriage with sex roles and responsibilities.

    If you read through my posts like many of the other Christians here have, I think that you will be pleasantly surprised about how I stick solely to Biblical principles and exclude anything that is contrary to that nature.

  14. pamelaparizo says:

    I haven’t been in blogging that long, so I really do not know what a troll is.

    I appreciate your responses and find it uplifting to hear that you stick to Biblical principles. A lot of scripture is thrown around on some of these male blogs that is out of context and somewhat ignores the SPIRITUAL aspect of the scriptures. I absolutely believe in specific gender roles. However, I do believe the “manosphere” ignores very conveniently some of the ways women have been used of God external to their roles as homemaker and mother and would like your opinion on women possessing spiritual gifts (do you believe in those? I know some sects do not). One of my major objections to the whole “manosphere” is this idea that 1) all women are opportunistic liars and only interested in advancing some sexual imperative in choosing a mate and 2)that men are incapable of displaying affection. I understand and reject the concept of romantic love. I appreciate your defintion of what a Christian manosphere would look like.

    I’m not sure what you meant by this: To be honest, I’m pretty tired of this sentiment.

    Whether you mean you are tired of the sentiment that Agape love is more than just commitment, or whether you were agreeing with what I said. Agape love has the definition I explained even outside of the Bible as used in ancient Greek. I stated this because I see this a lot on some of these male blogs, and not just secular ones, but men professing they are Christian (though their blogs say very little about Jesus and more about Sexual Market Value). Joy is an important part of our life in Christ, and every aspect of our Christianity should reflect it, including marriage. And I am not being insipid; I am serious student of the scriptures who takes very seriously the involvement of the Holy Ghost in our Christian conduct.

    I do appreciate that you are saying you follow the gospel, though I am not sure why the Gospel needs “the manosphere”. I believe that believers have been harmed by both Feminism and the Red Pill/Men’s movement and that the real answer is by uplifting true marriages based in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

    Pamela Parizo
    The Glorious Wife: Submission in biblical marriage
    https://pamelaparizoauthor.com/

  15. pamelaparizo says:

    @earl: If you look at the way agape is used in the Septuagint, it is used extensively in Song of Solomon, which doesn’t align with what you are saying. Agape means with affection, and that is what Solomon shows to his bride. He uses quite a few endearments that are not sensual in meaning. I mean how could “my sister” be considered erotic? It is also used to define the love of Isaac for Rebekkah, the love of Jacob for Rachel and it is what Leah longs for from Jacob. Since Leah has sexual intimacy, I think she is longing for Jacob’s heart. In only a couple of instances does agape mean lust, such as the “love” Amnon had for Tamar. The word “eros”, on the other hand, is used in one instance in the Septuagint—in Proverbs where the strange woman says “Let us take our fill of love.”

    If you are interested, I have a brief discussion on my blog of the use of “agape” in the Septuagint:
    https://pamelaparizoauthor.com/2017/08/12/agape-love/

  16. pamelaparizo says:

    I do not agree with your article on the role of attractiveness being an important component of marriage. I understand that you state it is a generality, however, Christians marry for a lot of reasons, and at least within the churches I’ve been in, I have not seem PSALM in operation. I’ve seen gorgeous Christian women married to nerdy preachers. The Bible says very little about the appearance of most of the people in it. We have no idea what they were attracted to. Sometimes brides didn’t even see their mates until after the marriage was sealed–seeing the bride did not occur until after the Patriarchy (Jews instituted this as a ritual because of the deception of Laban). The description of a virtuous woman indicates that beauty is not the primary quality because beauty is vain, but a woman who fears the Lord shall be praised. (Proverbs 31). While we know that Sarah was fair as an elderly woman (how many manosphere men would desire a woman in her 80s? Yet we know Pharoah did.) , it also indicates in 1 Peter 3:3 that it wasn’t her outward adornment that counted as much as what was in her heart and the submissiveness she showed to Abraham. Your statement about fertility overlooks that Leah was more fertile than Rachel despite Rachel’s beauty. I understand that some people look for physical beauty, but I submit to you that a person can be attracted to someone because they choose to be, and that attractiveness is very much in the eye of the beholder. I won’t go any further, but just a couple of more comments: 1)beauty is not ungodly, but we are not to be consumed by it. Romans and Greeks were consumed by physical attractiveness. 2)if godly marriages are the aim, then a person’s spirituality should be more important than physical attractiveness. A meek (submissive) and a quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

  17. A meek (submissive) and a quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

    Learn to be quiet, woman.

  18. @ pamelaparizo

    I appreciate your responses and find it uplifting to hear that you stick to Biblical principles. A lot of scripture is thrown around on some of these male blogs that is out of context and somewhat ignores the SPIRITUAL aspect of the scriptures. I absolutely believe in specific gender roles. However, I do believe the “manosphere” ignores very conveniently some of the ways women have been used of God external to their roles as homemaker and mother

    Given Proverbs 31 in the context of other Scriptures, it is safe to say that the primary duty of a wife/mother is to her household and family. However, if she has extra time (usually part time hours) to say run a business (usually from the home) or something along those lines that seems to be an option (under her husbands authority of course).

    and would like your opinion on women possessing spiritual gifts (do you believe in those? I know some sects do not).

    Yes and no. In the context of the history of the Church and Scripture, some particular gifts are not for women: apostles, pastors, teachers (e.g. 1 Cor 11, 1 Tim 2 and 3).

    Others such as prophesy, serving, exhortation, giving, mercy, tongues, faith, helps, and so on are definitely manifest in Christian women.

    One of my major objections to the whole “manosphere” is this idea that 1) all women are opportunistic liars and only interested in advancing some sexual imperative in choosing a mate and 2)that men are incapable of displaying affection. I understand and reject the concept of romantic love. I appreciate your defintion of what a Christian manosphere would look like.

    There is some truth and some lies. Humans are humans… both men and women lie and manipulate others because we are all sinners. I would expect that the secular manosphere would have more of that simply because they are around secular women who have no moral qualms about lying and manipulating the opposite sex.

    The “imperative” can be summed up by Revelation 3:18-27. The spirit of Jezebel and feminism are pretty much one and the same.

    There are definitely spiritual and physical forces at work that are opposing God’s order for the family and Church which is male led.

    Whether you mean you are tired of the sentiment that Agape love is more than just commitment, or whether you were agreeing with what I said. Agape love has the definition I explained even outside of the Bible as used in ancient Greek. I stated this because I see this a lot on some of these male blogs, and not just secular ones, but men professing they are Christian (though their blogs say very little about Jesus and more about Sexual Market Value). Joy is an important part of our life in Christ, and every aspect of our Christianity should reflect it, including marriage. And I am not being insipid; I am serious student of the scriptures who takes very seriously the involvement of the Holy Ghost in our Christian conduct.

    I’m tired of people equating the secular manosphere with the Christian one.

    I do appreciate that you are saying you follow the gospel, though I am not sure why the Gospel needs “the manosphere”. I believe that believers have been harmed by both Feminism and the Red Pill/Men’s movement and that the real answer is by uplifting true marriages based in the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

    This is the age old question that we’ve been discussing all of these years.

    In general, from what I’ve seen of the culture and the Church, it appears that most Churches have caved to the culture.

    For example, the so-called “Christian” movies of Fireproof and Courageous. Most Churches touted these movies as awesome examples of being a Christian when they were obviously not.

    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2011/10/30/firebombed/
    https://dalrock.wordpress.com/2012/05/03/craven/

    Likewise, most pastors either fall to egalitarianism or some form of blaming husbands for the sins of the wife or neutering headship to mean serving the wife. I could pull up more posts on that, or you can just explore Dalrock’s blog for more.

    Overall, when most Christian men encounter the manosphere they’re pretty shocked, but see that a lot of the nature of women is true. Women are sinful too. They’re not angels or anything that society and the Church makes them out to be. However, the secular currents can obviously suck young men deeper down the wide road to destruction. This is precisely why I am writing that book. There’s been countless comments and e-mails over the years from Christian men who have run across my blog, Dalrock’s, Cane’s, Donal’s, and so on. The reason for this is because the Bible is truth and tells us accurately about the sin nature of both men and women and how to approach relationships. If more time was spent educating Christian men and women on sex roles and responsibilities, there would be a lot less issues.

    I do not agree with your article on the role of attractiveness being an important component of marriage.

    1 Corinthians 7:8 Now to the unmarried[a] and the widows I say: It is good for them to stay unmarried, as I do. 9 But if they cannot control themselves, they should marry, for it is better to marry than to burn with passion.

    I believe it is pretty clear that “attractiveness” is what tends to cause us to burn with passion, and attractiveness tends to signal traits that make a man a good husband and a wife a good wife.

    I have not seem PSALM in operation. I’ve seen gorgeous Christian women married to nerdy preachers.

    This proves the point. Preachers are leaders of the congregation; they have high status and authority. Let me know when gorgeous Christian women are marrying the janitors in the Church.

    The Bible says very little about the appearance of most of the people in it. We have no idea what they were attracted to

    The Scripture lauds beauty throughout. Abraham’s wife Sarah was taken by both Abimelech and Pharaoh. Rebekah was praised for her beauty as was Rachel. Look no further than your example of Song of Songs. Solomon continues to speak about the beauty of the Shulamite woman. David and Bathsheba (albeit a sinful example).

    The Proverbs warn about prostitutes and women who drag down men. But they aren’t against beauty; they are against beauty with poor character and morals.

    Sometimes brides didn’t even see their mates until after the marriage was sealed–seeing the bride did not occur until after the Patriarchy (Jews instituted this as a ritual because of the deception of Laban).

    I’ve studied Jewish culture as well. While arranged marriages were/are a big thing, both the bride and groom were able to meet before the marriage. In the majority of cases, both the groom and/or bride could veto the wedding if there was something that they didn’t like. This includes attractiveness.

    While we know that Sarah was fair as an elderly woman (how many manosphere men would desire a woman in her 80s? Yet we know Pharoah did.) , it also indicates in 1 Peter 3:3 that it wasn’t her outward adornment that counted as much as what was in her heart and the submissiveness she showed to Abraham. Your statement about fertility overlooks that Leah was more fertile than Rachel despite Rachel’s beauty. I understand that some people look for physical beauty, but I submit to you that a person can be attracted to someone because they choose to be, and that attractiveness is very much in the eye of the beholder. I won’t go any further, but just a couple of more comments: 1)beauty is not ungodly, but we are not to be consumed by it. Romans and Greeks were consumed by physical attractiveness. 2)if godly marriages are the aim, then a person’s spirituality should be more important than physical attractiveness. A meek (submissive) and a quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

    First, Sarah was more beautiful in her 20s and 30s than in her 80s. The fact that she was extremely beautiful still in her 80s is a moot point.

    Second, 1 Peter 3 talks mainly about character and submissiveness should be prized above all. Which it should. It doesn’t say that beauty is a bad thing, just that the heart should be prized above beauty.

    Third, it was the Lord who opened Leah and Rachel’s wombs in those specific circumstances. Although God still does that today, it’s generally not something we would extrapolate to the general population.

    Fourth, attraction is both objective and subjective. Symmetry, clear skin, curves on women, muscle on men, and so on are attractive to the opposite sex. In general, things like fat are not attractive and you won’t be attracted to someone more if they’re obese. On the other hand, choices like a wife’s submissiveness to her husband will make her more attracted to him, so there are things that can be done to improve attraction.

    1)beauty is not ungodly, but we are not to be consumed by it. Romans and Greeks were consumed by physical attractiveness. 2)if godly marriages are the aim, then a person’s spirituality should be more important than physical attractiveness. A meek (submissive) and a quiet spirit is of great price in the sight of God.

    I agree, but you’re missing the point.

    Most Christians don’t get dates now because they are unattractive. How are you supposed to date (or court if you don’t like dating) and get married to a Christian man or woman if you can’t get a date?

    “Where have all the good men gone” is often a phrase quoted by women. For sure, there’s TONS of single Christian men out there… they’re just not the type of men that the Christian women want. Look at the crowd in almost any Christian congregation and you’ll see what I’m talking about. Tons of devoted Christian men and women who are godly and want to be married… but can’t get a date or find someone? It’s a big issue.

    Sure, we could go down the line of something like the obesity epidemic which affects the Church. Gluttony is a sin. But that’s boring and no one wants to hear it.

    It is my exhortation that both Christian men and women who want to be married strive for both outward and inward beauty. Qualitatively, it gives the best chances and opportunities for marriage for both sexes.

  19. Novaseeker says:

    It’s not been my experience that men or women, including Christian men and women, can choose to be attracted to someone they are not attracted to. They can, and sometimes (in the case of women likely more commonly) choose to *be with* someone to whom they are not very attracted, but this isn’t the same thing as choosing to be attracted to someone. Attraction isn’t voluntary. You can choose to love and marry someone to whom you are not particularly attracted, but you can’t choose to increase your attraction to them as an act of will on your part, and this will often (and often does, in my almost 50 years of experience) lead to substantial problems down the road for both people, often tragic ones.

  20. @ Nova

    The only time I’ve heard of anyone — male or female — become more attracted to someone through a voluntary choice is if/when a wife submits to her husband.

    That’s pretty much it.

  21. pamelaparizo says:

    I would expect a better response from men who profess Jesus.

  22. pamelaparizo says:

    I appreciate your honesty. I do see that you are at sincere is your responses. I remain unconvinced that the manosphere is good for Christianity. I am not a mainstream Christian, but I do have friends who are.

    I have trouble seeing as Christian the male bloggers who espouse Rollo Tomassi’s vile philosophy, which includes the man Dalrock you mentioned. His blog is full of Tomassi material. One cannot have fellowship with devils and fellowship with Jesus Christ.

    Thank you for your time.

  23. @ pamelaparizo

    I appreciate your honesty. I do see that you are at sincere is your responses. I remain unconvinced that the manosphere is good for Christianity. I am not a mainstream Christian, but I do have friends who are.

    You actually have it backward.

    The truth is that the Christian manosphere is good for the secular manosphere: it allows us to spread the gospel to unreached people to meet them where they are.

    The one thing very few people understand is that most of those in the secular manosphere get sucked into it because they are hurting and searching for identity. In a very pro-feminist world, men are pretty much left alone to their own; they have nowhere to turn to for help or guidance. The secular manosphere has been prospering simply because of this fact.

    As I’ve stated, others and I have gotten numerous comments and e-mails from Christian men who found the secular manosphere first… but then made their way over here and were glad to find a place where they could grow in their faith and masculinity away from various corrupting influences and obsessions with sex.

    They could learn how to grow in their faith, learn the roles and responsibilities of marriage, and find a beautiful wife with character. My story is similar, and my wife appreciates the journey that it took to grow in faith and manhood to get to this point.

  24. pamelaparizo says:

    The answer to all of this is the Holy Spirit. Paul said I don’t want to know anything among you except Christ and Him crucified. Preach the Gospel. That should be sufficient on it’s own.

  25. @Novaseeker:

    Obviously we’ve spent a lot of time in this neck of the Internet sorting these things out, but there’s some really fine-scale details that come up with that topic. Most attraction is actually “generated”, but there is a Zero-State that can’t be changed. If another person doesn’t generate *any* interest, it’s pretty much impossible to change.

    Now, a Woman can generally physically attract most Men by appearance, though in cases where there is little attraction before, it would take a fairly sizable physical health improvement. For Men, getting in shape isn’t going to hurt, but it won’t change much. It would require a fairly sizable shift in his personality & approach. That’s actually hard to do.

  26. For when someone like Pamela shows up, I think I’ve found a good way to deal with it:

    Do you believe Chemistry exists? Does the study of it help construct fascinating compounds?

    Since the answer is “yes”, as there is a physical reality created by God, it simply means that there is Systems & Processes at work. The fact they exist doesn’t say you’re ugly, nor that you’re unworthy of being loved.

  27. earl says:

    If you look at the way agape is used in the Septuagint, it is used extensively in Song of Solomon, which doesn’t align with what you are saying.

    Well of course not…what you are doing is trying to jam a secular viewpoint into the Bible. Agape in the Christian definition is God’s love for humanity and humanity’s love for God. One lesser example of this is in the married relationship. The perfect example is Christ dying on the cross.

  28. earl says:

    The “imperative” can be summed up by Revelation 3:18-27. The spirit of Jezebel and feminism are pretty much one and the same.

    This is why women should be quiet and submit to the Lord. They are like a fish in water…they swim in the imperative. Men are often deceived by the women who swim in it unless they too submit to the Lord.

  29. earl says:

    And I think you meant Rev 2:18-27. That speaks of Jezebel. It’s feminism 101…and that’s why women do better if they have a quiet spirit and submit to the Lord.

    ‘And to the angel of the church in Thyatira write:

    The Son of God, who has eyes like a flame of fire, and His feet are like burnished bronze, says this:

    ‘I know your deeds, and your love and faith and service and perseverance, and that your deeds of late are greater than at first. But I have this against you, that you tolerate the woman Jezebel, who calls herself a prophetess, and she teaches and leads My bond-servants astray so that they commit acts of immorality and eat things sacrificed to idols. I gave her time to repent, and she does not want to repent of her immorality. Behold, I will throw her on a bed of sickness, and those who commit adultery with her into great tribulation, unless they repent of her deeds. And I will kill her children with pestilence, and all the churches will know that I am He who searches the minds and hearts; and I will give to each one of you according to your deeds. But I say to you, the rest who are in Thyatira, who do not hold this teaching, who have not known the deep things of Satan, as they call them—I place no other burden on you. Nevertheless what you have, hold fast until I come. He who overcomes, and he who keeps My deeds until the end, to him I will give authority over the nations; and he shall rule them with a rod of iron, as the vessels of the potter are broken to pieces, as I also have received authority from My Father;’

  30. Novaseeker says:

    Most attraction is actually “generated”, but there is a Zero-State that can’t be changed. If another person doesn’t generate *any* interest, it’s pretty much impossible to change.

    Right. I think what DS says above is also though in that women can generate *some* attraction to their husbands, or augment whatever baseline attraction they do already have, through submission and the dynamic that creates. I don’t think there is a male equivalent, however, where a man can generate attraction, in a physical affection sense, for a woman for whom he has little to no baseline attraction. At least I have never seen it. I’ve seen guys with women they aren’t that attracted to, of course, and that happens for both sexes for various reasons, but that’s different from generating attraction for someone you are not otherwise attracted to.

    That should be sufficient on it’s own.

    It is in the sense of salvation, of course. It isn’t, however, in the sense of finding and keeping a mate — something which, like buying a house, landing a job, picking a school for one’s children, making medical decisions, and so on, also involves a significant amount of real world savvy, knowhow and ability. Christian churches are generally preaching the gospel (some better than others of course, as has always and will always be the case), but increasing numbers of Christians in these churches are simply not finding mates. As DS points out, you can find lots in the scriptures which is helpful in this aspect of life, but the churches aren’t preaching those things, generally speaking, because historically people found mates (or mates were found for them) in mostly family-sponsored ways — a system which no longer exists and has been replaced with the secular system of serially monogamous “dating”. What DS is trying to do here is help people who find themselves stuck in the current system, who are sincerely Christian and want to find a sincere Christian mate, but who can’t do so for various reasons — which is a lot of sincere Christians — the less sincere ones have much less difficulty, of course, because they just adapt to the prevailing secular norms anyway. These people are being preached the gospel, but they aren’t finding mates, and the biggest reason for this is, as DS points out above in a few places, that many/most sincere Christians are bad at being attractive enough to attract a mate, and this is particularly true of the more sincere Christian men. Hence this blog, hence this book.

  31. Lost Patrol says:

    Let me know when gorgeous Christian women are marrying the janitors in the Church.

    So many truths of the ‘sphere embedded in so few words. It’s actually quite brilliant.

  32. Pingback: Please don’t Feed the Pornographers – Moose Norseman

  33. earl says:

    This proves the point. Preachers are leaders of the congregation; they have high status and authority. Let me know when gorgeous Christian women are marrying the janitors in the Church.

    I wouldn’t expect a fish in the water to know that, but men are very keen on that. Women do seek out authority and status…despite the feminist mantra they don’t want to submit.

    While they may focus on secular standards for authority…marrying a janitor or a preacher makes no difference. The husband has authority from God over the wife. Women eschewing marriage is as big a problem as trying to find the best guy to marry.

  34. pamelaparizo says:

    I’ve come to the conclusion that what you are preaching is a theology of Social Darwinism where natural selection is the driving force in marriage, that the more beautiful and strong are blessed by God and that they will make for a more superior church. Overlooking obesity which you have pointed out is a sin, there are many, many plain but godly people who are being overlooked, and you are saying that is ok. God created everything, and He said everything was good. At least in my church, which is Spirit-filled, I have not seen women seeking status or looks as much as someone of good character and standing. Not all preachers are the elite–evangelism is a very difficult and thankless job and that was the reference I was making. While beauty and strength are healthy and not in the least sinful, they are not a substitute for godliness. Paul said physical exercise profits little, there is little emphasis in the New Covenant on physical attributes, and the New Covenant is spiritual not material.

    Attraction can be a choice. I know from personal experience. You can choose to find the beautiful in everything God created if you want to.

    When we exalt beauty and strength as virtue, then we are judging those who NOT physical beauties and strength does not make right. The Alpha Males are not going to inherit the earth, the meek will. Genetic superiority is not Christianity.

  35. @ Moose

    I don’t write or comment for women. I write and comment for men, especially the ones who never comment.

  36. Lost Patrol says:

    there are many, many plain but godly people who are being overlooked, and you are saying that is ok.

    Pointing out that something happens is not the same as saying it’s ok.

  37. @ pamelaparizo

    I’ve come to the conclusion that what you are preaching is a theology of Social Darwinism where natural selection is the driving force in marriage, that the more beautiful and strong are blessed by God and that they will make for a more superior church.

    Incorrect.

    Why does Paul warn Christians in 2 Corinthians 6 to be “equally yoked”? That’s because he is aware that both Christian men and women find non-Christian men and women attractive and sometimes do marry them over prioritizing faith and character.

    If that doesn’t make sense, let’s look at another analogy.

    Say you want to get into college. What do you do? You study hard in school to get good grades. You prep for the SAT or another exams. You take extracurricular activities and volunteer because being involved in sports and community show that you are disciplined and a product member of society.

    Now, say you want to get married? What do you do? Pray and hope God brings someone in your life? Hah, that does work for a few. Does it work for everyone?

    What I would have these people do is this:

    ~ Read and study the Scriptures about what God says about marriage.
    ~ Learn how to grow in Biblical marriage roles and responsibilities beforehand
    ~ Be self controlled and guard against sexual sin
    ~ Work to the best of your ability at your job
    ~ Work out, dress nicely, and do your best at everything
    ~ Understand that women are attracted to certain traits like PSALM because they signal either good protector and/or provider for marriage.

    Overlooking obesity which you have pointed out is a sin, there are many, many plain but godly people who are being overlooked, and you are saying that is ok. God created everything, and He said everything was good.

    No, I’m saying that’s not OK.

    I want genuine Christian men and women to get married if they have that goal. To get to that goal, you have to acknowledge that attraction plays a significant role in that process. Faith, character, and morals are definitely the most important, but attraction cannot be overlooked as a factor.

    In fact, many of the things I mentioned above increase attractiveness. A man who is diligent in his job will be able to be a good provider and be successful at his job. This increases his attractiveness, and it’s based on Biblical principles such as ‘do everything you would do as to the Lord.’

    These things are not mutually exclusive. You can be godly AND attractive.

    At least in my church, which is Spirit-filled, I have not seen women seeking status or looks as much as someone of good character and standing. Not all preachers are the elite–evangelism is a very difficult and thankless job and that was the reference I was making. While beauty and strength are healthy and not in the least sinful, they are not a substitute for godliness. Paul said physical exercise profits little, there is little emphasis in the New Covenant on physical attributes, and the New Covenant is spiritual not material.

    As I said before, these things are not mutually exclusive.

    I have no doubt that most pastors/preachers are in the position they are because God has gifted them with the ability to preach and teach effectively and they want to reach others for the gospel.

    HOWEVER, this does not exclude the fact that women are attracted to these men because of their status or standing or whatever you want to call it.

    Again, let me know when you find gorgeous Christian women who are marrying the janitors in the Church.

    A janitor can be the most godly person ever, but is a Christian woman going to want to marry that man? How about a garbage truck driver? He can be diligent and godly in his job and life… but would a woman want to marry one over say the Christian worship leader?

    You tell me. You seem to want to avoid answering that question.

  38. Pingback: Let me know when the gorgeous Christian women want to marry the church janitor | Christianity and masculinity

  39. An observer says:

    Deep,
    Happy to offer backup to Moose if you want a second run-through of any sections. I’ve had a second job as a copyeditor since 2008. With a full time and a part-time job I’m mildly time challenged but happy to backup if needed.

  40. “There is some truth and some lies. Humans are humans… both men and women lie and manipulate others because we are all sinners. I would expect that the secular manosphere would have more of that simply because they are around secular women who have no moral qualms about lying and manipulating the opposite sex.”

    This also assumes that most so-called “Christian” women are actually truly converted and would “oh no – not ever engage in behaviors like the unwashed heathen women do”. Puuuhhhhleeeze.

    The reason so many devout Christian men are going MGTOW is for the very reason that the women who are SUPPOSED to be saved, sanctified, and full of the Holy Ghost – are rudderless and just as morally bankrupt as everyone else.

    DS, your guides for Christian men are the bomb and on point…and I don’t have to tell you not to fall prey to these LOW-KEY shaming tactics that you’re being subjected to, which should be obvious to the men here.

  41. Elspeth says:

    How about a garbage truck driver? He can be diligent and godly in his job and life… but would a woman want to marry one over say the Christian worship leader?

    My dad was a garbage man. Never was without a date when he wanted one -during his widowed, single years- and never had a lack of female interest.He wasn’t even tall, LOL. I’m not knocking your overall point, but these things really are multi-layered.

    Then again, he was also head deacon and sang like an angel. Maybe that was it…

  42. @ Elspeth

    My dad was a garbage man. Never was without a date when he wanted one -during his widowed, single years- and never had a lack of female interest.He wasn’t even tall, LOL. I’m not knocking your overall point, but these things really are multi-layered.

    Then again, he was also head deacon and sang like an angel. Maybe that was it…

    Well, yeah.

    You don’t have to have every possible trait to have a solid amount of female attraction/attention to where you can have your pick of the litter so to speak. Just a few in spades is generally more than enough or a solid amount on a variety.

    There are some men who are leaders with super high charisma, very athletically gifted, rich and so on. Those are people like Tim Tebow. Who knows what he’s looking for though since he’s still single, but I’d bet that lots of Christian girls would throw themselves at him.

  43. Novaseeker says:

    There are some men who are leaders with super high charisma, very athletically gifted, rich and so on. Those are people like Tim Tebow. Who knows what he’s looking for though since he’s still single, but I’d bet that lots of Christian girls would throw themselves at him.

    Tebow?

    Tebow wants a chaste Christian 10. That’s not that easy to find, even if you are Tim Tebow, but he clearly isn’t interested in settling for less, because as you say, there’s no doubt that hundreds if not thousands of Christian 7-9s have thrown themselves at him, and it’s also likely that less than chaste Christian 10s have as well, yet he is very picky. He is still fairly young though, so I doubt he’s very worried.

  44. @ Nova

    Oh yeah, definitely agree he’s holding out for something… and that something is definitely a chaste 9 or 10. Probably 10.

    If we take say all of the southern universities I’m sure that there are quite a few chaste Christian 9s and 10s there… but the problem is that he probably wasn’t there to meet them with football and now baseball. Logistical issues are a bit thing now too.

  45. thedeti says:

    I’m really late to this thread.

    But respectfully to everyone here, I’d just like to point out that this comment thread with Pamela Parizo is exhibit 9,348 of why men should not take any advice on sexual attraction, sexual attractiveness, dating, mating or marriage from any woman, even Christian women. Especially not Christian women.

    Never, ever, EVER take any advice on any of this (or anything else, really) from women. Not even from your mothers or sisters or female family members. They are not men, they have not experienced any of this as men, they have not lived as men, they will not have to live with the decisions you will make.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s