Bill Smith’s Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry

The Fourth post in the series. I’ll link my post

  1. Aaron Renn on The Manosphere and the Church. My post.
  2. Alastair Robert on The Virtues of Dominion. My post.
  3. Peter Leithart on Side effects. My post.
  4. Bill Smith on Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry.

Let’s get into it.

Interestingly, having read some of the subsequent posts, we’ll actually see that a lot of the writers increasingly have less and less understanding of the Bible / Christian manosphere concepts and often conflate their cultural lens of the Bible with what the Bible says. We’ll hit them as we go there.


In his opening essay, Aaron Renn provides a good summary of why men in general and Christian men in particular are turning to Pick Up Artists (PUAs) and mentors within the manosphere. To put it bluntly, when it comes to intersexual dynamics and how men attract women, these men know what works. The PUAs assert that Western Culture and the church within it have been sold and are selling a bill of goods produced by Feminism.[1] These men, however, recognize the fact that Feminism is a war on reality. Women do not want what Feminism says they want, and men who have played along are being emasculated. What leaders in the manosphere are discovering is God’s created design.

Renn’s references show that the techniques for men attracting women work while the evangelical church’s emphasis on “servant leadership” does not. Many Christian young men are attracted to the Rollo Tomassi’s of the world for this reason. The servant leadership model (a perfectly fine biblical phrase) has been hijacked by those within the church highly influenced by Feminism. Servant leadership is generally understood now as, “pedestal the woman, give her everything she wants, just say, ‘yes, dear,’ be a self-deprecating nice guy, and, remember men, it’s always your fault.” (This is nothing like the Servant.) This is not working. If these men begin to date and eventually marry, attraction, if it ever was there, wanes and the marriages turn sexless all too often. The couple then goes to counseling where the husband learns that he must negotiate for sex with his wife–paying for sex in some form or fashion– following the Al Mohler model quoted by Renn. Things don’t improve because that’s not what she wants, even though that’s what she’s been told she should want. She’s just not sexually attracted to him. On the rare occasions when they do have sex, it becomes passionless “duty sex,” which becomes frustrating to both of them. Our churches are filled with married couples like this. (I speak as a pastor of thirty-plus years.) Some of these spouses, believing themselves to be good soldiers, endure. Others are divorcing, not willing to live in “loveless” marriages.[2]

So far so good. I could nitpick some of this, but it’s a fair assessment.

Again, from the previous article I think that servant leader is a misnomer. The Biblical phrasing is a lot better: a leader (with authority) who uses his authority to love and serve. This makes the difference because if you phrase it servant leader, the emphasis is always going to be placed on the servant aspect thus inadvertently inverting the roles in the relationship or marriage.

Indeed, we need to make the distinction with Ephesians 5 on Christ’s love for the Church (which husbands are to emulate) that this sacrificial love is for the purpose of sanctification.

Ephesians 5:25 Husbands, love your wives, just as Christ also loved the church and gave Himself up for her, 26 so that He might sanctify her, having cleansed her by the washing of water with the word, 27 that He might present to Himself the church in all her glory, having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing; but that she would be holy and blameless.

I’ve heard passages on this preached dozens of times and referred to colloquially hundreds of not thousands. I can count one one hand the number of times it’s been qualified for the purpose of sanctification and not other mumbo jumbo like do what your wife wants.

It means you need to have your love and serving focused on making her more holy. Holiness and feelings are often at odds with each other.

Enter PUAs. They tell men what has been glaringly obvious through the centuries about what attracts a female’s sexual desire. Men try it. It works. They like it. Game. Set. Match.

The techniques work. The question is, Why do they work? We can say that it is because of sin, but sin is not a creation ex nihilo. Sin is a parasite that twists God’s creation. So, behind all sinful intersexual relationships is a divine design that is being leeched off of and distorted. These men have tapped into the way God created and sustains intersexual dynamics, specifically what attracts women to men, and they have sinfully used it. PUAs use God’s reality to a perverted end much like any atheist uses language to deny the existence of the eternal Word; he operates within God’s reality while denying his existence. Reality is reality whether you use it for good or ill or accept or deny its Source. Sound epistemological justifications for intersexual dynamics cannot be found in the secular manosphere, but they know reality when they see it. In the area of intersexual dynamics, the manosphere men are images of the sons of Cain who discovered and developed creation previous to the sons of God. In this case, the manosphere re-discovered and re-developed biblical treasures that the Western Church lost through neglect and allowing the Jezebel of Feminism to redefine masculinity, femininity, and intersexual dynamics.

Our battle with the manosphere men is, of course, over their misuse of creation and the evolutionary worldview that they claim supports it. But we are working with the same reality and, quite frankly, at some points, they are seeing reality better than many of us Christians. There are good, biblical explanations for why these attraction techniques work in intersexual dynamics. They are rooted in the original creation. Though twisted by sin, our original design, which includes intersexual dynamics, is restored by grace, not obliterated.

Smith goes off the reservation here and makes a common mistake that pastors often make. He’s confusing what ought to be versus what is. Usually in Church this is where pastors say “godliness is attractive” instead of what actually is attractive: power, status, athleticism, looks, and money.

He gets it right that Creation is the original design. What he gets wrong is that it’s being leeched off of and distorted. God made Adam and Eve with free will and thus the capacity to be tempted to sin. In other words, any temptation that man and woman face is by Design. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the free will to choose between good and evil. This is not a distortion of Creation but flows naturally from it.

It would be better to say that God gave man the capacity to learn and understand and gain wisdom. This can be used to learn about creation and what works with intersexual dynamics. However, if the intent (of the heart) is evil then it will be used to sin. Creation itself cannot be twisted by anyone other than God. It is only the human heart that can become twisted.

As Leithart notes in the closing paragraph of his essay, attraction is mysterious. Genuine attraction cannot be negotiated. It can be cultivated, but it is never merely contractual. People are attracted to different sorts of people for a myriad of reasons. Our attractions are shaped by various factors: how and where we were reared, our goals, race/ethnicity, culture, brain chemistry, and other conditions. There are characteristics that initially attract us and those qualities that keep us attracted long-term.

Attraction is what we are drawn to as beautiful and somehow useful to us. While there are a number of micro-factors in specific attractions, there are some common factors that are not so mysterious that attract women to men and vice versa. Qualities that attract men to women are very different than what attracts women to men. Men are attracted to classic femininity; long hair, softness, curves, etc. Feminism, however, has attempted to convince women that men should be attracted to sameness. For example, men should be attracted to a woman if she has power, status, money, and physical strength. In other words, the more she acts like a man, the more she will be attractive to men. Men sexually attracted to women do not want boyfriends. Our polarities attract us to one another as men and women, not how we are the same.

We are created to need one another for different reasons to fulfill our created purpose of dominion, and when we see another person who can somehow meet those needs at some level, we are drawn to or attracted to him or her. Opposites attract because we complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses. Beauty and utility are friends, not enemies.[3]

I don’t think that’s where Leithart was going with saying attraction is mysterious as I analyzed in the previous post. We don’t want these things to be mysterious because they can often lead to ONEitis and other terrible things. Marriage is a covenant, and we should help everyone understand all of the issues that can affect it.

The rest is fairly straight forward basics.

The PUAs have developed their techniques around traits of genuine masculinity that attract females. Genuine masculinity is rooted in God’s original creation of the man and his relationship to the woman and the rest of creation. God made the man to take dominion. As Roberts rightly states in his essay, this dominion began even before the woman was created as man named the animals and was given the responsibility to guard and work the garden (Genesis 2). God saw that it was not good for man to be alone. He needed the woman to accomplish his dominion mandate. So, God created the woman to be his helper. The woman, Paul says, is created for the man (1Corinthians 11.9). While the man’s primary orientation is toward the earth from which he was created, the woman’s primary orientation is toward the man from whom she was made.

The woman becomes a part of the man’s mission in the world, so he names her at her creation as well as being tasked with guarding her and providing for her because she becomes a part of the Garden. The woman looks to the man for protection and provision. His ability to provide and protect defines, to a great extent, his masculinity in relation to femininity.

This is half-true and needs clarification.

Man/Adam took dominion over the earth (naming the animals, cultivating the garden, etc.) before Eve came around. It would be more accurate to say that Eve as the helpmeet may help him take dominion. Eve was also needed in particular for the fruitful and multiply aspects of God’s command.

This is important to understand as a man’s mission (taking dominion) does not need a woman, but can benefit from the help of a woman. An important distinction.

Adam failed to take dominion over the serpent as he should have, consequently, failing to provide and protect his wife. Since the fall, the man’s masculinity must be proven to the woman. She tests him to see if he is a worthy protector and provider. These masculine characteristics, rooted in the original intersexual dynamics, prove to be what attracts women to men.

I disagree with this.

I do not believe there was a change in what men and women find attractive before and after the fall. In other words, God created men to be attracted to physical beauty, and God created women to be attracted to PSALMs. It was natural for Adam and Eve to be attracted to each other given they were masculine and feminine and they followed God’s commands prior to the fall. It did not to be proven because it was evident.

What I do think is that the bounds of temptation for men to desire physical beauty above all else or women to be hypergamous was unleashed. In other words, men and women now have their selfish desires fully unleashed and must fight against temptation.

For a man to be a protector, he must demonstrate strength. This strength comes in many forms: physical, intellectual, social status, competency, et al. So, for instance, women like more muscular men. No woman is going to see Jason Mamoa in Aquaman because of the literary superiority of the film. In Captain America: The First Avenger, when Chris Evans is transformed from scrawny Steve Rogers to buff Steve Rogers, Peggy Carter gets a little flustered when she sees him without a shirt on. This is so common it is cliché. The woman is attracted to power because she was created to need and, therefore, be attracted to a man who can protect her. This is why a professional CrossFit woman will not generally be sexually attracted to some beer-guzzling couch potato who plays video games all the time. He is weaker than her. If she is stronger than him, he cannot protect her any better than she can protect herself. She is looking for someone stronger. (This is one aspect of the hypergamy Renn alluded to.)

This powerful man exudes confidence as well. He knows who he is, and he knows what he wants to do. He has a mission. He is happy for a woman to join him, but she does not define his mission. Since she is created to be oriented to the man’s mission–helper–this masculine confidence is attractive. If he loses this and begins to revolve his life around her, she becomes less attracted to him. This runs contrary to her created design.

And yet the Church doesn’t tell this to men and women. Heh.

The perversion of this is seen with the bad-boy attraction. Bad boys have women flocking to them. Why is that? Because they are exhibiting strength. They are going to do what they want to do, and they don’t care what people think. It is distorted, yes, but it is a distorted masculine trait. A woman wants a confident man; a man who will lead her, whom she can join and orient her life around.

Again, Smith like to call these things distortions for some reason which is incorrect.

The heart is oriented in a particular direction (good or evil) and the expression of the heart (aspects of masculinity or femininity) make it come off a certain way. Masculinity in itself cannot be distorted because it is a way of expression and not good or evil intrinsically.

A man’s ability to provide is coupled with his power to be attractive to women. The man was created to work the ground and through that to provide for his wife. Women rightfully want to know whether or not a man will provide for her. Feminism has taught women to be their own providers. Consequently, they have hyper-educated themselves and competed with the men for jobs. Many make a great amount of money. When this happens, they find themselves less attracted to men who make less than them. The woman who is a brain surgeon is not normally attracted to a plumber. Just as with the physical strength mentioned earlier, if she can provide for herself better than the man can provide for her, she will not normally be attracted to him. This is why very unhandsome men with a great deal of money can have physically beautiful wives. We can call it gold-digging if we choose, but a woman sees ample provision. She uses her power–feminine beauty–to secure it. Again, many times this is twisted, but it is twisting the way God created the sexes to be oriented toward one another.

I still like the analogy of the Church pastor and worship band leader vs the Church janitor, doorway greeter, and parking lot coordinator better. Definitely a more illuminating Church-goer way of explaining things.

Rollo Tomassi, something of the godfather of the manosphere and one who has formalized many of these insights in his The Rational Male series, will tell you that this hypergamous inclination is due to the evolutionary development of the hindbrain in the woman as a survival technique for her and her children. The Bible provides the true foundation. A woman’s hypergamous inclinations are in the hindbrain, but they are given to her by God in her creation. She is created to desire a man who will lead, guard, and provide for her. She judges and tests men’s masculinity relative to her strengths and weaknesses and is drawn to men who are superior to her.

Though these creational realities have been discerned, developed, and perverted by the sons of Cain to use to their selfish, sinful ends–namely, to sleep with as many women as possible–the root intersexual dynamics are a distortion of reality: the way God created and sustains intersexual relationships. Recovery of these fundamental dynamics can be quite helpful to the church. Many frustrations in Christian marriages can be traced back to the simple, biblical truths in which men are not being masculine. Because of this, their wives do not respect them as protectors and providers and, therefore, are not sexually attracted to them. Both the man and the woman keep trying everything that they are told in their churches and through the latest marriage books. These tend to be no more than baptized Feminism. Consequently, frustration continues.

The manosphere men are working with our world and perverting it to their own devices. It is time that we reclaim what rightfully belongs to us, benefitting from their insights just as we would from Aristotle, Plato, Socrates, Freud, or Yogi Berra. We must sift those insights through God’s Word. When we do we can find a reality that is true, good, and beautiful.

Already covered why these aren’t distortions but simply an incorrect understanding of Creation. Beyond that, I think that Smith’s analysis and wording is very presumptuous and prideful.

In all reality, it’s a terrible thing that many a Christian has had to learn from PUAs to know about the true nature attraction and relationships of  men and women. This is not something that one should rightfully and willfully benefit from, but instead Churches and leadership should be repenting to God and to their congregations for telling pretty little lies.

We should acknowledge where we went wrong and seek God’s grace in preaching what is right and true. We must continually strive to remove the feminism and other worldly lenses that we still have on our eyes, and be humble that God can use others who may not even be Christians to teach us about Himself and His Creation.

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

15 Responses to Bill Smith’s Attraction: The Biblical Theology of Pickup Artistry

  1. Novaseeker says:

    Interesting post.

    He gets it right that Creation is the original design. What he gets wrong is that it’s being leeched off of and distorted. God made Adam and Eve with free will and thus the capacity to be tempted to sin. In other words, any temptation that man and woman face is by Design. Otherwise, we wouldn’t have the free will to choose between good and evil. This is not a distortion of Creation but flows naturally from it.

    I think what he is skirting here is the problem of where evil actually comes from. That is, evil cannot have been created by God, because God would not have intentionally created it, because he is all-good, and the Bible says that creation, as created, was all good (strongly implying there was no evil in it, and that creation was not “neutral” … it was “good”). Therefore evil is generally not viewed by Christian metaphysics as a “thing” — that is, as something that was/is created by God. So the problem arising from that, is that it isn’t clear how evil, which was not a part of what God created, was something that could be chosen by Lucifer, who fell prior to the human fall. It’s clear enough by the time that Eve picks the apple that evil already existed in creation through Lucifer, who was already fallen, hence the Tree as the test of choosing for mankind, and which very much does present evil as a “thing”, because it exists by then in the creation in terms of being an option that can be chosen. [The question is, how did Lucifer choose evil and bring it into the created order to begin with. That is a tangential issue that I will address in a footnote here for those who are interested — see the footnote at the end.] So as a practical matter, by the time the first humans were in the garden, evil was somehow a “thing” that could be chosen, even though it could not have been a part of the initial creation. Therefore, Smith is kind of making a statement which is beside the point — even prelapsarian humans clearly were in a position where evil was, somehow, a “choosable thing”, as Gen 3 makes clear. How we got to that point is not clear, and is not addressed in the Bible clearly, but it is nevertheless a thing by the time Adam and Eve enter the picture, which means that Smith’s perspective, which focuses on that metaphysical problem, isn’t really applicable — as you say, Adam and Eve had the power to choose at the time they were in creation. How that came to be is unclear, and it’s metaphysically problematic to say it was a part of the original design of God (see the footnote), but the practical impact was already in creation at the time of Gen 3, so as a practical matter it isn’t really relevant for Smith to focus on the metaphysical problem of the existence of sin — as a practical matter, the Bible tells us that humans always had the choice to sin from the time of Gen 3, whether this was the original intended design or not.

    Many frustrations in Christian marriages can be traced back to the simple, biblical truths in which men are not being masculine. Because of this, their wives do not respect them as protectors and providers and, therefore, are not sexually attracted to them.

    When he says this, though, he is doing the typical pastor dance, it seems to me. That is, although he acknowledges that women have changed the playing field by upping their own provision and protection values, he still blames men for not being masculine enough. It’s like a never ending ratchet. All men have to be Fortune 100 CEOs and ripped in order to satisfy the ever-increasing standard. Instead of calling for women to embrace femininity and men to embrace masculinity, he focuses on the men as being the “root cause”. Again, I would bet that this is rooted in the way he views Gen 3, where the man is seen in Smith’s view as being responsible for Eve’s sin because he failed to protect her — so he would probably, if pushed, say that men are responsible for women’s acts in “manning up”, economically and physically, by failing to do so themselves. It’s overall a view that sees women, as a sex, as being of lesser agency, even though he would likely never come out and say that explicitly, and would likely even deny that it is what he is saying — it’s more that is subtly underlies what he is saying, I think, and thereby informs it as a kind of unstated premise.

    —–

    [FOOTNOTE ON ISSUES RELATING TO EVIL.]

    Normally freewill does not enable creatures to choose things that don’t exist. The way that Christian thought has normally dealt with this issue is to view evil and sin as not essentially different things from what was created, but as distortions of them — that is, God did not create evil, but freewill somehow permits the good things God did create (life, sex, food, beauty, strength) to be twisted and distorted so as to become evil and not good, even though they were not created that way. It remains unclear how this actually is the case — that is, again, how it is the case that Lucifer discovered that he could twist inherently good things into evil by an act of his will, by using them in a way that God did not intend. As to the “why God designed things like this” question that anti-Christians always like to ask, the Church has always answered that “God made this possibility of twisting the good into evil ends in order to give men the freedom to choose him freely, and thereby love him freely, as the persons of the Trinity do, rather than loving God because there was no other choice available”.

    Still the mechanism is not clear, and it’s a metaphysical conundrum — literally no-one has solved the issue of where evil actually comes from, given the premises we have about an all-powerful, all-knowing, all-good God: it would be odd to conclude, for example, that evil was a creation of the will of Lucifer, in his discovery that he could twist the good creation into evil by using it in ways that God did not intend, if God did not intend Lucifer to have this power to begin with, and, conversely, if God did intend Lucifer to have this power it casts the entirety of evil and its acts in creation in a somewhat different light than the one many Christians seem to embrace. At the end of the day this has never bothered me much, either way, because from my perspective even if God intentionally created with the express foreknowledge of what Lucifer and Adam would both do, nevertheless his plan for creation from the beginning included a plan of redemption in love, such that love and goodness prevail in the end … still it does leave us open to attacks about “how a good God could permit evil to exist like it does” if that is the case, because humans generally don’t have God’s eschatological perspective, and few of us are moved by that perspective in the face of temporal evil and its effects.

    So I am guessing that this is where Smith’s approach is coming from when he says that “We can say that it is because of sin, but sin is not a creation ex nihilo. Sin is a parasite that twists God’s creation.” — that is, the standard textbook idea that sin was not a part of the creation, per se, but that it occurs as a distortion of the originally good creation. Later in the article, he appears to be saying specifically that Eve was created to be attracted to male provision and protection, but that after the fall, her descendants test men about this because of Smith’s hermeneutic of Gen 3 that Adam failed Eve in his duty to protect her, and therefore bred mistrust in women as a sex as to the actual viability of any given man as a protector and provider — so the root of the desire is seen as “good”, because it was in the initial creation of Adam and Eve, but it is twisted as a result of the fall into a constant battle of tests and constantly passing tests to prove masculinity to women in order to qualify oneself to them.

  2. Jack says:

    Through reading this series and your reviews, I have gotten the impression that even though the Boomers are extremely sexually conscious, the Christian leaders among them still don’t have a firm grasp on Biblical Law regarding sexuality. Like others of their generation, they prefer to regard it as a mystery, or as a toy to be enjoyed and not to be analyzed.

    “And yet the Church doesn’t tell this to men and women. Heh.”

    According to the aforementioned frame of mind, there’s not much to teach about a toy or a mystery. Smith is not describing what church leaders presumably should know but are avoiding or refusing to teach. Most of Smith’s article is regurgitating Christian Red Pill lore, and he seems to be convinced that it is truthy (at least). This is why I thought his article was better than the others in the series.

    “Smith like to call these things distortions for some reason which is incorrect.”

    The fallen sinful nature is what distorts and twists sex. The RP frame merely accepts these realities as fact. The interpretation and application thereof are left to the individual.
    Smith calls RP praxeology a distortion because it originates from a different frame than that used by the Boomerethic church. Although he clearly recognizes the truths stemming from the RP frame, he’s still assessing it from the neo-trad Blue Pill frame because he hasn’t totally gotten past his own churchian frame of reference. Hence, he repetitively uses the words “distortion” and “twisted” as descriptors.

  3. @ Novaseeker

    Interesting tangent.

    It seems to me that free will itself is the capacity choose to do things that differ from creative intent. God’s created intent is good while Lucifer and man’s post fall is usually to selfish ends. That doesn’t mean it can’t be used for good though (e.g. sex in marriage). .

    If we change our viewpoint from the fact that God created man for a specific purpose and that God created man in his own image, we can find a similar common analogy just like we would Father:Jesus::Christ::Church::Husband:Wife. To that end we could say something like the Internet was created to share data and ideas from place to place, but now the vast majority of that is used for narcissism (social media) and porn.

    To quote Ecclesiastes 7:29 This only have I found: God created mankind upright, but they have gone in search of many schemes.”

    I’m not as familiar with Orthodoxy as you are, but his distortion lines did seem a lot more along the lines of how Orthodoxy views sin as more of a disease.

  4. @ Jack

    It’s definitely true that the writers are older pastors. I didn’t really look at their bios, so they could be younger, but they definitely seem to be very steeped in the Boomer/Complementarianism line of thought and cannot break free from the lens it sheds on biological realities as they relate to creation.

    I’m generally averse to using the term praexology and much prefer the Biblical term wisdom (and the Bible goes over much wisdom in Proverbs and otherwise as it relates to human sexual behavior). I also think that often you can’t divorce intent (good or evil) from the action which is why I have the negative stance on game as a whole.

    However, as you said Smith is still trying to blend ideas (or rather re-purpose) rather than look at the stark truth.

    This is akin to putting on RP lenses when instead Christians should be removing the feminist, chivalric, complementarianist, and various other lenses that they have to view the Bible’s underlying reality instead of interpreting it through other various worldviews.

  5. Novaseeker says:

    DS —

    Generally that’s the way I view it as well — that is, as a practical matter, its the power to choose to do things that are not in accord with the divine will. It’s how God presents the issue to us in Gen 3 as well.

    The issue is how we got to there from Gen 1, where creation was all “good” and even “very good”, including humans, which implies that it had no evil in it, even as potential, as it was in its created state. If it had the potential to be good or evil but was intended to be good, it would be odd to describe it as “good” in an inherent sense, which seems implied in Gen 1’s text. Genesis jumps from that to the serpent, who is in creation but is clearly not “good”, and it isn’t explained how that came to be — there is no “Gen 3 type” story that explains what happened with Lucifer (we get snippets, but not the full story), which is the key to understanding what happened prior to the tempting of humanity by the personal evil, which happened in Gen 3. God has deemed that this is not important or helpful for us to know, or perhaps that we are not capable of understanding it, or both, which is why it doesn’t bother me, but it’s one of the things that unbelievers and skeptics use to attack Christianity because it isn’t actually explained how things that were created inherently good became neutral things that were subject to choosing good or evil. There’s a missing step there. Again, clearly it isn’t important for us to understand that morally, which is why God doesn’t explain it in the Bible, but it’s why people talk about the “problem of evil”.

    The internet was created for one thing and used for another, to be sure, but … it wasn’t created by an all powerful, all knowing creator who describes it as being inherently good at the time of its creation. We would expect there to be unintended consequences when it comes to the invention of the internet by flawed humans who are bad at predicting the impact of their choices, but when it comes to God no downstream consequences are unintended because they are all foreknown before the act of creation, so that’s where the puzzle comes from.

    Again, nothing that we can solve — the best minds of history have thrown themselves at the issue to no real solution that actually works in an airtight way, which is one reason why I think God didn’t tell us because our human minds can’t understand it. Interesting to noodle about — but in any case, I do think that your point stands that the entire issue isn’t relevant when we are talking about actual human moral agency, because by the time of Gen 3 at least, humans are portrayed as having moral agency, and evil was in the creation in the form of the serpent already, so it’s kind of an academic question already by the time of the events of Gen 3, and even moreso for us.

  6. Anonymous Reader says:

    There’s a real problem with the older pastors and churchgoing bloggers regarding description vs. prescription. The articles Deep Strength has linked to keep confusing manospherical Red Pill descriptions of female behavior with proscriptions, in other words they keep getting “ought” confused with “is”.

    One would expect college educated family men to not make such a mistake, especially those that are well over 50. But, there it is, the same sort of error that one commonly sees in emotionally upset 20-something women. One expects more from a “seasoned pastor”, but frankly over the last 10 years I have not seen it. This emotional incontinence on the part of church leaders from Tim Keller to Tim Bayly calls into question their actual leadership qualifications: if you emote like a girl, you’re not acting like a man.

    At Dalrock’s a regular timewaster was the endless spinning around the head of a pin regarding quotes from the Bible, with ever more verbose argumentation about finer grained disagreement. Maybe I’m being narrow minded, but given the number of philosophers who have pondered and written and argued about free will vs. determinism and the question of evil, it’s really not very useful to go down that rabbit trail.

    To be blunt, at a time when frivorced men blow their brains out with monotonous regularity, it seems rather callous for preacher-men to expend much of their limited time on that topic. Perhaps they could read any of several Christian philosophers from the last 1,800 years instead? Maybe the entire wheel / axle / transmission system doesn’t actually need to be re-invented?

    The closing paragraph of Deep Strength’s essay should cause much embarrassment and self-examination on the part of Christian leaders. That apparently it still does not is in itself a scandal, and is a factor in the declining number of young men who want to have anything to do with churches.

    Young men don’t want to be lied to, especially about serious matter. Therefore older men in leadership positions should stop telling pretty lies. Again, we can all list off some names.

  7. @ AR

    There’s a real problem with the older pastors and churchgoing bloggers regarding description vs. prescription. The articles Deep Strength has linked to keep confusing manospherical Red Pill descriptions of female behavior with proscriptions, in other words they keep getting “ought” confused with “is”.

    It’s literally the same mistake as making the claim that “godliness is sexy.”

    The confusion of “ought” vs “is” can only be seen when you take off the lenses that cloud your eyes because it is based on your world view you want something to be true so you claim it is.

    A bit closer to the truth but still “blue pill.” Definitely a lot scarier for men because you’re a bit closer to the truth aren’t but think it’s the truth. Much like complementarianism.

  8. Sharkly says:

    “Lies & Excuses”™
    I’m going to go on record here as stating that our churches are lead by liars and retards, and the only thing keeping every single church leader from understanding the clear truth in God’s word, is either a lack of desire to read the Scriptures, or a lack of reading comprehension. God’s word fully equips us to live a God fearing life. There is nothing that we must know, that has not been provided in the scriptures.

    There is no “problem of evil”. God created evil for His purpose.
    Proverbs 16:4 The Lord has made everything for its own purpose, Even the wicked for the day of evil.
    Lamentations 3:37 Who can command, and it happens, without the Lord having ordered it? 38 Do not both good and evil things proceed from the mouth of the Most High?

    God made the devil, God made hell, God made the forbidden tree, God made sinners. There is nothing made or done in God’s universe that the Lord God hasn’t first foreknown and allowed. These Churchian leaders talk like foolish women!
    Job 2:10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest like a foolish woman: what? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.

    Job did not sin with his lips! Meaning, that is the absolute truth about God, and only a foolish woman would try to deny it!

    If you want a clearer chronology of creation, read the book of Jubilees. According to it, Eve was created before the Sabbath of the second week, like Adam was created before the Sabbath of the first week. So if God saw everything that was made up through the sixth day, and, behold, it was very good. That statement does not include the woman. LOL Her kind, mankind, had been created, but only the representative individual man Adam. The rib had not yet been taken out of the man and formed into a defiler, a woman.
    Only Adam was given dominion. In Genesis 1:26, in the Hebrew, only two individuals are mentioned, God and Adam, And God gave the dominion over the creatures to Adam in that verse. Anybody who says otherwise is lying to you. The woman was not given dominion, but was instead created to be in subjection.
    I like the details given in Jubilees 3:4-8. After five days of naming animals, each had a mate, but Adam was alone and found no helpmeet for himself. So God puts Adam to sleep, takes his rib, and makes his mate.
    Jubilees 3:6 And He awaked Adam out of his sleep and on awaking he rose on the sixth day, [of the second week] and He brought her to him, and he knew her, and said to her: “This is now bone of my bones and flesh of my flesh; she shall be called [my] wife; because she was taken from her husband.”

    LOL After being given his mate, Adam mates with her, before even naming her! Truly my forefather!

    Smith lies: “…the manosphere men are images of the sons of Cain…”
    This ignorant Feminist fool blasphemes the image and glory of God.(1Corinthians 11:7)

    “Opposites attract because we complement one another’s strengths and weaknesses.”
    Bullshit! Even the ancients, like Aristotle, knew that the man was the prime representative element of the species and that woman was by nature a weaker vessel.

    “Adam failed to take dominion over the serpent as he should have, consequently, failing to provide and protect his wife.”
    Lies, lies, and more lies. No such foolish cunt-speak came from the mouth of Jehovah. God said that the man’s transgression was “Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife”, and had eaten what God forbid. That is all. Learn to read, Preacher!

    Smith, speaking about gold-diggers: “Again, many times this is twisted, but it is twisting the way God created the sexes to be oriented toward one another.”
    More lies. We don’t twist women’s nature. They are natural defilers(Revelation 14:4) who, consequently, should adorn themselves with shamefacedness, which becometh women professing godliness.(1 Timothy 2:9-10)
    Ecclesiastes 7:13 Consider the work of God: for who can make that straight, which he hath made crooked?
    Bill Smith is just twisting God’s word, out of his crooked mouth.

    “Many frustrations in Christian marriages can be traced back to the simple, biblical truths in which men are not being masculine. Because of this, their wives do not respect them as protectors and providers and, therefore, are not sexually attracted to them.”
    So, Bill Smith’s conclusion is to further blame and emasculate all men who are scorned by their wives. Seriously men! You are the image and glory of God! Don’t listen to Satan’s lying minion. You don’t need his Feminist contempt. Somewhere today, even as you read this, a ripped Fortune 100 CEO is also being divorce-raped. Bill Smith speaks like a foolish woman! The more gloriously masculine and God imaging you are, the more likely Satan will try to turn his churchian pastorbaters and your own wife against you.
    Ezekiel 16:32 You unfaithful wife! You desire strangers instead of your husband.
    God teaches us that women desire others instead of their husband due to their own unfaithfulness!
    Women who desire strangers instead of their husbands, do it because they have the faithless hearts of whores! And this Bill Smith is a worthless false teacher who tickles foolish women’s ears with Feminist blame-shifting. He should teach those wicked whores Godly contentment! But he can’t teach them to reverence their husbands(Ephesians 5:33) because he won’t honor husbands, who are the image and glory of God,(1 Corinthians 11:7) and the image of Jesus Christ, while our wives image the church.(Ephesians 5:22-27) He wouldn’t be serving his lord and master Satan, if he taught wives to reverence their husbands, and to submit to them in everything as unto the Lord, with no lame excuses, and his evil surmising of blame against men who are the glory of God. No, that would be serving God, and Bill Smith isn’t on God’s side. He’ll find any lie he can to excuse wives’ satanic disrespect and contempt for the image and glory of God. Pity him! The deceitful fool can’t read.

  9. Anonymous Reader says:

    Deep Strength
    It’s literally the same mistake as making the claim that “godliness is sexy.”

    It just occurred to me that at some point in the last 40 years, these men may have actually been told by their wives something like “I was so attracted to you because you were so godly” or “When I saw you preach, you were so godly and I wanted to be with you”, etc. To a somewhat nerdy blank-slate oriented man that would be a strong statement.

    It would also be in line with the endless “This is how I got married, it worked for me in 1978” attempts to give advice that we see over and over again.

  10. Lance says:

    I don’t like his footnote #2 where he thinks sex refusal is a biblical ground for divorce. He uses Exodus 21:10-11 which is a very specific case, not about marriage in general. He also uses 1 Cor 7:1-5 which express how sex refusal is a sin, but no where allows for divorce. The modern feminized church makes divorce all too easy.

  11. cameron232 says:

    @ Lance “The modern feminized church makes divorce all too easy.”

    Divorce for no sex would be a masculinized church since that would work in favor of men (primarily).

    The feminized church would be divorce for watching porn (after she denies the man sex).

  12. Pingback: Paul Maxwell’s The Measure of a man | Christianity and masculinity

  13. Pingback: Mike Bull’s What is biblical feminism? | Christianity and masculinity

  14. Pingback: The Red Pill and Blue Pill as Paradigms of Sanctification and Defilement (with a mathematical analogy) | Σ Frame

  15. Sharkly says:

    Bill Smith says: … the manosphere men are images of the sons of Cain who discovered and developed creation previous to the sons of God.

    This servant of Satan projects his own Cain-likeness onto us men of the manosphere who are not looking out for Feminism, but are instead looking out for our brothers.

    Genesis 4:9 And the Lord said unto Cain, Where is Abel thy brother? And he said, I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?

    When brothers in Christ need godly leaders to look out for them and to care about men being struck down in the battle of the sexes, just like Cain, Bill Smith answers God’s call with, “I know not: Am I my brother’s keeper?”

    Bill Smith also says: Again, many times this is twisted, but it is twisting the way God created the sexes to be oriented toward one another.
    Another Feminist lie. God created the man first, to be oriented towards God. The woman was created for the man to help and serve the man, whom God had not previously provided a mate for. The man’s original sin was turning away from God, towards the woman, to hearken to and obey his wife’s defiling request that he turn against God and disobey God’s command, treating her as a goddess above God.

    Remember the woman was tempted by the serpent, “you will be like God(Elohim)”, and she is a defiling usurper of God’s order. She, like Satan, wants to even usurp God. And that is why holy God decreed that morally superior Adam, would rule over her, for righteousness sake. Adam did not eat the forbidden fruit apart from his wife, as Eve did, eating first, before later giving some also to her husband when he was with her. Adam was not with Eve when the serpent spoke, for God tells us that the serpent spoke to Eve, not to them, not to Adam and Eve. Nope! Twice God tells us that the serpent spoke to Eve, and only Eve replied to the tempting serpent. Then God tells us that the woman saw that the tree was pleasant to the eyes, good for food, and desirable to make her know stuff.

    Don’t believe the satanic Feminist narrative that Adam was watching Eve be deceived and disobey. The apostle Paul makes it clear that Adam was not deceived or first in sin as Eve was.
    1 Timothy 2:14 And Adam was not deceived. But the woman, being deceived, was in transgression.
    Adam had no fault until he hearkened unto the woman, who chose to coax her husband into turning against God and follow her sinful leading instead.
    I am my brother’s keeper and consequently I am warning you my brothers not to hearken to Feminism nor Feminist preachers who coax you to be oriented towards hearkening to women rather than fulfilling God’s holy patriarchal plan that men(who are the image and glory of God) should be lord over their wives in everything.

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 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google 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 )

Connecting to %s