Voicing Disagreement…


A recent commenter popped in to display his opinions and got it wrong across the board.  Regular readers will be able to spot the errors:

I’m not voicing disagreement with your statement that sex=marriage, but in “corinthians 7 Now concerning the things about which you wrote, it is good for a man not to touch a woman. 2 But because of immoralities, each man is to have his own wife, and each woman is to have her own husband.”

It seems clearly to me that sex outside of marriage (man+virgin) is immoral, though it’s not written for a pagan audience I don’t see why the prohibition of visiting prostitutes would be limited to christian men. I’ve thought a lot about the sex=marrriage thing before, dropped it, picked it up, dropped it again but I’ve enjoyed your argument on the passages. On the whole it’s very troubling, as troubling as jesus’ revelation that divorce didn’t unbind couples and those who re-married were living in adultery, adultery being a serious serious crime (notice when king david is being accused by the prophet through the story of the rich man and the poor mans sheep davids murder is completely left out! and david begs for his life) of course jesus’ answer to the apostles is simply marriage isn’t for everyone and those who can take the burden should and those who can’t shouldn’t.

You may want to read that several times.  It’s like something you’d find over on Dalrock’s blog.  Or maybe at the Millar Bible College.

First, the “I’m not voicing disagreement” statement is completely disingenuous.  Of course he’s here to voice disagreement.  But that’s the thing to say these days.  Kind of like saying “I’m not telling you those pants make your ass look fat, but…. speaking of talking whales…”

Then he quotes a passage that has nothing to do with the issue at hand.  Paul said that because of “immoralities” each husband should have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband.  What are the immoralities that prompted that statement?  They are the sexual sins listed in the Law that constitute sexual immorality.  I covered this in depth in this post.  Generally, sexual immorality is defined as this:

Incest, Adultery, Bestiality, Male Homosexuality, Idolatrous Sex and Having Intercourse With A Woman Who Is Menstruating.

A mere 2 chapters prior to this passage, the Apostle Paul took the entire church at Corinth to task because a man “had his father’s wife” which was an adulterous incest situation specifically forbidden in the Law 4 times (Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20.  It’s a combination of covetousness, incest, adultery (his father was still alive) and not honoring his father.  This is the sort of immorality the church of Corinth tolerated and the Apostle Paul has just called them out on it.  Did anyone notice that “sex outside marriage” isn’t on that list of things that are sexual immorality?  That’s because it is not a sin in and of itself.  It could be, such as in cases of adultery, but sex outside marriage is not forbidden for men as such anywhere in the Bible.  For women, sex outside of marriage is always adultery.

Paul says that because of all this Adultery, Incest, Bestiality and Male Homosexuality, each husband is to have his own wife (and not some other man’s wife, like the idiot who had his father’s wife) and each wife is to have her own husband (and not some other woman’s husband- which is adultery).  All of this is easily understandable unless you’re a churchian.  Look at what happens when a churchian reads it:


It seems clearly to me that sex outside of marriage (man+virgin) is immoral.

Immoral means sinful and the Apostle Paul told us what sin is (Romans 4:15 and 5:13). Sin is a violation of the Law and if there is no violation there is no sin imputed.   That said, there is no prohibition, anywhere, that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Which means, according to the Apostle Paul, sex outside of marriage is not immoral (wrong and sinful).   So… did the Apostle Paul lie?  Or is someone else lying?

It is permitted for you to claim such a thing is immoral for you as a matter of conscience because your faith is weak, because we know that which is not of faith is sin.  To claim it’s wrong for anyone else is a violation of the law (Deut 4:2 and 12:32) and you, sir, are in sin. In addition it makes you a false teacher and is a case of you judging  your  neighbor who has committed no sin (forbidden and thus sinful).  Wouldn’t it be better if you studied your Bible and grew in faith so you wouldn’t make statements like this again?


I don’t see why the prohibition of visiting prostitutes would be limited to christian men.

Obviously he has not read the prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16.  Non-Christian men are not capable of joining the members of Christ with a whore because they are not in Christ, therefore the restriction applies only to Christian men.  Further, this is one of those points at which had the Apostle Paul made this a general statement, he would have been guilty of adding to the Law.  He did not, this is one of the special “house rules” that apply only to Christians.


On the whole it’s very troubling, as troubling as jesus’ revelation that divorce didn’t unbind couples and those who re-married were living in adultery

This statement indicates he has no idea what Scripture says about divorce.

For those under the Law (non-Christians) the husband may divorce his wife for her adultery and if he does so they are unbound and she is free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24;1-4, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:4-9).  If she has not committed sexual immorality the divorce is illegitimate and they are still married, which is why she would commit adultery if she joins herself to any other man.  This subject is very difficult for Christians because of all the lies they have been told about it.

According to the instruction of the Risen Lord (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives (there is no “exception” for adultery), with the effect that for Servants of Christ, the marriage standard has been returned to the original (Genesis 2:24).  Churchians don’t understand Genesis 2:24 because they don’t study, but I’ve written about this subject area over and over and over again to explain Genesis 2:24,  along with all things associated with Biblical sexual morality.  There is even a handy chart with all the Scriptures laid out to explain this.

Any Christian woman married to a Christian man is bound to her husband for as long as he lives because for two married Christians, there is no divorce.  The only way out for those modern women who have an unintentional marriage is for her father to forbid it.  The husband is forbidden to divorce his wife and no wife has the authority to divorce her husband anywhere in Scripture, for any reason, regardless of his behavior. You may want to check 1st Peter 3:1-6 to confirm that.  The Christian wife is commanded not to leave her husband but if she does, she is commanded to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).

A Christian woman in an unequally yoked marriage, if she is abandoned by her unbelieving husband, she is free and no longer bound (1st Corinthians 7:12-15). That might require the legal proceeding of a divorce by civil authorities today, but the actions of a court judge do not unbind her.  She is already no longer bound because her unbelieving husband left her and she is free to (remarry) anyone she pleases as long as he is in the Lord (1st Corinthians 7:39) because she is no longer bound- as if he were dead.

Any man is free to take more than one wife if he wishes, so no woman can leave her husband and thus force him into celibacy. The reason there is no prohibition on a man having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry is because sex is the act by which a man marries a woman and a man may have more than one wife. To forbid such a thing is to forbid marriage. To say a man is “cheating” on his wife in doing so is to say a man can only have one wife. That is contrary to Scripture’s teaching as well as adding/subtracting from the Law, which is a sin.

That, of course, drives churchians into fits of feminist outrage because they do not understand that a man can only commit adultery by having sex with another man’s wife.  Because sex with another man’s wife is the definition of adultery (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10).  And God does not change, He said so Himself, repeatedly.  Churchians have a great deal of difficulty with this, which is understandable, because as God explained, His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts.  The problem with churchians is they aren’t tall enough for this ride.

Scripture contains no requirement for a public ceremony or witnesses or the permission of any third party in order for a man to marry a woman. Unless the man voluntarily agrees to such things they are not required and no matter what kind of wedding celebrations or third party approvals they might be required to perform by agreement, sex is still the act of marriage and the way a marriage is begun.


jesus’ answer to the apostles is simply marriage isn’t for everyone and those who can take the burden should and those who can’t shouldn’t.

That is completely incorrect. The context of Matthew 19:10-12 is the command of God to be fruitful and multiply.  Those who are born Eunuchs and those who are made eunuchs are not able to do so through no fault of their own and cannot marry, not being able to perform the act of marriage.  The only allowable reason for disregarding the command to be fruitful (take a wife) was in order to further the kingdom of God.


And Finally

Churchians have a problem with selective reading comprehension and they’re easily confused.  Notice this:

(notice when king david is being accused by the prophet through the story of the rich man and the poor mans sheep davids murder is completely left out! and david begs for his life)

Even in his selective reading, our intrepid churchian gets it wrong because he focuses on the simplistic story designed to sway the emotion (the way a preacher would) instead of the cold, hard text.  And… he throws a lie in there too, just like the preachers are wont to do.  David did not beg for his life, he begged for the life of his son.  Notice what the text of 2nd Samuel 12:7-15 actually says (emphasis added):

Nathan then said to David, “You are the man! Thus says the Lord God of Israel, ‘It is I who anointed you king over Israel and it is I who delivered you from the hand of Saul. I also gave you your master’s house and your master’s wives into your care, and I gave you the house of Israel and Judah; and if that had been too little, I would have added to you many more things like these! Why have you despised the word of the Lord by doing evil in His sight? You have struck down Uriah the Hittite with the sword, have taken his wife to be your wife, and have killed him with the sword of the sons of Ammon. 10 Now therefore, the sword shall never depart from your house, because you have despised Me and have taken the wife of Uriah the Hittite to be your wife.’ 11 Thus says the Lord, ‘Behold, I will raise up evil against you from your own household; I will even take your wives before your eyes and give them to your companion, and he will lie with your wives in broad daylight. 12 Indeed you did it secretly, but I will do this thing before all Israel, and under the sun.’” 13 Then David said to Nathan, “I have sinned against the Lord.” And Nathan said to David, “The Lord also has taken away your sin; you shall not die. 14 However, because by this deed you have given occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, the child also that is born to you shall surely die.” 15 So Nathan went to his house.  Then the Lord struck the child that Uriah’s  widow bore to David, so that he was very sick.

Keep in mind that the original objection was a man having sex with a virgin outside marriage and all of this is very troubling to him because it leads to adultery!  Which is a very serious crime!  Ye-gads, look at that story about King David!

Never mind that God was specifically condoning David having multiple wives and God took credit for giving David multiple wives and said if it wasn’t enough He’d have given David even more wives.  Churchians are blind to this sort of thing.  They prefer sticking to stories like the one that Nathan told in the beginning, which was designed to put David in the proper frame of mind to hear about what David had done.

In the final analysis our boy Aardvark did not get a single point correct and he lied, repeatedly.  And the smug self-assurance of the blind man who is unaware he is blind comes through with every point he tried to make.


Seeing The Truth, Refusing To Believe

While all that is bothersome, what is really disturbing is this:

I’ve thought a lot about the sex=marrriage thing before, dropped it, picked it up, dropped it again but I’ve enjoyed your argument on the passages. On the whole it’s very troubling

The truth is “very troubling” because after looking at it, he understands the implications, which is where the entire push-back about “sex outside marriage” comes from.  The concept of “sex outside marriage” is to deny that marriage is formed with the act of sex.  If one calls it “sex before marriage” it’s easy to tag it as being “immoral” and therefore it can’t be wedding sex.  Which allows the churchians to ignore the issue of all the adultery around them.  That they are participating in… because they know they didn’t get their “wife’s” virginity.

The question is whether God will ignore it and the answer from Scripture is an unequivocal “No.”  It is writtenDo not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.” 

It is also written: “Or do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor  effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, will inherit the kingdom of God.”  (1st Corinthians 6:9-10, emphasis added)

What do you think will happen when they scream that they didn’t know?

It is written:  “And that slave who knew his master’s will and did not get ready or act in accord with his will, will receive many lashes, but the one who did not know it, and committed deeds worthy of a flogging, will receive but few. From everyone who has been given much, much will be required; and to whom they entrusted much, of him they will ask all the more.” (Luke 12:47-48, emphasis added)

That’s right, they still get a beating, just not as bad as the one who intentionally disobeyed.  But remember that part about teachers being held to a higher standard?

The longer y’all straddle the fence the worse it will be and all you’ll wind up with is a sore crotch.  Jesus, speaking to His servants, said “Love one another.”   I’m convinced that most of you churchians don’t actually know Him, but I’m pretty sure some of you do.  So I’ll just leave you with this song:

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Divorce, Marriage | 6 Comments

Perverting The Ideal Husband


A Great Man At His Worst Point

In recent comments, commenter Pode said:

choosing to be submissive will make a good man more attractive. Choosing an attractive (dominant) man will not make him more good, which is the common female fantasy of the reformed bad boy. The goal is a godly man, one who is both good and dominant.  [Emphasis added]

Pode is well aware of the need for a man who is masculine and dominant, but the blind and ignorant masses in the churches are not.  In fact, the churches have ongoing programs designed to destroy masculinity and dominance in men.


Give Us A Biblical Example Of A Godly Man

Women in church are taught they should be looking for a “godly man” for a husband.  That’s code for an approved product of feminist churchian doctrine.  Why?  Because they have no clue what a “godly man” actually is.  The reason is because they don’t read their Bible.  In the land of churchianity one will hear many tales of the so-called “Proverbs 31 Woman” but as the text actually says, “who can find her?“.    One does not hear of the Bible’s ideal man from the pulpit, but such men exist.  According to God, three men were held in high esteem, Noah, Daniel and Job.  (Ezekiel 14:14, 20.)

Of these three men, for many reasons, the character of Job is best suited for study as the kind of Godly man women should be interested in.

Consider what God said to Satan:  “Have you considered my servant Job?  There is none like him in all the earth.”  It shouldn’t be too much of a leap of faith to know that God had a good idea of what all the men on earth were like and He said Job was like no other.

Consider Job, from the description at Job 1:1-3

There was a man in the land of Uz, whose name was Job, and that man was blameless, upright, fearing God and turning away from evil.  And seven sons and three daughters were born to him.  His possessions were 7000 sheep, 3000 camels, 500 yoke of oxen, 500 female donkeys and very many servants, and that man was the greatest of all the men in the east.”

Now consider Job, in his own words, from Job 29:7-25:

When I went out to the gate of the city,
When I took my seat in the square,
The young men saw me and hid themselves,
And the old men arose and stood.
The princes stopped talking
And put their hands on their mouths;
The voice of the nobles was hushed,
And their tongue stuck to their palate.
For when the ear heard, it called me blessed,
And when the eye saw, it gave witness of me,

The gate of the city is where the elders and chief men of the city congregated.  Job had a seat there as the greatest man in the east.  Perhaps the reader has seen a situation in which a man of power arrives and everyone gets quiet.  Partly out of respect, partly because no-one wants to miss anything this man has to say.  The kind of man that when he enters a room every head turns, a murmur goes through the people and everyone is aware he has arrived.  He dominates.

Why is this man held in awe?  Job describes himself:

Because I delivered the poor who cried for help,
And the orphan who had no helper.
The blessing of the one ready to perish came upon me,
And I made the widow’s heart sing for joy.
I put on righteousness, and it clothed me;
My justice was like a robe and a turban.
I was eyes to the blind
And feet to the lame.
I was a father to the needy,
And I investigated the case which I did not know.
I broke the jaws of the wicked
And snatched the prey from his teeth.

Consider all the things Job was that are not mentioned.  Job was quite wealthy and had great economic power.  Job had many children and had obviously been blessed by God.  Then consider what was said, inasmuch as he used his position to do what was right.  Having gathered to himself power and wealth, he used it judiciously for good.

It is significant (in keeping with his position) that he put on righteousness and it clothed him, his justice was like a robe and turban.  He investigated the case he did not know, meaning that he took the trouble to know and understand what was happening to the people around him.  That righteousness and justice that he exercised from his place of power in the city gate means he took responsibility for those under him.

And he broke the jaw of the wicked and snatched the prey from their teeth.   The meaning of this is clear and it’s a shiv to the heart of churchian cucks everywhere because Job was a man of action.  He didn’t just look at what was happening and whine about it, he did something about it.   Decisive, appropriate and possibly violent action.

Consider the violence implied with the statement that he broke the jaw of the wicked, then consider the implications.  He broke their jaw and snatched the prey from their teeth because they could no longer crush the prey in their jaws.   They could not catch prey or eat it with a broken jaw, their power was broken.  When there is money on the table and it’s people with a latent capacity for violence, violence is going to be on the menu.

Then I thought, ‘I shall die in my nest,
And I shall multiply my days as the sand.
My root is spread out to the waters,
And dew lies all night on my branch.
My glory is ever new with me,
And my bow is renewed in my hand.’

Job knew what his position was and what kind of man he was.  He operated from a position of strength and his vision is to the future.  The man knows what he is about.  And we go back to how he is perceived by others.  Job was a man who was held in honor by other men because his life testified to the fact he deserved honor.

To me they listened and waited,
And kept silent for my counsel.
After my words they did not speak again,
And my speech dropped on them.
They waited for me as for the rain,
And opened their mouth as for the spring rain.
I smiled on them when they did not believe,
And the light of my face they did not cast down.
I chose a way for them and sat as chief,
And dwelt as a king among the troops,
As one who comforted the mourners.

Why Don’t We Hear More About Job?

Job was a great man, one held in high esteem by God.  For all of the lessons that the book of Job provides, why is it that we only hear about his suffering?  The easy answer is that Job is the place to go for someone who desires to understand the nature of suffering from God’s perspective.  This allows Job to be ignored for the other aspects of his story and character that we could learn from.  The truth is that the other aspects of the story are not points that the church wants to discuss at this point.

Churchians get extremely uncomfortable with a man who displays the kind of masculine dominance that Job is describing.  And that potential for violence… it gives the cucks cold shivers up and down their thin little spines.   That isn’t surprising at all, but notice one thing.  In all of this, did you notice where Job “gave all the glory to the Lord” in his description of himself?  Did you notice anywhere in the entire passage where Job did that?

There is a special toxic variety of Christianity that is known as worm theology.   The idea of “I’m just a worm, I can do nothing.  I accomplish nothing, I am weak and powerless, it’s only Christ working through me that allows me to do anything.”  Regular readers will understand how hard it is for me not to puke just writing those words.

Worm theology is an extra-toxic feminist witches brew that is used to cut the legs out from under men.   Under worm theology Job would be automatically attacked for being filled with pride and arrogance because he didn’t give praise to the Lord.  Naturally the Proverbs 31 woman would never be subject to such an attack because worm theology only applies to men.

It is only within the context of understanding who and what Job was that we can understand the significance of what Satan was allowed to do.  Satan destroyed Job’s wealth, taking it all away.  He killed his children and destroyed his posterity.  Eventually he was left with nothing, physically afflicted with sores and boils on his body.  And notice that this is always what is focused on.

The Dark Side Of Job’s Story: His Wife

It wasn’t that Job was just a man that God allowed Satan to harm, it’s that Job was spectacular.  When God praised him to Satan, He said that there was none like him in all the earth.   The darker side of this story is the way Job’s wife treated him when Satan got done with him (Job 2:9-10).

Then his wife said to him, “Do you still hold fast your integrity? Curse God and die!”  But he said to her, “You speak as one of the foolish women speaks. Shall we indeed accept good from God and not accept adversity?” In all this Job did not sin with his lips.

His wife had a great man, a Godly man.  And after many years of marriage, when he had everything taken away from him, what was her reaction?   Do we see that fabled female comfort and empathy?  Did she nurse him back to health?  No.

When he was down, she kicked him.

She attacked him for holding fast to his integrity…  Think about that.  She knew her husband and she knew he’d done nothing wrong.   But, he’d been wiped out and having lost it all, in her woman’s eyes, he was a nobody now.   He didn’t have anything so he was no more use to her, so she told him to die.  The subtext is she wished he was dead.  And before the women say “NAWALT!” that is, in fact, the normal and predictable response of women.

Women will object to that, but where’s the description of the faithful and loving wife caring for her husband who has been struck down?  Where’s the tender and merciful care for him?  The empathy for his suffering?  It isn’t there.   Instead, when he was down and hurting, she kicked him.  The one person he had left…  and she betrayed him.

The Consequences For Kicking Him When He Was Down

From the context of the story, it appears that even the youngest of the children was an adult.  If we figure 2 years between children that’s 20 years and another 20 years for the youngest to reach adulthood, so 40 years.  If we assume his wife started having children when she was 20, then at the time Job got run over by the Satan train his wife was at least 60.   From the context of the story, we presume that Job’s wife was the mother of his 10 (dead) children.

The question is, what about the next 10 children?  Is there any reason to believe this woman was their mother?   In the final chapter we learn that God restored Job’s fortunes, giving him double what he had before.  Job also had another ten children and he got to see his sons and grandsons, down to four generations.

After what his wife had done and given her age, does anyone really believe that she gave him another 10 children?   It is far more reasonable to presume that Job took a second wife (a younger one) and she is the one who gave him the daughters who were the fairest in the land.  The implied polygyny here is another reason why churchians don’t want to look at this story too closely.

Job lived for another 140 years after these events and while we don’t know how old Job was when these events happened, judging by his children he was at least 60.  In addition, Job said “Oh, that I were as in months gone by…  As I was in the prime of my days” (verses 2, 4) which indicates he thought he was no longer in his prime.  Perhaps 70-90 years old?  We do not know, but we do know that he fathered another 10 children and it is highly unlikely the wife who kicked him when he was down was the mother of those children.

There is no record of his wife dying, but there are two good reasons to believe he took a second wife.  The first and most obvious is the way his wife betrayed him.  The second is the fact he had 10 more children.  There are consequences for kicking a man when he’s down because that’s the kind of thing a man does not forget after he gets back on his feet.

Obviously that is completely contrary to the narrative of today’s feminized cucks in the church.  Their idea of “godly” men is a man who supplicates himself to women.  A man who would instantly forgive and forget the kind of betrayal Job’s wife heaped upon him when he was hurting the worst.


The number one thing about the ideal man (and Job is the leading candidate for an example) is the implied accountability for his wife.   The Godly Christian husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves His church.  The best example of how this actually happens is in Revelation 3:19, in which Christ is speaking to His church:

“Those whom I love I rebuke and discipline.  Be zealous therefore and repent!”

In other words, the husband presents his wife as “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless” by holding her accountable for her behavior.  Just as Christ says He will hold accountable those whom He loves.  A Godly man is a just man who does his duty, but what the feminist narrative cannot tolerate is a man who holds a woman accountable.  This is the feminist perversion of the ideal husband.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Crazy Women | 29 Comments

On The Nature Of Assholes

Some women know what to look for…

What Is An Asshole?

Much like the word attractive, the appellation of “asshole” is a subjective one. One cannot appreciate the concept of what attractive is without the unattractive in comparison.  In the same way, to appreciate assholes one must compare them to pricks within the context of what assholes and pricks do.

Calling someone an “asshole” is normally code for “he hurt my feelings”.   This is normal because that’s one of the things that assholes do on a regular basis, but it’s part of their charm.  The reason assholes hurt people’s feelings is those feelings are not relevant to the mission.  Assholes are all about getting the job done.

Assholes have a mission and they live to accomplish the mission.  The simplest way to explain it is when a dirty job has to be done, the asshole is the man you pick to get the job done.  Anyone can be a garden variety asshole and that’s no compliment, but when a man is good it becomes a compliment.  When it’s a dirty job and it has to be done, find a serious asshole and he’ll get it done.  When the job is critical and seems to be impossible, that’s when you need a complete asshole.   A perfect asshole makes the impossible job look easy and there is a good argument that the only perfect asshole who ever lived was Jesus Christ.

Pricks are an entirely different breed.  Instead of being focused on the mission, pricks are focused on themselves and what they want.  They specialize in screwing people, look out only for themselves and don’t care what happens to anyone else except as it impacts them.  Accomplishing the mission of the organization if for assholes, their only mission is to advance themselves.  The more intelligent and talented they are the worse they are.  Joseph Stalin was a compete prick.

By definition, while all men have the attributes of being both pricks and assholes, once they become a real prick or a real asshole, they are outliers because the vast majority of the population never makes it to that point.


Pricks and assholes are always at war.  The natural habitat of a prick is a bureaucracy and they work to get a position of safety so that when the time is right they can stab assholes in the back.  The assholes are generally working hard to accomplish their mission and never see the pricks sneaking up on them until it’s too late.  When it’s over the asshole has been stabbed and the pricks took credit for whatever it was he was doing.

It should also be made clear that only men can be assholes or pricks, it’s not something that can be applied to women.  This is because in the womb, a male baby gets a testosterone bath that destroys between 1/2 to 2/3 of the connectors between left and right brain.  This is what gives men the ability to be logical, analytical and focus intensely on their mission to the exclusion of all else.  Women can be a lot of things, but they can’t be either a prick or an asshole.


Assholes Tend To Be Military Men

Military service is one of the few places where an asshole’s unique talents can be appreciated.  When used in a positive light, describing a man as some form of asshole means he has the knowledge, talent, skill and experience that allowed him to master his job.  He is good at what he does.  The hallmark of an asshole is his ability to make decisions without being influenced by emotion.  Cold, hard, reasoned logic that’s based on the best data available.  When the question is not whether someone will die but rather how many will die, you want an asshole making the decisions.

When the ship has a hole below the waterline and the water is flooding in, the Captain must order the water-tight compartment doors closed.  That means sentencing some people to death because they’re in areas that will be flooded, but the decision must be made to save the lives of everyone on board the ship… without consideration for who might be in one of those compartments that will flood.

The triage designator at a hospital receiving casualties after a major battle must be an expert surgeon and know his own capabilities as well as the capabilities of everyone on the staff.  They must be able to diagnose and evaluate each patient based on what is presented within the context of what can be done with limited resources.  Depending on what triage class an individual is placed in, that decision can be the difference between life and death for the individual, but doing the job correctly ensures the maximum number will survive.

If a commander’s right flank is being mauled, the center is stationary giving as good as it gets and the left flank is advancing, the question is where to put in his reserves.  There is an emotional desire to reinforce the men who are being mauled but the key to winning the battle is to reinforce the men who are advancing.  By throwing the reserves onto the left flank he can crack their line and roll them up, which will take pressure off the right flank.  By  ignoring the casualties the right flank is taking the battle can be won and the total casualties will be much lower.


Good Kings Are Assholes

I touched on this in the post about the Sin of Adam.  Command has no friends.  The throne is hard and there are no cushions on it.  Decisions must be made, often quickly without adequate information.  Such decisions cannot be made emotionally and must be made with the mission first and foremost in mind.  This ability is the distinction that sets true assholes apart from other men.

A king who is nice guy will be a failure and his performance will damage his kingdom and get people hurt.  He will make decisions based on emotions and how they impact the relationships with his friends.  He will not have the respect he needs and eventually he will be held in contempt.

History gives us many examples of kings who were pricks and while quite often they were competent rulers, their kingdom usually suffered because of their lack of good character.  Loyalty and fidelity begets loyalty and fidelity, concepts about which pricks are completely unaware.  When pricks are in power there is always corruption… as long as the prick gets his cut of the action.

The wise and successful king is an asshole.  His mission is the success of his kingdom and he makes his decisions accordingly- everything else comes second.   When he wages war, he hoists the black flag and his men leave nothing but scorched earth.  Everyone will think long and hard before attacking that kingdom or even mistreating its subjects.  He will not tolerate corruption and allow his “friends” to become rich.  He will ensure justice is done because in the end, there must be justice and he does not care who that upsets.

The native function of an asshole is to get rid of shit.  If assholes are not doing their job, an organization will eventually get so full of shit that it dies, but when the assholes are doing their job the organization can stay healthy.  Frequently this means that assholes are not popular or well-liked, but they are always respected.

To say someone is an asshole is not to say they are unkind or unloving.  In fact, assholes are (as a rule) more kind and more loving than people who make decisions emotionally.  When it comes to relationships with women, they tend to give the women that masculine dominance they need and they will not knuckle under and allow her to manipulate and control them.  Assholes are generally very good at giving their people what they need, not necessarily what they want or (as is usual with women) think they want.

Ranked assholes understand loyalty and honesty.  They keep their commitments.  If there is a problem it’s generally one of calibration where they don’t have things in balance.  Assholes are already used to dealing with reality so even if they have never been introduced to the Red Pill, they don’t have any problem accepting the data at face value.


Asshole Is Not A Socio-Sexual Rank

As the socio-sexual ranks go, assholes are almost always either alphas or sigmas.  Some were born either an alpha or sigma while others start out as one of the other ranks and become an alpha as they progress through their development as an asshole.  Individuals rarely become a sigma because sigmas are almost always of the personality type INTJ.  Sigma’s are born, not made.

Pricks are almost always gammas.  A delta or beta might develop as a prick if he gives in to his gamma side and goes in that direction, but gamma is material from which pricks are made.  It is the combination of fear, insecurity, envy and covetousness that drives pricks to be pricks.  Gamma’s are not without ability and often do quite well socially, but they are failures in the areas they want to succeed.  Envy of the success of others is the driving force of a prick’s life and as they become consumed with hatred their goal is to destroy.

The alpha label is often synonymous with asshole, but it’s a chicken-egg question of which came first.  Did the asshole produce the alpha or did the alpha produce the asshole?  My guess is that personality considerations aside, it was the asshole that produced the alpha.

Alphas are most often the ENTJ personality type and it’s the ENTJ’s who are the natural alphas.  Sigma’s are almost exclusively INTJ’s and it’s the introvert aspect of their personality that keeps them from being alphas.  They don’t have a desire to take charge, although they have all the personality tools necessary to do so.   The difference between alphas and sigmas as assholes is that alphas will commonly be real assholes and sometimes serious assholes, but complete assholes are almost always sigmas.

In the end, being an asshole is a good thing but only if one is a rank asshole.  Any man can be a garden-variety asshole and that’s no compliment, but when asshole is applied as a rank it’s a good thing.  The 11th commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Get Caught” and there is also a 12th Commandment:


NB: Your author is widely acknowledged to be a complete asshole.

Posted in Marriages Go Their Own Way, Messages to a young man | 11 Comments

50 Shades Of Biblical Marriage


Occasionally we see something interesting, like the popularity of the “50 Shades of Grey” novels and movie.  While it can’t be denied that the entire thing is a feminist fantasy of the woman taming her alpha, why did it generate such a fascination with Dominance/submission relationships?  There is obviously a desire to claim women are a lot more kinky than anyone would believe, but that isn’t it.

Are Women Confused?

Recently the subject of a Dominant/submissive relationship came up and a woman of my acquaintance said:

I don’t believe in obeying a man. I do believe in respecting him. And because of that, would try to do as he wishes. But I would still retain my right to choose.

To be honest, I do fall into that group of women that prefers to let the man be in charge. But I do not choose to be with somebody who wants to exert complete control and will not allow me to have a voice.  But I would not play a submissive to anyone’s dominant. That’s just not me. But I enjoyed reading about it. More in a voyeuristic role. (Referencing 50 Shades)

Notice the complete incoherence of that statement.  She prefers the man to be in charge, but doesn’t want to obey him.  She would try to do as he wishes but refuses to accept any authority on his part to tell her what to do.   In other words, she reserves the right to do as she damn well pleases and probably expects him to pick up the pieces afterward.  But it isn’t that simple.

On further investigation, she was married to multiple cringe-worthy men who she rapidly became disgusted with.  It’s no surprise the marriages fell apart, but there are two sides of this, his behavior and her behavior.

“I do not choose to be with somebody who wants to exert complete control and will not allow me to have a voice.”

That word “wants” is critical.   The fact he “wants” it means he doesn’t have it.  She didn’t believe he was worthy of it so she didn’t give it to him.  Part of the problem is this attitude represents women who settled for a man they were not attracted to, part of it is that she cannot separate the man from the rank.  We don’t salute the man, we salute the rank.

This conflation of the man with the rank is exemplified by marriage today in the refusal of women to recognize that the husband’s rank is superior to that of the wife.  Very much like officers and enlisted, no matter how “high” the wife’s rank might rise to be, she will never outrank her husband because husband is always superior to wife.

The problem is the legal system has been altered to change the rank system and put the wife in a superior position to her husband.  This is part of the reason we see marriages blowing up everywhere and most women are miserable in their marriage.  This is easily observable.


Modern Marriage Emasculates Men

I’ve written enough about socially imposed monogamous marriage and the fact that today, polygyny is a better deal for both the men and the women so I won’t make the point again here.   While one problem with marriage today is that it’s monogamous and gives the woman a monopoly over her husband that creates boredom and frustration, the problem is much greater.

The legal structure of modern marriage and the power the state has over marriage is designed to put women in the power position and give them great power over their husband to the point of emasculating him.   Like children, women claim to want this power in the same way that children want lots of candy.  And, like a steady diet of candy, over time it’s disgusting and makes the women sick.

Women (as a group) don’t want to give up their power over marriage and their ability to divorce-rape men, but at the same time they want a dominant masculine man.  This should be looked at in the same way that women might think that abortion is horrible, but they don’t want the option taken off the table because they might need it one day.  Those are mutually incompatible desires, so what can they do?  They look for some kind of relationship in which they can get the kind of man they really want.


The Fascination With Dom/sub Relationships

Women will do amazing things for a man they are highly attracted to, but what happens when they live in a culture in which they don’t encounter attractive men?  A culture in which the women are participating in the process of destroying any masculinity boys and young men might develop?  Just because the dominant men are rare doesn’t mean women stop wanting them.  The only question is what they’re willing to pay to get one.

It appears the fundamental desire women have for dominant, masculine men is being channeled into what we’d think of as kink.  They look around and don’t see any masculine men so they think they should get into a Dom/sub relationship.

A Dom/sub relationship is a modern
facsimile of a Biblical marriage.

The institution of marriage has been wrecked by the false doctrine of equalism, the idea that men and women are equal.  What is the hallmark of a Dom/sub relationship?  Inequality.  There is equity, but the sub is not the Dom’s equal and that is the foundation of the relationship dynamic.  In fact, there are four critical points of a Dom/sub relationship.

  1. The Dom (man) controls the relationship, meaning he has complete responsibility.
  2. Within the framework of Dom/sub, the rules are negotiable in the beginning.
  3. Both the Dom and sub have rights and responsibilities within the relationship.
  4. There is no outside person or entity with authority over the relationship.

The feminist empowerment fantasy of “50 Shades of Grey” is wrapped in kink, but it derives its power from the fact that after marriage a divorce court could give Anastasia half of everything Christian owns and order him to pay millions each year in child support.  The moment a marriage occurred, the Dom/sub relationship in which Christian was the Dom ended and Anastasia became the Dominant one with the power of the State behind her.  The truth is “50 Shades” is not about Dom/sub, it’s about the woman taming her alpha, bending him and breaking him to her will.

Is it wrong for women to be looking for something like that?  If feminism were correct, wouldn’t women be happy to enter marriages in which they have the power to break their husband’s balls?  As it turns out, the fascination with D/s relationships is truly ironic because the standards for marriage drawn from the Bible look amazingly like a Dom/sub contract, minus the kink.

Rules For the Biblical
Dom/sub Relationship Called Marriage:

  1. The act of penetrative sexual intercourse is required to begin the relationship.  If the woman is a virgin sex automatically begins the relationship.  If she is not a virgin but otherwise eligible, she must agree to the relationship prior to the sex initiating the relationship.
  2. The commitment standard of the man is permanent, which means that once given he cannot rescind his commitment (regardless of her behavior).  His commitment is non-exclusive, which means that at his discretion he may bring other women into the relationship at any time.
  3. The commitment standard of the woman is permanent and she is bound to her man for as long as he lives.  Her commitment is exclusive, which means that he is her one and only.  No-one can have two masters.
  4. The relationship between the man and women is one of master-servant, or ruler-subject.  The man is to rule his women and has complete authority over them, over every aspect of their lives, in everything.
  5. The man is required to love his women.  This love is defined as holding them accountable for good behavior and requiring their obedience.  When they transgress he is required to rebuke and discipline them.
  6. Part of this accountability is his obligation to review any and every agreement she makes with others.  If he desires he may say nothing and let it stand but if he does not like it he is to forbid it in the day he hears of it.
  7. The woman is to submit to her man in everything, no exceptions.  Her submission is not dependent on her opinion of his behavior or his actual behavior.
  8. If the man is displaying bad behavior the woman is to submit to him without a word and win him over with her quiet and chaste conduct.
  9. Sex is to be on demand and the woman’s body belongs to the man.  Likewise, the man is to ensure that the women’s sexual needs are met.
  10. Sexual activity such as masturbation, oral, vaginal or anal is all at the discretion of the man.
  11. The woman is required to live with her man in order that he might meet his responsibility to hold her accountable for her behavior.
  12. If the woman chooses to violate requirement #11 and leave her man, she is to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her man.
  13. If the woman has left her man in violation of these rules, she still retains the right of return.  If she returns in complete submission to him, the man is required to accept her return to the relationship and cannot refuse to be reconciled to her.
  14. The women are not required to love their man but they are required to respect him, obey him and submit to him.
  15. Women are encouraged to call their man “Master” without being frightened by any fear.
  16. As part of the women’s requirement to respect their man, it is appropriate to treat him as if they were enlisted persons and he was a commissioned officer.  Call him “Sir” and be respectful in language and posture, as well as giving an appropriate “salute” such as a bow of the head or kiss on the cheek when that is appropriate.
  17. Women are owned by their man and required to remain faithful to him, although masturbation and sexual activity with other women are allowed at his discretion.
  18. The man may have sex with any woman outside the relationship that he is eligible to marry, except for prostitutes.
  19. The women must not have vaginal intercourse while they are menstruating.
  20. Vaginal intercourse is forbidden following childbirth for a period of 40 days if the child was a boy and 80 days for a girl.
  21. Any other rules are negotiable or at the discretion of the husband.


NB:  Yes, those really are the rules and yes, the Bible really does say that.  I changed some wording around, but the meaning was not tampered with at all.


Posted in Churchianity, Crazy Women, Marriage, Messages to a young man, Polygyny | Tagged , , , , , , , , , , , , , | 56 Comments

The Sin Of Adam

The Separation

In a previous post I touched on the judgment of Eve, but up until now we haven’t looked at what happened with Adam.  What, exactly was Adam’s sin?  Better yet, why is it that the Bible is very specific that it was Adam who sinned, not Eve?

If men and women were equal then Eve is the one who sinned.  Yes, she was completely deceived, but she still disobeyed and violated the one rule that God gave them.   Both Adam and Eve ate of the fruit they were commanded not to eat of, but only Adam is credited with the sin, so what was it that Adam did?  You will hear preachers tell you that Adam knowingly disobeyed God while Eve was deceived, as if being deceived is an excuse.  What Eve did was disobedience while what Adam did was rebellion.  There is a difference.

Adam had responsibilities because God placed him in charge of the entire earth and everything that dwelled on the earth.  His mission was to take control of the earth.  And Adam knew that God had said “In the day you eat of [the fruit] you shall surely die.”

Satan used Eve as a tool to take down Adam.  If you think of it in terms of chess, Adam was put in check and his only way out was to allow his queen to be taken.   Instead of analyzing the situation with his mission in mind and realizing that his queen was already taken, Adam tipped his king and gave up the game.

Adam Surrendered

To hell with his command, to hell with everything, when Adam saw that his wife had eaten of the fruit, he decided to commit suicide.  He decided he would rather die with his wife than continue with his mission.  He abdicated.  He quit.

What Adam did was not mere disobedience, it was rebellion and treason against his King.  Obedience is following orders.  Eve disobeyed, but as the record indicates, that wasn’t that much of a problem.  The reason is that obedience and submission are not the same.  Obedience is following orders, submission is accepting the authority of the one giving the orders and accepting the consequences for disobedience.  Disobedience is not necessarily rebellion, but the refusal to submit is legitimate authority is always rebellion.

Adam’s act of rebellion was to reject his mission and refuse to do his job.  In committing spiritual suicide he abdicated his position as the federal head of creation, giving Satan that authority.  But we can’t blame Eve for this, it was Adam who decided that he’d rather die with his wife than do his job.  To hell with his mission, he had oneitis so bad that he decided to commit suicide.


Is There More To The Story?

We don’t know whether Adam knew that the death God was speaking of was spiritual death rather than physical death, but we might have some clues.  Consider that Adam and Eve walked with God in the cool of the evening and they were naked and unashamed.   They were in the presence of God.

Exodus 34:29-35 tells the story of Moses going into the presence of God and as a result he glowed.  What the text says is that his face glowed, but we know that Moses was wearing clothing.  We also know that Moses was born in sin and repeatedly disobeyed God.  Christ, however, was born without sin and never committed any sin.  Matthew 17:1-8 tells the story of the transfiguration of Christ and says “His face shone like the sun, and His garments became as white as light.” 

Adam and Eve were naked and unashamed.  Was it because the Glory of God shown from within them and their skin shined like the sun?  We don’t know because the text does not tell us.  But we can imagine how Adam might have felt to see his wife for the first time as that glow died and her skin no longer shone like the sun.

What we do know is that Adam made the decision to follow her into death.  In doing so he abdicated his position and surrendered on seeing the first casualty of the battle.  Adam fell on his own sword and with his spiritual death allowed Satan to become the prince of this world.

You might look at this and think “Only a complete asshole could look at his wife dying before his eyes and not want to do something.”  The problem was that Adam was not a complete asshole, he wasn’t even a garden variety asshole.  What he chose to do was emotionally selfish and the behavior of a prick.


Command Has No Friends

From Falkenberg’s Legion, by Jerry Pournelle.  Read the chapter to get the context because it’s perfect for this discussion as it relates the concept of command to a relationship with a woman.

“Command can have no friends, Miss Horton…  The reason command has no friends is not merely to spare the commander the pain of sending friends to their death. If you haven’t learned the rest of it, learn it now, because some day you’ll have to betray either your friends or your command, and that’s a choice worth avoiding.”

Adam betrayed his command in favor of his wife.

It should be noted that wives are not commanded to obey their husband, they are commanded to submit to him.  Likewise, they are not commanded to love their husband, they are commanded to respect him.

Husbands are commanded to love their wives and that love is defined as being the the way Christ loves His church.  Christ’s love for His church is described as a sacrificial love in Ephesians 5:25-29.  The only two specific examples of how Christ loves His church are found in Hebrews 12:5-7 and Revelation 3:19. The word that sums it up is discipline.  Wives are commanded to submit to their husband and husbands are commanded to hold their wives accountable, rebuking and disciplining them when necessary.

Which is what a good commander does.  And command can have no friends.



Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | Tagged , , , | 5 Comments

Marriage, Whores and Churchians

The Wedding Ceremony as designed by God

No doubt more than a few Bible College students will get their panties in a wad reading this, but the truth is like that: sometimes it hurts.  There is only one question you need to answer:  Do you fear God?  That really is the only question.

If you don’t fear God, that raises the question of why.  If it’s because you “don’t believe” in God, that’s OK.  Everyone has the right to be stupid and I’ll confess, I’ve been there.  Once upon a time I drank enough tequila that I thought I was bulletproof, so I do understand.  This post isn’t for you because you’re dealing with other issues.   Stupidity is like that.

If you have faith that you have nothing to fear from God because your boyfriend Jesus will forgive you no matter what you do, this post is probably going to upset you but you need to hear it.  Because Jesus isn’t your boyfriend and there are no rainbow-farting unicorns.

If you are one of those who claims to be a Christian but still worries about going to hell, keep reading.  Your theology is off, but hopefully your mind is open.

For any of you professional churchians or students at seminary or Bible college who are training to be professional churchians, this is important:

Just because you believe the lies you were taught doesn’t make them true.


Religion Is the Original Power and Control Racket

Controlling a persons sexuality is to control the person, the family and the culture.

If you look at the Bible, the major sin of the Old Testament was idolatry.

The major “gods” of idolatry were Baal, Asharoth and Molech.  Baal and Asharoth were fertility gods and part of the worship was sex.

We get a glimpse into this in Genesis 38 with the story of Judah and Tamar, his daughter-in-law.  Tamar had been married to Er, who did evil in the sight of the Lord and was killed for it.  Tamar was given to Onan, Er’s brother, in order to fulfill his duty to give her a son so that Er’s name might continue.  Onan didn’t like that so when having sex with Tamar he pulled out and “spilled his seed upon the ground” in order that she might not get pregnant.  This angered the Lord and He killed Onan for that.  Judah was left with one other son, Shelah.  He told Tamar to go wait in her father’s house and later she would be given to Shelah when he was grown up.

When Shelah had grown up Tamar saw that Judah had not given her to Shelah, so after Judah’s wife died, she put on a veil and pretended to be a temple prostitute on the side of the road.  Judah came along and had sex with her, she conceived and he became the father of her twins.  She became part of the genealogy of Christ with that act.  What did Judah think he was doing?

When Judah saw her, he thought she was a harlot, for she had covered her face.

There are a lot of nuances to that story, but what I want to point out is that she hid her face with a veil and because of this everyone believed her to be a temple prostitute.  From this we get the idea that ordinary women, wives and daughters, could hide their face with a veil and have sex with strange men as part of the worship of Baal and Asharoth.  Worship involves offerings and the women accepted payment (offerings) from the men in return for the act of providing their body.  They were temple prostitutes or cult prostitutes as a matter of function, but otherwise they were ordinary women.  Wives, mothers and daughters. Look at verses 20-22:

When Judah sent the young goat by his friend the Adullamite, to receive the pledge from the woman’s hand, he did not find her.  He asked the men of her place, saying, “Where is the temple prostitute who was by the road at Enaim?” But they said, “There has been no temple prostitute here.”  So he returned to Judah, and said, “I did not find her; and furthermore, the men of the place said, ‘There has been no temple prostitute here.’

Notice what was said of Tamar when her pregnancy became apparent:

“Your daughter-in-law Tamar has played the harlot, and behold, she is also with child by harlotry.”


What Was Judah’s Sin?  What Was Tamar’s Sin?

The Apostle Paul explained this in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13 (emphasis added).

15.  “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
13.  “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Centuries before the Law, neither Judah or Tamar sinned in their actions.  Over and over again the reader will encounter pastors and others who claim that Judah and Tamar committed adultery (Deuteronomy 22:22-24 Tamar was betrothed to Shelah) and incest (Leviticus 18:15 Judah was Tamar’s father-in-law) without bothering to note that the Law was not given to the people until some 400 years later.  As it is written, “sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

If we were to apply the Law, it gets even more interesting.  From the context, we see that “playing the harlot” is cult prostitution and the sin would be idolatry, not sex outside of marriage.  The reason is while idolatry is forbidden by God, sex outside of marriage is not.  Tamar was twice a widow, then betrothed to Shelah, but her father-in-law violated her betrothal agreement, a violation of Numbers 30:2.  While churchians hold that the “sin” of Tamar was incest, she committed no sin.   Even though she violated the cultural mores, as Judah said of her, “she is more righteous than I am.”

As to having sex with whores, all this occurred about two millennia prior to the regulation forbidding such a thing and that applied only to Christian men (1st Corinthians 6:15-16).  We see that Samson, a Nazarite, used prostitutes and did not violate his Nazarite vow to be Holy to the Lord.  Now I realize that you boys and girls from Millar Bible College will be outraged at that, the very idea of remaining Holy to the Lord while banging whores is just something you can’t handle.  And I know that you’ll fire up Google and find others who agree with you, but there’s one problem with that, which is the text of Judges 16:1.

Now Samson went to Gaza and saw a harlot there, and went in to her.

The word translated as “harlot” is “zanah” of which I’ve written before and in this sense it means she was a whore.  A prostitute.  A woman who spread her legs and provided sex for payment.  She was not described as a “qadesh” (cult prostitute or a temple prostitute) but rather as a simple prostitute.  You should know that in Deuteronomy 23:17 the men and women were forbidden to be a “qadesh” but the “zanah” prostitution was never forbidden.

Many have a hard time with this because “zanah” is translated as adultery, idolatry, sexual idolatry and ordinary prostitution.  Adultery and idolatry are forbidden, ordinary prostitution is not forbidden.  Therefore, according to the Apostle Paul, while adultery and idolatry are sins, ordinary prostitution is not a sin.

I must presume you boys and girls in Bible College don’t have much experience with whores, which is a good thing, but you need to understand that there is only one reason a man goes to see a whore and that’s to get his dick wet.  He wants sex and she provides sex for payment.  The context of the word “bo” (Strong’s 935) that is translated as “went in to her” is indicated by the fact the woman in question is a common prostitute.

Some churchians try hard to claim Samson didn’t have sex with her, that in that day the only boarding houses were with prostitutes.  Implied is that when people were traveling they went to the local whores for a place to stay, using Joshua 2:1 as an example.  Except that they didn’t.  They went to the village or town and expected to be given hospitality by someone at the gate or in the square (Genesis 19:2-3; Judges 19:15).    Churchians also claim the word “bo” means that he entered her house, not that he entered her body.  Except that we see the word “bo” is associated with or used to mean sexual intercourse frequently.  Some examples:

  • Adam and Eve: Genesis 2:22
  • Abraham and Hagar: Genesis 16:2, 16:4
  • Lot and his daughters: Genesis 19:33, 34
  • Jacob and Leah: Genesis 29:23
  • Jacob and Rachel: Genesis 29:30
  • Jacob and Bilhah: Genesis 30:3
  • Judah and his wife: Genesis 38:2
  • Onan and Tamar: Genesis 38:9
  • Judah and Tamar: Genesis 38:16, 18

So not only does God not make a prohibition against banging whores in the Law, we see Samson the Judge, a member of the Hebrews “hall of fame” having sex with whores and not violating his Nazerite vow to be Holy to the Lord.  And since I mentioned the Hebrews Hall of Fame, who else do we see there but the harlot Rahab?  Being a legitimate prostitute is not a sin because nowhere in Scripture did God forbid any woman, Christian or non-Christian, from being a prostitute.  That, however, is ordinary prostitution.


Idolatry and Ordinary Women “Playing the Harlot”

The other type of prostitution was being a temple whore, which is kind of what women do nowadays in terms of sexual promiscuity and adultery.  Keep in mind that no-one was forcing women to do this, the religious/idolatry system provided women with a cultural excuse to exercise their hypergamy.  This appealed to both men and women in different ways but the end result was idolatry.  That system of idolatry gave power to the priests and leaders.  By taking part in that system, the system became part of people’s lives and established the morality of their actions.

Interestingly, we see in Leviticus 21:9 that if the daughter of a priest engaged in temple prostitution she was to be burned with fire because she not only profaned herself, she profaned her father as well.  Knowing that a woman who gave her virginity to a man was married to him, it follows that the daughter who goes out, hides her face and acts as a temple prostitute is married to the first man and commits adultery with every subsequent man.   Which is more or less what the women of today are doing, temple prostitutes for feminism.

Keep in mind that the root of “culture” is the word “cult” and it describes a common belief system.  Once a system of cultural mores involving sexuality was in place, God’s solution was to wipe the people out.  All through the Old Testament we see that idolatry is synonymous with sexual immorality.  The question is whether the sexual immorality was because it was a violation of God’s Law concerning sexuality or God’s Law concerning idolatry.  Often times it was both, but the aspect of idolatry could and did convert any lawful sexual activity into sin.

People have a desire to know that what they are doing is right and this is especially important when it comes to that most intimate of activities, sexual relations.  By invoking God’s name religious leaders create a moral paradigm when it comes to sex, even if God never said whatever it is they claim He said.  And if lies are taught as truth long enough, people believe the lies.

People will believe a lie because they either fear it to be true or because they want it to be true.  People are stupid and leaders take advantage of this.  Sheep are stupid and shepherds know this.

The Churchian Idolatry of Marriage

Genesis 2:24 is a grant of authority from God to the man.  “For this cause a man…( 1 ).”  According to God, the individual man has the authority to begin marriage and he does so by right, because God granted him that authority.  He has no need to seek the approval or permission of anyone else, he has the right to begin marriage.  This follows from the fact that woman was created from man, for man, to be under his authority as his wife and the mother of his children.

The virgin is married when she is taken by a man and penetrated in the act of marriage, which is sexual intercourse.  The virgin’s consent is not necessary, the act of penetration is sufficient to marry her whether she agrees or not( 2 ).  For you anklebiters, the man and the virgin have to be eligible to marry in order to form a marriage so cases of incest or situations in which the virgin is already betrothed do not count.  However, these exceptions so seldom occur that we can say “As a rule, all women are virgins when they marry.”

The question to ask any professional churchian is “By what right do you claim the authority to ‘preside’ over a marriage?”

Typically there is always trouble with pointing this out because everyone wants to turn it into a Catholic vs Protestant fight, but the fact is that all of this was done long, long before the great schism that split east from west and centuries before the protestant reformation that only curbed the worst of the excesses without addressing the root problems.

The Nicolaitans won and they instituted a clerical caste that lorded it over the laity in the same way that the Gentile rulers do.  This began early enough that Christ stated twice that He hated the Nicolaitans and their works, and it was solidified when Christianity became the official religion of Rome.  As time went by the bishops became defacto rulers in the Roman empire and wielded power as members of the government.  This profoundly changed the culture of the church and there was a profound emphasis on submission to authority.

Isn’t it interesting that the word translated as “Nicolaitans” is not an officially translated word?  What are the Nicolaitans and what is the sin of the Nicolaitans?

Others, from time to time, have had interesting things to say about the Nicolaitans.

H.A. Ironside wrote:

“…we have the introduction of wrong principles within — the teaching of the Nicolaitanes. Others have often pointed out that this is an untranslated Greek word meaning, ‘rulers over the people.’ Nicolaitanism is really clerisy* — the subjugation of those who were contemptuously styled ‘the laity’ by a heirarchical order who lorded it over them as their own possessions, forgetting that it is written, ‘One is your Master, even Christ, and all ye are brethren.’ In the letter to Ephesus the Lord commended them for hating the deeds of the Nicolaitanes, those who, like Diotrephes, loved to have the preeminence among them. But, in the Pergamos letter, we have Nicolaitanism designated as a distinct system of teaching. It was then that clerisy was accepted as of divine origin, and therefore something that must be bowed to.”

*Webster defines “clerisy” as: The literati, or well-educated class. *Webster defines “literati” as: Men of letters. This may only mean those who had the ability to read and write. Or, it could also include those who not only could read and write but were advancedly educated in fields of literature and possibly here in theological disciplines, whether doctrinally biblical or unbiblical.


The Sins of the Nicolaitans

After Rome fell the church was (for the most part) the last man standing in Western Europe and the change to the culture was such that the leaders were determined that the church become a large and powerful monolithic organization.  Their primary enemy for hundreds of years was the landed nobility.  The primary weapon the church used to bring the nobility under their power was the control of sexuality, primarily marriage.

First, they claimed that God ordained a “superior” clergy in authority over the laity.  Then they claimed that the power to “bind and loose” gave them the authority to elevate the “teachings and traditions of the church” over Scripture.  Not only that, they claimed the Eater Bunny was infallible…  and then it really got crazy.  They ignored the prohibition of Deuteronomy 4:2 and 12:32, re-writing the Bible as they went along.

God has two separate standards of sexual morality, one for men and one for women.  This should not be difficult to understand, because men and women are not equal and certainly not the same.  The root of all this crap from the church was the profoundly gnostic orientation of the patristic writers.  Gnosticism, the belief that those things of the spirit are good and those things of the flesh are bad.  Two of the worst infiltrators of the early church, Augustine and Jerome, were both gnostics.  Augustine of Hippo was raised in the Manichean belief (Persian gnosticism) and Jerome was an adherent of the Stoic philosophy of the Romans.  This is well-known to historians and the following quotes are from “Sex, Law and Christian Society in Medieval Europe” by James Brundage.

The Church Fathers’ views of sex were dominated by ascetic values, for most of the Fathers were, at one time or another in their careers, monks or hermits. The most important patristic authority on sexual matters, the one whose views have most fundamentally influenced subsequent ideas about sexuality in the West, was St. Augustine of Hippo (354-430).  Augustine held strong, deep seated convictions about sexual relationships and the role of sex in human history, convictions that flowed from his own experience and his reflections upon it, convictions that brooked neither denial nor dissent.
Sexual desire, Augustine believed, was the most foul and unclean of human wickednesses, the most pervasive manifestation of man’s disobedience to God’s designs. Other bodily desires and pleasures, Augustine felt, did not overwhelm reason and disarm the will: one can be sensible while enjoying a good meal, one can discuss matters reasonably over a bottle of wine. But sex, Augustine argued, was more powerful than other sensual attractions; it could overcome reason and free will altogether. Married people, who ought to have sex only in order to beget children, can be overwhelmed by lubricious desires that blot out reason and restraint; they tumble into bed together simply in order to enjoy the pleasure of each other’s body. This, Augustine thought, was not only irrational but sinful.  Augustine’s underlying belief in the intrinsic sinfulness of carnal desire and the sensual delight that accompanied sexual union became a standard premise of Western beliefs about sexuality during the Middle Ages and beyond.
Augustine wrote eloquently on the theology of sex, but he was by no means the only patristic writer to deal with the subject. His contemporaries by and large shared Augustine’s negative attitudes toward the role of sex in Christian life. A few were even more certain than he that sex was a root cause of sin and corruption. St. Jerome (ca. 347-419/20), for example, maintained that sex and salvation were contradictions. Even in marriage, coitus was evil and unclean, Jerome thought, and married Christians should avoid sexual contact whenever possible. St. Gregory of Nyssa was still more emphatic: he taught that only those who renounced sex completely and led lives of unblemished virginity could attain spiritual perfection.
Such views as these owed as much to philosophy, particularly to Stoicism, as to religious teaching, and St. Jerome explicitly acknowledged in his treatise against Jovinian that he was drawing upon Stoic sources. But although fourth-hand fifth-century patristic writers borrowed heavily from pagan sexual ethics, they nevertheless sought to legitimize their borrowings by finding support for their conclusions in the Scriptures. This sometimes required ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation, but a Scriptural foundation for their ideas about sexuality seemed essential.

God created sex and God called it good.  These perverts lied and called it wicked and sinful.  God created a double-standard, one for men and one for women.   The gnostic perverts simplified things and required men and women to adhere to the same standard of sexual morality:  sex is evil, wicked and sinful, don’t do it.  This created a conflict, of course, because God gave the command to be fruitful and multiply.  The result of all this was that sex within marriage was a venal sin, so obviously sex under any other condition was a mortal sin.

The problem was that wasn’t what the Bible said at all, and as professor Brundage observed, it required “ingenious feats of imaginative interpretation” to claim that’s what the Bible said.  One might think this would be easy to spot, but interpretation is the key word.  The pervert Jerome was chosen to make the official translation of the Bible and his choices in how specific portions of Scripture were translated continues to have a major impact, even today.

This completely anti-God view of sex caused a problem, because God commanded that mankind be fruitful and multiply.  Obviously God would not command people to commit sin, so this was neatly handled with the idea that sex purely for the purpose of procreation was good, but sex for any other reason (even within marriage) was a venial sin.  And, of course, if it was a venial sin within marriage then obviously it was a mortal sin if it occurred outside marriage.

In the church’s war on the nobility, several things occurred.  Priests were commanded to be celibate in order that they could devote all of their time and energy to spreading the lies the Church was promulgating.  They claimed that marriage, rather than being initiated by sex (as the Bible says), was only formed with the approval and consent of the church by a ceremony in which the man and woman publicly consented and committed to the marriage in public before witnesses under the authority of the church.  The sex was then considered the “consummation” of the wedding and could only take place after the church had given its blessing in a ceremony.


Premarital Sex and Fornication

This created the requirement of claiming that “sex before marriage” was a sin.  It should be noted that the clergy could state that “premarital sex” was a sin without lying because by definition, it is a sin.

Did you hear that boys?  By definition, premarital sex is a sin.  Not only that, but in cases of premarital sex, the sex won’t make you married because you must have the ceremony before you’re married.

The problem is you boys don’t know the definition of premarital sex.

The Bible does not forbid voluntary agreements and if a man give his word he is required to keep it (Numbers 30:2 and Deuteronomy 23:21-23).   While it is true that when a man takes an eligible woman’s virginity they are married, the emphasis in this case is on the word “eligible”.  If a man and woman engage to be married and have a specific engagement period with a wedding ceremony scheduled at the end of that engagement period, they have agreed that they won’t have sex during that period and they won’t be married until the date and time set certain.

So, if they do have sex during their engagement period prior to the wedding they are literally having “premarital sex” and by virtue of their agreement the woman is not eligible to be married until the date and time set certain, so the sex will not marry them.  They have sinned (the man has) by violating their agreement.  Because they have given their word, only the ceremony followed by the sex (the “consummation”) will make them married.

This is because they voluntarily agreed to these conditions, not because the Bible requires it.

Without a voluntary agreement the process defaults to the basic rules of Scripture and the man who takes the eligible woman’s virginity is married to her.

You boys from Millar Bible College recently tossed around the Greek word “porneia” which is often translated into English as “fornication”.  Jordan Winsby lied about it, claiming the definition of the term “porneia” included “sex before marriage” and as such the Bible forbids “fornication”.  We hear this a lot from sophisticated morons who don’t know what these words mean.  In the last post I listed exactly what the Bible defines as sexual immorality.

The only thing that could be added to that list from the New Testament is the prohibition that forbids a Christian man to have sex with a prostitute.  1st Corinthians 6:15-16 does not create a new facet of sexual immorality, it’s a regulation that applies only to Christian men and the violation of that regulation is willful disobedience to Christ’s instruction.  As such it is a sin.  The question is, can a Christian man marry a prostitute?

Boys, I’ve stated before that you should be able to refute me if you’re correct because that would mean I’m wrong.   So far the only “correction” I’ve received cited the Urban Dictionary as being authoritative.  Jordan Winsby, I’m still waiting on your expert response demonstrating from Scripture that God prohibited “sex outside marriage.”

Benjamin, you should take the advice I gave Jordan.  Life is hard when you’re a short ginger and you probably need a workout partner.  This might give you some ideas:





(1).  We see that God said it was not good for man to be alone, so he fashioned out of man the woman.  Woman was created by God, from man, for man, to assist man with his mission.  To be a helper suitable for him.  To Man was given the command “Be fruitful and multiply…” and in order to multiply the man needs a mate.  It is in taking this mate that man initiates marriage.

(2).  Genesis 2:24 contains no mention of any requirement for consent by the woman.  We know the consent of the woman is not required because a father can sell his daughter to be another man’s wife (concubine) as described in Exodus 21:7-10.  The woman captured in battle becomes the man’s wife (Deuteronomy 23:10-14).  The eligible virgin becomes the man’s wife due to being raped by him if they are discovered (Deuteronomy 22:28-29).   The eligible virgin could consent to have sex (she was seduced) which resulted in her marriage, her father had the authority to forbid her agreement (consent) thereby annulling the marriage that resulted from the act of marriage that followed her agreement (Exodus 22:17).  Because a virgin can be raped into marriage against her will and over her objections and she can agree to be married only to have her marriage annulled, we conclude that the virgin has no agency.



Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Marriage, Messages to a young man | 19 Comments

Jordan Winsby Tells Lies

jordan2This is Jordan Winsby.  He runs a website called “I Still Have Questions” on which he claims to have Biblical answers.  In other words, he holds himself out to be a teacher and is held to a higher standard.

Unfortunately, Jordan tells lies.  He admits he isn’t a pastor or a scholar (although he claims to have studied Greek), but that doesn’t excuse the fact he’s lying about what the Bible says.  He’s making claims that only God can make.  He’s judging his brothers.  In short, he’s a typical churchian.

It’s reasonable to ask why I’m being so hard on this poor child when obviously his parents are to blame for him being the way he is and the answer is simple.  He is living proof that not many should be teachers.  The best one can say of his gross ignorance of the Bible is that such ignorance is normal these days, but he holds himself out to be a teacher and offers to corrupt people with his ignorance.

Jordan Winsby, is the Apostle Paul a liar?  Either the Apostle Paul is a liar or Jordan Winsby is a liar.  In a recent comment Jordan Winsby made the following claim:

the Bible actually says multiple times that sex before marriage is sin.

Regular readers of this blog already know that is a lie as well as why it’s a lie, but the churchian logic of Jordie’s reasoning is worth looking at.  He said:

1 Corinthians 7:2 says as much by saying a man and woman should get married so they don’t fall into sexual immorality (specifically sex before marriage). People weren’t controlling themselves. Thus, sex before marriage fits under the definition of sexual immorality in which case the Bible says it’s wrong

In the first sentence Jordan Winsby makes the bald claim that sex before marriage is a sin with no support at all.  Then he claims “sex before marriage” is sexual immorality, which means that all the passages that forbid sexual immorality include sex before marriage.  In other words, “It’s a sin because I say it’s a sin!”

His comments demonstrate that Jordan Winsby has no clue what sexual immorality means.  It’s not that his analysis is wrong, it’s that there is no analysis.  He claims something is a sin, but God never said that.  This is not a matter of opinion, it is laid out for us in Scripture.  The Apostle Paul explained this in Romans 4:15 and Romans 5:13.

15.  “for the Law brings about wrath, but where there is no law, there also is no violation.
13.  “for until the Law sin was in the world, but sin is not imputed when there is no law.”

Sin is what God says it is, because God says it is.  We know something is a sin because it is a transgression of the Law and we can see what the prohibitions are.   Sin is also something that violates your conscience, but that only applies to you because your faith is weak.  And just because your faith is weak, you don’t get to claim your brothers are in sin.  But Jordan, this isn’t about issues of conscience, this is about sexual immorality.  The Bible is clear what sexual immorality is.  Pay attention, Jordan.

  1. A man may not uncover the nakedness of any close male relative (Leviticus 18:6).
  2. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother (Leviticus 18:7).
  3. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife (Leviticus 18:8).
  4. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  5. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his half-sister (Leviticus 18:9).
  6. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  7. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his daughter’s daughter [granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:10).
  8. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s wife’s daughter by his father [half-sister by father] (Leviticus 18:11).
  9. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:12).
  10. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his mother’s sister [aunt] (Leviticus 18:13).
  11. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his father’s brother’s wife [aunt] (Leviticus 18:14).
  12. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his son’s wife [daughter-in-law] (Leviticus 18:15).
  13. A man may not uncover the nakedness of his brother’s wife [sister-in-law] (Leviticus 18:16).
  14. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter [step-daughter] (Leviticus 18:17).
  15. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her son’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).  [Polygyny ONLY]
  16. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her daughter’s daughter [step-granddaughter] (Leviticus 18:17).   [Polygyny ONLY]
  17. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman and her sister as a rival while the woman is still living (Leviticus 18:18). [Polygyny ONLY]
  18. A man may not uncover the nakedness of a woman during her menses (Leviticus 18:19).
  19. A woman may not have sexual intercourse following the birth of a child: for 40 days if the child is a boy, for 80 days if the child is a girl (Leviticus 12:1-8)
  20. A man may not have sexual intercourse with another man’s wife (Leviticus 18:20).
  21. A man may not have any form of sex with another male (Leviticus 18:22).
  22. A man may not mate with with an animal (Leviticus 18:23).
  23. A woman may not allow an animal to mate with her  (Leviticus 18:23).

OK, that’s 14 instances of incest, 3 instances of incest that are restricted to polygynous marriages, 1 of adultery, 1 of male homosexuality, 2 of bestiality and the prohibitions against sex during the proscribed period following childbirth and while a woman is on her menses.  But, did I leave something out?

What about all the instances in which sex played a part in the act of idolatry?

They aren’t sexual immorality because they’re forbidden sexual practices, they’re sexual immorality because they’re idolatry.  Just to be clear, consider vaginal intercourse.  That’s where your penis penetrates a woman’s vagina.  Consider that the exact same act can occur under different circumstances and as you can see, the result isn’t nearly as cut and dried as you might think.

  • It’s usually perfectly legitimate when you’re doing it with your wife. (SEX!)
  • It’s forbidden to have sex with a woman too soon after the birth of a child. (SIN)
  • It’s forbidden do it while she’s menstruating.  (SIN)
  • It’s adultery if you do it with another man’s wife.  (SIN)
  • It’s incest if you do it with a blood relative (SIN)
  • If you have sex with your virgin babysitter, you have a second wife. (SEX!)
  • If it’s a widow and she doesn’t want to marry you, it’s just sex. (SEX!)
  • If it’s a prostitute you’ve violated the prohibition against banging whores. (SIN)
  • It’s forbidden to make up new rules about sexual morality. (SIN)

Jordan, this is your opportunity to catch a clue.  You came here thinking you knew what the Bible says.  Quite obviously you don’t.  There is nothing in that entire list about sex outside of marriage because sex is how marriages are begun.  If sex outside of marriages was forbidden then marriage would be forbidden.

Jordan Winsby Needs Help!

Jordan, there’s still hope, even for you.  You’re young and you have time.

Going by your photos and your attitude, you need some serious self-improvement.   That, of course, is frowned upon by the church these days.  Read this essay several times, you need it.  You might want to consider this one as well.  You absolutely need to learn Game and I recommend The Rational Male series by Rollo Tomassi to start with and follow that up with “Married Man Sex Life” by Athol Kay.  Right now you’re just a whiny gamma bitch, but the good news is there’s hope even for someone like you.

I can’t tell how tall you are but if you’re at least 5′ 10″ this should be easy for you.  You have a good facial structure, you’re not fat and appear to have enough of a mesomorphic body-type that putting on muscle wouldn’t be that difficult. I recommend the book “Man 2.0: Engineering The Alpha” by John Romaniello and Adam Bornstein.

You need to join a dojo and learn how to fight.  Believe it or not, getting punched in the face regularly it will do you a world of good.  While Enderby is a rather small place, I notice there are several gyms, including Flow Martial Arts and Fitness.  I recommend Muay Thai as a striking style and Brazilian Jiu Jitsu (BJJ) for a grappling style, but just learning how to box and throw a punch is more than 80% of all men ever get.  The point is there are people in your area that can train you.

In terms of what you believe the Bible says, as you are now so once was I.  Then I started actually studying my Bible.  Forget about taking seminary courses, they don’t teach the Bible- they teach churchian doctrine and use the Bible as support.  Which is not the same as teaching the Bible.

In dozens of posts on this blog I have addressed basic questions about when and how a person is actually married.  What does the Bible actually say about sexual morality?  It is quite obviously not what you think.  What is sin?  What defines sin?  What about divorce?  What is adultery?

Judging from your comments, you have no clue what the Bible actually says about this stuff which means you have never studied it and in all likelihood you don’t know how to study.  Take the topic of polygyny, for example.  Your knee-jerk reaction is probably that polygyny is wrong.  I could take you through the Scriptures and show you that God doesn’t change.  Then I could show you that God said He had two wives (Jeremiah 31:31-32), that God gave King David multiple wives (1st Samuel 12:8), that God regulated the practice of having multiple wives and even sometimes commanded it (Deuteronomy 25:5-10).

And if you’re like most churchian gammas, you’d still reject it all because that’s what you wanted to believe.   Because tradition.  Jesus had something to say about that:  “In vain to you worship me, teaching as doctrine the precepts of men.”

When it comes to exegesis, antinomies are not allowed, which means you are the one engaging in eisegesis, not me.  You claimed I’m trying to justify my sin yet you know nothing of me.  This chart isn’t finished yet (it needs to be cleaned up a bit) because I still regularly get insights on how all this works together, but this is a roadmap.  You won’t find any antinomies in it.

But, as Vox Day so eloquently put it:

I don’t expect you to agree, I don’t even expect you to understand.

Posted in Biblical Illiteracy, Churchianity, Messages to a young man | 23 Comments