Thoughts on Marriage and Game

I. Introduction

I don’t talk about Game much on this blog, as I consider this to be more of a “Red Pill” Christian blog. Game, in all of its various forms, tends to be centered on specific behaviors and actions; whereas I tend to focus on the bigger picture, primarily the general nature of men and women. In a way my blog is more “Macro” whereas Game blogs tend to be more “Micro”. I bring this up to provide some measure of understanding, because I will be talking about Game in this post, although from that “Macro” perspective that is my usual style. In particular, I will be talking about Game and how it relates to Christian marriage. Also, I will spend some time talking about how Christian marriage and the legal system interact.

[Note: Game is a multi-faceted subject. When I talk about it, I am being inclusive, ie., I mean the overall field. Some types of Game are necessarily not going to be included here. ]

II. Game

While I have been meaning to write a post like this for a while, I was spurred to do so by a recent post by Great Books For Men, True Christian Women Do Not Need To Be Gamed By Men (Warning: link is NSFW, profanity and obscenity abound). GBFM takes the position that Vox Day and Dalrock are preaching falsehoods when they expound the value of Game in Christian marriages. In GBFM’s view:

A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed.  A true Christian woman follows the Law of Moses which Jesus came not to abolish but to fulfill…

There is more, of course, but rather than simply quote the profane and often all but unreadable language of GBFM, I will translate some of his major arguments. They include:

-1) Women no longer follow God but rather their primal instincts.

2) Instead of trying to “resurrect the Christian Soul in the churches, schools, universities, and family court system and reform women”, men like Dalrock and Vox instead advocate that men Game women.

3) Game necessarily involves men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women.

4) Serving the primal instincts of women above the laws of God is the heart and soul of Game.

I agree with GBFM that #1 is the case with most women these days. When it comes to #2, I’m not sure that is the position that Dalrock and Vox take, but I will let them account for themselves on that. As for #3 and #4, I disagree strongly with GBFM. I think that he misunderstands Game, and much more besides.

The first error that GBFM makes is failing to understand the true nature of women. To begin with, his argument that “A true Christian woman does not need to be gamed” gives every appearance of being a variant of the “No True Scotsman Fallacy”. He is trying to create a distinction where none exists. What GBFM does not appear to acknowledge or understand is that Christian women, “True” or not, are still women. And no amount of proper parenting, instruction or wishing really hard will ever change that. There is a certain base set of behaviors and instincts that all women possess. A woman embracing the message of Jesus who becomes a Christian will still have those base set of behaviors and instincts. The only difference between her and a secular woman is that the Christian woman is instructed to restrain those primal behaviors, and has an incentive to do so. Those instincts and behaviors do not disappear after she becomes a Christian. For as Jesus explained:

Watch and pray that you may not enter into temptation; the spirit indeed is willing, but the flesh is weak.

This weakness in women is a weakness of the flesh. Though a woman might be a “True Christian”, she is still a flesh and blood woman, and thus prone to weakness. When you consider all of the negatives influences which are pressing upon Christian women these days, it becomes very easy for them to give in to temptation. Of course, Christian women should avoid these influences, but often don’t because they fail to realize them for what they are.

GBFM’s second error lies in declaring that Game is all about men becoming slaves to the primal instincts of women. The foundation of this argument seems to be that when a man Games a woman he is in fact catering to her selfish wants and is effectively making himself subservient to the woman. The thing to understand here is that Game is all about manipulating women (through controlling their attraction to a man). While doing so involves giving women attention, which is something that they do want (and often selfishly so), it is only a byproduct of the manipulation process. And manipulation, as any Red Pill aware man should know, is merely one form of exercising control. Here the control is over the woman’s perception of the man: Game makes him more attractive in her eyes, which gives him greater power over her, and thus more control over her. Knowing this, we can see how Game is not about serving women per se, but about controlling them.

What seems to confuse a lot of people (GBFM apparently being one of them) is that controlling a woman also involves serving her. This is because women need and want to be controlled. Now, this probably seems counter-intuitive to most folks who haven’t really delved into the quixotic nature of the female mind, so bear with me for a bit.

A key thing to understand about women is that what they want and what they think they want can be, and often are, two very different things. Such is the case for women and control. Perhaps the easiest way to understand this is to separate female wants into conscious wants and unconscious/subconscious wants. Consciously a woman might want to be “strong, proud and independent.” She might think that she wants to dominate a man, and buck any form of control of her actions. But her subconscious has another idea: it wants her to be submissive to a man and for her behavior to be fiercely controlled. This split between the conscious and unconscious of a woman’s brain is why it is so essential to watch what a woman does, and not listen to what she says. It also explains the War Bride phenomenon.

To summarize, Game is a form of manipulation. Manipulation is a form of control. Women want to be controlled, although they do not consciously recognize this and may consciously reject it. So when you Game a woman, you manipulate her, and when you manipulate her, you control her, and when you control her, you give her want she wants. From just this perspective, GBFM’s argument that when you control a woman you become a slave to her primal instincts seems rather silly. After all, it amounts to an assertion that when you control a woman you become her slave. But there is more.

GBFM’s central argument is, after all, that “True Christian Women” don’t need to be Gamed. This assessment is based in large part on an implied assumption that Game is a recent invention (it isn’t) and that it wasn’t necessary to Game Christian women in the past to get them to honor their marriage vows. While his initial assumption is incorrect, GBFM is correct that Christian wives didn’t need to be Gamed in the past in order for (most of them) to honor their vows. Of course, that is not because women (Christian or otherwise) were any different back then (they weren’t), but because the environment they lived in was very, very different.

Since GBFM loves to talk about the law of Moses, lets discuss it briefly. The law of Moses set up an impressive amount of social and legal controls over women. Women were in most cases under the authority of their father or husband, they had limited legal standing outside of the men in their family. A woman who committed adultery was stoned to death, and a woman who fornicated but pretended to be a virgin, likewise. In short, women were soundly controlled by general society, and prevented from acting up their primal instincts.

Those laws were not unique. In most civilizations women faced significant legal and social restraints that controlled their behavior. As for those civilizations which failed to establish that kind of order and structure for women, they usually didn’t last very long. Or never became civilizations in the first place. America was no exception to this. For a good part of our early history women were subject to an array of controls, some social, some legal. Divorce was especially difficult to go through. The doctrine of standing consent meant that a husband couldn’t rape his wife; furthermore a wife denying a husband sex was actually one of few things which permitted divorce. Women got little to nothing out of divorce unless the husband was grievously at fault, and they still faced huge socials costs. Because the consequences to women of misbehavior were so drastic, they were compelled in most instances to behave. As such, men could live a married life without having to Game their wives into staying married.

This is all gone now. The social and legal restraints that used to exist, the various controls in place that kept women in check, have been removed. A man who is married can no longer rely upon the mechanisms of the past to protect his marriage, he must do so himself. In fact, the situation is even worse that that. You see, the social and legal climate is such that it encourages women to act destructively in marriage, a complete reversal of how things used to be. The State, which used to have a man’s back, now has the woman’s back. And she, by her very nature, is inclined to use that authority when convenient.

In case that wasn’t clear enough: True Christian Women didn’t need to be Gamed in the past and followed the Law of Moses because we actually had laws that matched up with the Law of Moses. The Law of Moses was obeyed because it was the Law of Moses. It was designed to keep women in line, and largely succeeded at that task. Remove those kinds of laws, and women will revert to their feral selves. If a wife has no checks at all on her behavior, if there are no controls in place on her, then the odds are good that she will blow things up; that is simply her nature as a woman. Women need to be controlled. Few, if any, can do this themselves. They need social, religious and legal restraints on their behavior if they are to behave.

Hence the need for Game. Game is perhaps the only method available to most married men to bring some measure of control to their marriage. The State no longer provides that control. The general culture no longer provides that control. And increasingly religion, Christianity itself, no longer provides that control. Married men (most of them anyways) need Game in order to combat an environment that encourages self-destructive behavior in women. Should they need it? No, of course not. If our civilization was sane Game wouldn’t be necessary. But it isn’t sane, and men need every tool at their disposal to make marriage work. This includes Game.

Not everything that is included under the umbrella of Game is necessarily proper in marriage, mind you. “Negs” are an example of something that might run afoul of several commands in scripture. But other ideas, like “Agree and Amplify”, would be fine.

The reason why the early Fathers of the Church never talked about this is because they lived in a culture where the notion of giving women the kind of power they enjoy now would have been considered madness. In the Roman Empire women could divorce men (hence Mark 10:12), but the encouragement of divorce we see now is unprecedented. We tread new ground now, and must find our own path now.

I should also point out at this point that Game, as we understand it, is merely a modern version of what we could call “masculine wiles.” The art of seduction and manipulating women is an old one, probably as old as humanity itself. In the past it largely wasn’t necessary to ensure that a marriage stayed together. Indeed, when it came to marriage early Game was probably mostly employed by men to get married in the first place. However, Game was still valuable because it helped make marriage more tolerable for men, even enjoyable.

III. Marriage

I also wanted to briefly talk about Christian marriage and how it relates to legal marriage. Many folks around the sphere use the term Marriage 1.0 to describe traditional marriage, before the changes in divorce law, and Marriage 2.0 to describe what marriage is like today. I happen to like these terms, as I think they help differentiate the legal development of marriage in the West. Something I have noticed, though, is that some bloggers and commenters confuse Marriage 1.0 with Christian Marriage (or Biblical Marriage).

Marriage 1.0 is not Christian Marriage, it was a legal regime which established how the State treated and recognized marriage back in the day. Christian Marriage is an ideal, a spiritual construct, something that exists outside of any legal context. The various “versions” of Marriage, starting with Marriage 1.0, moving on to Marriage 2.0 and now with a nascent Marriage 3.o in development, provide a background and context for Christian Marriage, they do not set it. For example, the State could theoretically outlaw marriage all together. Under those circumstances, Christians could still marry, because marriage is set by God, not by earthly authorities. Yes, it would make you a criminal to go ahead and marry anyways, but isn’t that a consummately Christian thing to do? Certainly it is in keeping with the spirit of the earliest Christians in the Roman Empire, who suffered persecution and death for their beliefs.

The confusion probably arises from the fact that Marriage 1.0 was the state of affairs for so long that bloggers/commenters in the ‘sphere mistake it for having been the background for all of Christian Marriage. But it wasn’t. For example, in the time of Jesus “Christian Marriage” was not a legal reality. And Jesus makes note of this:

And Pharisees came up to him and tested him by asking, “Is it lawful to divorce one’s wife for any cause?” He answered, “Have you not read that he who made them from the beginning made them male and female, and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one’? So they are no longer two but one. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder.” They said to him, “Why then did Moses command one to give a certificate of divorce, and to put her away?” He said to them, “For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery; and he who marries a divorced woman, commits adultery.”

Here is an example of the law of man and the law of God not matching up. However, it was still possible to live in accordance with God’s laws under the system at the time. How? Simple: a husband could refuse to make use of the legal tools at his disposal to put away his wife. When St. Paul was instructing Christian communities in the Roman empire during his evangelical missions he faced a legal regime that also didn’t match up with God’s laws. In that time period both men and women could often initiate divorce, and it was usually a fairly simple affair to manage. Just like Jesus, Paul was teaching people that their obligations to God required them to set aside the power given to them by the existing legal authorities. As Christians, we are required to live our lives in accordance with God’s will, and that often involves us living under a legal regime that doesn’t match up with our beliefs.

That doesn’t mean that we should ignore the legal environment. But it does mean that we need to learn to accept that living as Christians entails living in a world which hates God and His laws, and consequently, us as well. Because of this, the “system”, the legal and social environment in which we must live, will often be against us. And the sad truth is that when the system is as bad as our is, then marriage is a huge risk. It empowers the worst of female behaviors, and cripples the most necessary of male ones. Given all of this, it might indeed be better for many Christian men to not marry. Unless they are willing to assume the risk, or buck the system and possibly become an outlaw in order to adhere to their faith, marriage may just not be in the cards for most Christian men right now.

I mention outlaw because we still don’t know where Marriage 3.0 will end up. At this point it seems all but certain that same-sex marriage is going to happen across the country, and polygamy is probably only a decade or so away as well. I don’t imagine that laws against incest will survive either. In all of this, part of me is concerned that feminists will seek to criminalize patriarchal marriage as well. The exact mechanics of how they would do this are uncertain, but I can think of several possibilities. The first, and perhaps easiest, would be to change DV laws so that abuse includes anything resembling male headship, for example any attempt by a man to get his wife to submit to his authority. Another might be to require that those who file for a marriage license swear an oath to live an egalitarian marriage. However it turns out, I wouldn’t be shocked to see this coming in the near future.

Ultimately, I think that for Christian men the choice comes down to two things:

1) Which path is the least likely to lead to sin

2) What are the results of a cost/benefit analysis of the non-spiritual aspects of marriage

There is no universal answer, Christian men will need to decide for themselves. A man who is able to control himself and avoid sexual sins, and sees little benefit to marriage, or that the costs are too high, would do well to not marry. But a man who has trouble controlling himself, and who might see the costs of marriage as bearable, would do well to marry. Wisdom, discernment and prayer should all be relied upon.

As for myself, I know that I am constantly evaluating where I stand. Right now my position is peculiar- I am reasonably confident I can avoid most forms of sexual immorality without having to marry, reducing my “need” for marriage, but on the other hand I very much would like the various benefits that come along with a healthy/happy marriage. All of which means that I am near a tipping point of sorts, and therefore very particular when it comes to a potential wife. In fact, I may write a post in the next few days giving some insight into my thought process on how I evaluate a woman as “wife material.” [A short post.]

IV. Conclusion

It cannot be denied that before the advent of Marriage 2.0, it wasn’t necessary for Christian men to have to Game their wives. Nor did they face an environment which was set up to ruin marriage as much as possible. Unfortunately, we do live in the Marriage 2.0 regime now, and Christian men must adapt to the times. For some men, that means a decision on their part not to marry. For others, that means marrying and accepting the possibility that their wives may blow up their marriages at any time, and they have no means of recourse. Those Christian men who take their chances in marriage must use whatever methods of maintaining control in their marriage are available, with Game being one of the few things still left in the toolbox.  Should any of this be necessary? Of course not. But these are evil and desperate times, and desperate times call for desperate measures.

[I realize that this post could have been more comprehensive. However, the length would have been too great to provide for a practical discussion and debate if I really let myself go. As is its one of my longer posts. I suspect that I will flesh out some of the gaps in further posts in the subject down the line.]

Update: The debate continues in my next post- Godly Masculinity Versus Game

Advertisements

35 Comments

Filed under Blue Pill, Christianity, Churchianity, Fitness Test, Masculinity, Men, Moral Agency, Red Pill, Sex, State of Nature, Women

35 responses to “Thoughts on Marriage and Game

  1. theshadowedknight

    I disagree with your assertion that Game was not required. Heartiste has some posts on Old School Game, where he would show old newspaper and magazine clippings with advice on women. Then he would explain them in Game language to show that Game is not a new thing. We lost the understanding of men and women, and Game is more archeological than quantum physical.

    More support was a series of posts from a gun writer. He was born and raised before the sexual revolution, and he wrote a post about bringing a woman to the range. It was so incredibly popular that he wrote a series of posts on dealing with women. It might as well be called Game, because it was the same concepts. Negging/teasing, instruction instead of supplication, control of frame, watching what she does and how she responds: it was there.

    Game used to be common knowledge. It was never called that because it was just how it worked. Everyone had Game, and most men were Alpha, so It was not as powerful. There were not secret groups compiling knowledge of Game, because everyone just knew.

    The Shadowed Knight

  2. @ TSK

    I don’t see how anything of what you said demonstrates that Game was required. Certainly it shows that Game is nothing new, which I happen to argue in my post. But required in marriage?

  3. theshadowedknight

    I suppose not required, but if it was inherent to the social interactions of the day, it was probably for a reason. From their point of view, we have decided to interact socially on a manner designed to give offense. Social constructs have purposes, even if they are obscured or archaic. We have plenty of evidence of the ability of a woman to disregard sense in the pursuit of what she feels. Perhaps the use of Game was part of the reason why the marriages were so stable. When everyone is Alpha, no one is. I mean that is the sense that women would have plenty of exposure to masculinity and thus would not be as affected by it. In that sense, Game would be required as an inoculation against surprise submission. When every single man a woman meets has Game, she can understand her reaction and become accustomed to her reaction.

    The Shadowed Knight

  4. Ton

    I disagree negs are ruled out by the Bible. A neg isn’t cursing her or what have you.

    I reckon game has always been required for a happy marriage, the nature of women being what it is and all. Maybe not required to keep a marriage going. But folks often mistake an intact marriage as successful or happy. They are usually neither

  5. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    Is Donal Graeme a Moses-hater, Christ-hater, or both

    Donal writes, “Since GBFM loves to talk about the law of Moses, let’s discuss it briefly. The law of Moses set up an impressive amount of social and legal controls over women. Women were in most cases under the authority of their father or husband, they had limited legal standing outside of the men in their family. A woman who committed adultery was stoned to death, and a woman who fornicated but pretended to be a virgin, likewise. In short, women were soundly controlled by general society, and prevented from acting up their primal instincts.”

    HEY DONAL! JESUS CAME TO FULFILL THE LAW OF MOSES! NOT ONLY DOES GBFM TALK ABOUT THE LAW OF MOSES, BUT SO DOES JESUS! DO YOU THINK JESUS IS BAD AND WRONG BECAUSE OF THIS?

    HAVE YOU EVER READ THE BIBLE?

    http://www.biblegateway.com/verse/en/Matthew%205%3A17

    Matthew 5:17 (KJ21) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Think not that I am come to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
    Matthew 5:17 (ASV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Think not that I came to destroy the law or the prophets: I came not to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Matthew 5:17 (AMP) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Do not think that I have come to do away with or undo the Law or the Prophets; I have come not to do away with or undo but to complete and fulfill them.
    Matthew 5:17 (CEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus and the Law

    17 “Don’t even begin to think that I have come to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I haven’t come to do away with them but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (CJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Don’t think that I have come to abolish the Torah or the Prophets. I have come not to abolish but to complete.

    Matthew 5:17 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law of Moses

    17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.

    Matthew 5:17 (DARBY) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Think not that I am come to make void the law or the prophets; I am not come to make void, but to fulfil.
    Matthew 5:17 (DRA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Do not think that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets. I am not come to destroy, but to fulfill.
    Matthew 5:17 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus and the Old Testament Writings

    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy the Law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them.

    Matthew 5:17 (ESV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Christ Came to Fulfill the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (ESVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Christ Came to Fulfil the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

    Matthew 5:17 (EXB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Importance of the Law and the Prophets

    17 “Don’t think that I have come to ·destroy [abolish; do away with] ·the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets [L the Law and the Prophets; C referring to the OT]. I have not come to destroy them but to ·bring about what they said [fulfill/complete them].

    Matthew 5:17 (GNV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the Law, or the Prophets. I am not come to destroy them, but to fulfill them.
    Matthew 5:17 (GW) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures

    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    Matthew 5:17 (GNT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.

    Matthew 5:17 (HCSB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Christ Fulfills the Law

    17 “Don’t assume that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    Matthew 5:17-20 (PHILLIPS) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Christ’s authority surpasses that of the Law

    17-20 “You must not think I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to complete them. Indeed, I assure you that, while Heaven and earth last, the Law will not lose a single dot or comma until its purpose is complete. This means that whoever now relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men to do the same will himself be called least in Heaven. But whoever teaches and practises them will be called great in the kingdom of Heaven. For I tell you that your goodness must be a far better thing then the goodness of the scribes and Pharisees before you can set foot in the kingdom of Heaven at all!

    Matthew 5:17 (JUB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 ¶ Think not that I am come to undo the law or the prophets; I am not come to undo, but to fulfil.
    Matthew 5:17 (KJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Matthew 5:17 (AKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil.

    Matthew 5:17 (LEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Sermon on the Mount: The Law and the Prophets Fulfilled

    17 “Do not think that I have come to destroy the law or the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (TLB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come—it isn’t to cancel the laws of Moses and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them and to make them all come true.

    Matthew 5:17-18 (MSG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Completing God’s Law

    17-18 “Don’t suppose for a minute that I have come to demolish the Scriptures—either God’s Law or the Prophets. I’m not here to demolish but to complete. I am going to put it all together, pull it all together in a vast panorama. God’s Law is more real and lasting than the stars in the sky and the ground at your feet. Long after stars burn out and earth wears out, God’s Law will be alive and working.

    Matthew 5:17 (NOG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures

    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside Moses’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.

    Matthew 5:17 (NASB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Do not think that I came to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I did not come to abolish but to fulfill.

    Matthew 5:17 (NCV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Importance of the Law

    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy the law of Moses or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they said.

    Matthew 5:17 (NET) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Fulfillment of the Law and Prophets

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets. I have not come to abolish these things but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (NIRV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Gives Full Meaning to the Law

    17 “Do not think I have come to get rid of what is written in the Law or in the Prophets. I have not come to do that. Instead, I have come to give full meaning to what is written.

    Matthew 5:17 (NIV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Fulfillment of the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (NIVUK) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The fulfilment of the law

    17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfil them.

    Matthew 5:17 (NKJV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Christ Fulfills the Law

    17 “Do not think that I came to destroy the Law or the Prophets. I did not come to destroy but to fulfill.

    Matthew 5:17 (NLV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Teaches about the Law

    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with the Law of Moses or the writings of the early preachers. I have not come to do away with them but to complete them.

    Matthew 5:17 (NLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law

    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish the law of Moses or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    Matthew 5:17 (NRSV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

    Matthew 5:17 (NRSVA) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil.

    Matthew 5:17 (NRSVACE) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 ‘Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfil.

    Matthew 5:17 (NRSVCE) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 “Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill.

    Mattityahu 5:17 (OJB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Do not think that I came to abolish the Torah or the Neviim. I did not come to abolish but to complete.
    Matthew 5:17 (RSV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

    Matthew 5:17 (RSVCE) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Law and the Prophets

    17 “Think not that I have come to abolish the law and the prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.

    Matthew 5:17 (VOICE) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Do not think that I have come to overturn or do away with the law or the words of our prophets. To the contrary: I have not come to overturn them but to fulfill them.

    Matthew 5:17 (WEB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Don’t think that I came to destroy the law or the prophets. I didn’t come to destroy, but to fulfill.

    Matthew 5:17 (WE) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 `Do not think that I have come to take away the law and the writings of the prophets. No, I have not come to take them away. But I have come to do what they say must be done.

    Matthew 5:17 (WYC) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 Do not ye deem, that I came to undo the law, or the prophets; I came not to undo the law, but to fulfill.
    Matthew 5:17 (YLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 `Do not suppose that I came to throw down the law or the prophets — I did not come to throw down, but to fulfill;

  6. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    Donal Graeme bears false witness against da GBFM, libeling and slandering da GBFM.

    Donal Graeme, “There is more, of course, but rather than simply quote the profane and often all but unreadable language of GBFM, I will translate some of his major arguments. ”

    Firstoff, my language is entirely readable by tens of thousands who love da GBFM. Your inability to bask in the Glory and Love of God is not their problem.

    Then, you accuse da GBFM of being profane.

    All that I am doing is quoting the “profanity” of Game, as defined by the “Great Heartiste.”

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/

    You will find da GBFM simply quoting the words there, and inserting them into the Sermon on the Mount, which Dalrock and Vox commandeth that we must do.

    When it comes to GAME, the Great Heartiste is far and above far, far greater than all other gamey bloggers. The readership and respect of the Great Heartiste makes Vox/Dalrock look like fledging altar boys before the Pope of Game.

    But one thing that the Great Heartiste does not do is conflate GAME with CHRISSTIANITY, as your idols DALROCK AND VOX DO.

    For this reason, and others, HEARTISTE is a greater Christian, and has a better understanding of Christianity then you and your idols Dalrock and Vox.

    Feel free to apologize for falsely castigating and impugning da GBFM and bearing false witness against Jesus and Moses, while libeling Christianity. For Jesus asks that we forgive those who repent, and shy away from sinning again in the future.

  7. mdavid444444

    Great post Donal. I think this theme is your métier. Some comments:

    1. Male and female God made us. Most of modern Christian squirming in the GBFM vein is merely a desire to reshape man into something other than how God made him. It can work in the short run (feminism), but not in the long run (the decline of the West). Btw, could you please trim or limit GBFM’s comments so they don’t take up the whole thread? It’s hard to read others with all that copy/paste.

    2. When in doubt as what is “authentic” human nature (natural law) versus what is merely sin, it is good to use Darwinian science as a guide. That is, does a said belief “have legs” (can it stand the test of time)? Is a particular tradition conducive to large families over time, or does it lead to family and community breakdown (such as the Canaanites, modern Russia, or feminism)?

    3. I’ve always regarded “game” as a basic masculine trait. While not required exactly, it’s a lot like a woman fixing her hair and looking sharp. Does a man want a woman who isn’t trying to maximize her womanly traits, even if only out of respect for her male companion? Likewise, does a woman really want a man who abrogates his masculine traits? While one can’t always say that a woman who won’t groom herself or a man who won’t lead his partner is “sinful”, one can suspect he or she is thumbing their noses at both their gender and the person who created them. In the same way, I feel GBFM has distaste for the proper male-female relationship God created where both parties are obligated to accentuate their gender for the sake of their partner. Unless, of course, one doesn’t take a partner at all. Only only then could one argue that the obligation goes away.

    4. It would be interesting for you to devote a post regarding negotiating marriage 2.0 for the Christian male. I’ve some legal and religious education and I’m constantly amazed at both the extreme danger to men to marry at all coupled with the rank ignorance most men exhibit regarding this reality. If one does take the plunge, he should at least be prepared! Marriage and children are the most dangerous things a man can do today, more than entering a combat zone, driving recklessly, or smoking like a chimney. The very least a guy should do is wear a seatbelt and yet most men don’t even know how to put one on…

  8. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    mdavid writes, ” Btw, could you please trim or limit GBFM’s comments so they don’t take up the whole thread? It’s hard to read others with all that copy/paste.”

    There you have it folks. When one quotes the Lord Jesus Christ on a “Christian” blog, the Churchians rush to ban and censor them, and accuse them of blaspheming because they are quoting the Lord Jesus Christ.

    Game on, worshippers of tinzgzlzlzozo and h8rs of the Word of Jesus Christ.

  9. This whole issue is one of semantics.

    Donal, GBFM is merely an advocate of following patriarchal teachings. I could even say that he limits his advocacy to that of patriarchal teachings as dictated within the Bible, with classical literature and history to both back those teachings up as well as to demonstrate what happens when patriarchal strengths veer from biblical teachings – as he occasionally shows when he quotes Iliad, Odyssey, and other sources not for lessons of what -to do- but of what -not- to do. It’s rare for him, as he generally likes to demonstrate masculine strength with passages he chooses from those, but it happens.

    The problem where semantics come in is that there is a very, VERY big difference between Godly Masculinity and Game, yet Dalrock and Vox lump them together. Heartiste does not. I’ve written before about the difference between temptation vs attraction. Temptation is the heart of Game, attraction is the heart of Christian Masculinity; though I actually would go farther and call it Adoration. My reason for this is that the reactions I’ve seen of women to Christian masculinity is a strong mirroring of the adoration a Christian woman will give to God.

    From what I’ve read of his, this adoration is what GBFM tries to get at – that a Christian woman who loves Christ will receive the Graces necessary to love men who follow the teachings of our Patriarchs – Christ being the ultimate one of those after the ones God gave us in the Old Testament from Abraham, Moses, David, all the way up to Joseph; husband of Mary and foster father to God. The lessons we’re shown in such figures are ones that we should follow, and that by doing so we will inspire such adoration from women who give adoration to God, and will not inspire such feelings from those that have a cold, hard heart when it comes to Our Lord.

    It should be noted that many, -MANY- of the things game advocates fall in line with those patriarchal teachings. However, when done for oneself instead of for one’s God, the whole thing gets twisted and warped. It becomes a thing of Pride if you do it for yourself, yet is the heart of all 7 virtues as they relate to married life if you do it for God while following the mission that he gave you – namely; that you will not turn your face away from God to gaze upon a woman, but invite her with you to gaze upon God’s greatness and following his will.

  10. grey_whiskers

    @mdavid444444 on Dec. 28, 2013 at 5:45 PM:
    3. I’ve always regarded “game” as a basic masculine trait. While not required exactly, it’s a lot like a woman fixing her hair and looking sharp. Does a man want a woman who isn’t trying to maximize her womanly traits, even if only out of respect for her male companion? Likewise, does a woman really want a man who abrogates his masculine traits? While one can’t always say that a woman who won’t groom herself or a man who won’t lead his partner is “sinful”, one can suspect he or she is thumbing their noses at both their gender and the person who created them. In the same way, I feel GBFM has distaste for the proper male-female relationship God created where both parties are obligated to accentuate their gender for the sake of their partner. Unless, of course, one doesn’t take a partner at all. Only only then could one argue that the obligation goes away.

    It is fascinating in this regard, to consider the possibility that make up, doing one’s hair, and dressing nice (the agreed-upon “attraction triggers” for men) are explicitly discouraged in the Scriptures:

    1 Peter 3: 3-4 says:
    3 Your beauty should not come from outward adornment, such as elaborate hairstyles and the wearing of gold jewelry or fine clothes. 4 Rather, it should be that of your inner self, the unfading beauty of a gentle and quiet spirit, which is of great worth in God’s sight.

    When you combine this with the admonition to the Christian men to “treat the younger women like sisters in all purity” …(1 Timothy 5:2)

    it implies that
    a) early Christian teaching on relations between the sexes are NOT geared towards tingles or sexual attraction, but how best to serve God
    (which ties in with 1 Cor. 7:27, “Are you bound to a wife? Do not seek to be free. Are you free from a wife? Do not seek a wife.” as well as verses 32-35, “The unmarried man is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to please the Lord. 33 But the married man is anxious about worldly things, how to please his wife, 34 and his interests are divided. And the unmarried or betrothed woman is anxious about the things of the Lord, how to be holy in body and spirit. But the married woman is anxious about worldly things, how to please her husband. 35 I say this for your own benefit, gnot to lay any restraint upon you, but to promote good order and to secure your undivided devotion to the Lord.”)

    b) virtually *everything* in the current SMP / MMP is out of whack
    (see also Dalrock’s excellent post Lovestruck :http://dalrock.wordpress.com/2013/04/15/lovestruck/)

    Some may argue, “Get your head out of your ass, grey_whiskers; or out of the clouds, or both. This is REALITY.”
    No, it isn’t reality; it is merely the reality of fallen man.
    But to the Christians, the verses in the Bible are commands — to both men AND women — on how God is *telling* us to act; a command for us to act SUPERnaturally, and not a description of “how things are going to happen naturally.”

    May I suggest that the rot in the Church started long before the feminization and “man up and marry those sluts” (TM).

  11. @ Ton

    Depending on how one defines Negs, you might be right. Like all things Game, definition is everything.

    As for Game being required for a happy marriage, I think you are probably right.

  12. @ GBFM

    If you are not willing to engage in a substantive debate over the merits of your post, or of mine, then I will delete your further comments. I know that you are capable of it, I’ve seen some insightful and intelligent comments from you before. What you have written thus far are neither.

    Convince me you are right, and I will acknowledge it. But that requires you to engage myself, and other commenters, in good faith.

    Oh, and in the future, posting every single translation of a specific verse from the Bible will not be necessary. Just provide a link to the compilation, thank you.

  13. @ mdavid

    I think that a post on that subject would be valuable, but it would take me a long time to write it, as I would have to spend a fair amount of time and effort on research. Something to consider for the future, certainly.

  14. @ Leap

    Thanks for the great response. It has given me some ideas for a short follow up, as the original post is long enough as is.

  15. Donal,
    I look forward to reading it.

  16. mdavid444444

    LOAB, GBFM is merely an advocate of following patriarchal teachings. I could even say that he limits his advocacy to that of patriarchal teachings as dictated within the Bible…

    I’m wondering where the biblical book Song of Solomon fits into GBFM’s patriarchal teaching…

    Behold, you are beautiful, my love, behold, you are beautiful! Your eyes are doves behind your veil. Your hair is like a flock of goats leaping down the slopes of Gilead…Your lips are like a scarlet thread, and your mouth is lovely. Your cheeks are like halves of a pomegranate behind your veil…Your two breasts are like two fawns, twins of a gazelle, that graze among the lilies.

    One of the fascinating consequences of Sola Scriptura is a rapid decay into bizarre teachings that nobody in Christian history has ever believed…or was even preached within classical literature and history.

    Female beauty, and male dominance, are both positive qualities of mankind created by God. But like anything good, they can be abused, which is why Scripture ofts warns of them when taken to excess or placed above God. But never before in history has anyone (outside of a few freaks like Quakers who failed the Darwinian fitness test due to lack of breeding) treated them sex differences as inherently bad.

    donal, I think that a post on that subject would be valuable, but it would take me a long time to write it, as I would have to spend a fair amount of time and effort on research.

    If you ever need a quest post… Just kidding; it wouldn’t be fair to scare all you children :-).

  17. mdavid444444

    GBFM, There you have it folks. When one quotes the Lord Jesus Christ on a “Christian” blog, the Churchians rush to ban and censor them

    You posted 5+ pages! of cut-paste translations of a simple sentence. You could have done it in one: Μὴ νομίσητε ὅτι ἦλθον καταλῦσαι τὸν νόμον, ἢ τοὺς προφήτας οὐκ ἦλθον καταλῦσαι, ἀλλὰ πληρῶσαι and given given whatever translation you prefer in the next line. Requests for politeness is now censorship? Sheese.

  18. jack

    A true Christian wife should respond to an honest display of male leadership.

    We all have primal/feral urges to master. Women must learn to master theirs if they are to be true to Christian principles.

    I should not have to “game” my employer into paying me every other friday.

    Nor should I have to strategize and learn ways to keep my wife’s hypergamic impulses in check.

    Now, just because I SHOULDN’T have to does not mean I MAY not have to.

    I may have to game her until she decides to live by the principles she claims to follow. But GBFM is right – you should not have to game a true Christian wife. The world will be full of opponents for the Christian man. His wife need not be one of them.

  19. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    Above donalgraeme writes, “Since GBFM loves to talk about the law of Moses, lets discuss it briefly.”

    This is a remarkable and telling comment from a Churchian, who thinks that Moses is irrelevant to Christianity.

    I pointed this out by showing how Jesus also loved to “talk about the law of Moses,” and was threatened with being banned and censored.

    Our Lord Jesus Christ Honored The Law of Moses, which donalgraeme detesteth and scoffs at, considering only worthy of “brief discussion,” and only because GBFM brought it up. Well, long before da GBFM, our Lord Jesus Christ also brought it up–in these translations Jesus cites THE LAW OF MOSES directly:

    Matthew 5:17 (CEV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    THE LAW OF MOSES
    17 Don’t suppose that I came to do away with the Law and the Prophets. I did not come to do away with them, but to give them their full meaning.
    Matthew 5:17 (ERV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus and the Old Testament Writings
    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy THE LAW OF MOSES or the teaching of the prophets. I have come not to destroy their teachings but to give full meaning to them.
    Matthew 5:17 (GW) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures
    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside MOSES’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (GNT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law
    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with THE LAW OF MOSES and the teachings of the prophets. I have not come to do away with them, but to make their teachings come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (TLB) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come—it isn’t to cancel THE LAWS OF MOSES and the warnings of the prophets. No, I came to fulfill them and to make them all come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (NOG) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Fulfills the Old Testament Scriptures
    17 “Don’t ever think that I came to set aside MOSES’ Teachings or the Prophets. I didn’t come to set them aside but to make them come true.
    Matthew 5:17 (NCV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    The Importance of the Law
    17 “Don’t think that I have come to destroy THE LAW OF MOSES or the teaching of the prophets. I have not come to destroy them but to bring about what they said.
    Matthew 5:17 (NLV) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Jesus Teaches about the Law
    17 “Do not think that I have come to do away with THE LAW OF MOSES or the writings of the early preachers. I have not come to do away with them but to complete them.
    Matthew 5:17 (NLT) | In Context | Whole Chapter
    Teaching about the Law
    17 “Don’t misunderstand why I have come. I did not come to abolish THE LAW OF MOSES or the writings of the prophets. No, I came to accomplish their purpose.

    Dear donalgraeme,

    Go ahead and delete this. I am copying it and taking a screenshot of it, so that the world can know that you are A) bearing false witness against Jesus and Christianity and B) Censoring and deleting Jesus’s own words so that you can replace true Christinaity with your gamey version which denies the LAW OF MOSES which JESUS CAME TO FULFILL.

    donalgraeme writes,

    “If you are not willing to engage in a substantive debate over the merits of your post, or of mine, then I will delete your further comments.”

    Nice ad hominem attack. Typical Churchian reaction to actually having to read the glorious words of OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST who exalts THE LAW OF MOSES but not your failed, decrepit CHURCHIAN GAME.

    Go ahead, make my day. The Pharisees also censored, banned, and crucified Christ. Par for the Churchian course.

    But the thing is, the Lord Jesus Christ will endure, no matter how many times you banish and condemn those who quote and Honor Him.

    The world will little note nor long remember your violent transgressions against the spirit of Christmas, but it will yet celebrate JESUS and THE LAW OF MOSES for millenia to come.

    Just because you, Dalrock, and Vox failed to honor JESUS by exalting the LAW OF MOSES, and thusly allowed GAME/TINGLELZOZOZOZ to rule your CHURCHIAN CHURCHES, don’t try to crucify Christ now and resurrect Him in your own Gamey image as a slave to tingzlzlzozlzizuzlzlzoz.

  20. @ GBFM

    You misunderstand me sir. I am in no way denigrating the Law of Moses. Far from it. Much of the reason why things have become so bad in the so called “Christian West” is because we have abandoned wholesale the Law of Moses. Which, as you note, was affirmed by Jesus in word and deed (I’m a bit surprised you didn’t mention the Transfiguration, actually).

    My comment, which you quote in the beginning of your latest comment, was sarcastic. It was sarcastic because despite your love of the Law of Moses (and this is not a bad thing, it is good to love God’s laws), you didn’t appreciate the value it played in setting up social controls on women. The Law of Moses served many purposes, and while one of them is no longer the case (Salvation), the others are still valid. And among them you have ordering society in a stable way that will enable the culture and faith to survive in a hostile world. It was because the early Christians didn’t abandon God’s laws that they didn’t “need” Game in marriage. Not to mention the overall environment was such that women weren’t actively encouraged (as they are today) to rebel against their husband’s authority and in some cases blow up their marriages.

    Dear donalgraeme,

    Go ahead and delete this. I am copying it and taking a screenshot of it, so that the world can know that you are A) bearing false witness against Jesus and Christianity and B) Censoring and deleting Jesus’s own words so that you can replace true Christinaity with your gamey version which denies the LAW OF MOSES which JESUS CAME TO FULFILL.

    I have no intention of deleting your latest comment. It is the kind of comment which I was asking for in the first place.

  21. Oh, and to expand on my last…

    I very much would like to see Christians return to God’s laws (the Law of Moses). However, they are not in place now, they were abandoned long ago. And until they return, for some men it may be necessary for them to utilize some aspects of Game to preserve their marriage. And even for those women who will honor their vows, a husband using aspects of Game to buttress her attraction to him will make marriage better for both of them.

  22. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    donalgraeme writes, “IV. Conclusion
    It cannot be denied that before the advent of Marriage 2.0, it wasn’t necessary for Christian men to have to Game their wives. Nor did they face an environment which was set up to ruin marriage as much as possible. Unfortunately, we do live in the Marriage 2.0 regime now, and Christian men must adapt to the times.”

    Real Christian Men would Man Up and Exalt Christ and Moses, rather than Denying Their Teachings, just to serve tingzlzlzzo and kneel before a woman’s whims.

    donalgraeme writes, “For some men, that means a decision on their part not to marry. For others, that means marrying and accepting the possibility that their wives may blow up their marriages at any time, and they have no means of recourse.”

    my tender little lamb donalgreme, if a woman can blow up a marriage at any time, IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE! Which do Churchians hate more–the teachings of Christ and Moses or the Obovious?

    And what about Great Men like Heartiste who Speak the Truth That Sets Us Free?

    donalgraeme writes, “Those Christian men who take their chances in marriage must use whatever methods of maintaining control in their marriage are available, with Game being one of the few things still left in the toolbox. Should any of this be necessary? Of course not. But these are evil and desperate times, and desperate times call for desperate measures.”

    my tender little lamb donalgreme, if you enter into a non-Christian marriage and then have to act in a non-Christian, gamey manner bowing down beofre a woman’s tingzlzozoz instead of honoring Our Lord Jesus Christ and the Law of Moses to maintain the un-Christian marriage, how exactly are your serving Christ? What about these Unholy acts makes one a Christian?

    Now you people see why I mostly just go zlzlozoozlzzoozzo instead of reasoning with Christ-opposing Chruchians.

    The sad thing is they destroyed the Glory of Christ and Desouled the Church all for a little bernankified nookiezizlzzizizzlozlzozozo.

  23. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    Dear donalgraeme,

    Since you are such a huge fan of game, can you please explain which of its tenets your find Holy and Christian:

    http://heartiste.wordpress.com/the-sixteen-commandments-of-poon/

    Please do let us know! List them here and sing them to the High Heavens, while persecuting da GBFM for quoting our Lord Jesus Christ and Moses.

    [Ed: Seriously, where are you getting this martyr complex from? No one is persecuting you here on the net. I offered a critique of one of your arguments, and have given you a chance to respond.]

  24. @ GBFM

    Real Christian Men would Man Up and Exalt Christ and Moses, rather than Denying Their Teachings, just to serve tingzlzlzzo and kneel before a woman’s whims.

    Agreed.

    my tender little lamb donalgreme, if a woman can blow up a marriage at any time, IT IS NOT A CHRISTIAN MARRIAGE! Which do Churchians hate more–the teachings of Christ and Moses or the Obovious?

    Did you read that link I provided about Roman law? Women back then could blow up their marriages, just as they can today. Does that mean that the early Christians didn’t have Christian marriages? I mean, what the heck was Paul talking about then when he was teaching on Christian marriage?

    Truth is, someone could always blow up their marriage in the past, even if they were a Christian. But Christians still married. Its just that in the past their were often serious consequences for it. Now there really aren’t, at least, not for women. Christian marriage still exists, because no State can overcome or override what God has set in place. But as always, one of the two partners can decide to violate the covenant none the less. Doesn’t mean that it wasn’t a Christian marriage to begin with.

  25. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    My tender, lost lamb donalgraeme,

    How many more times are you going to force me to quote Our Lord Jesus stating that He Came To Fulfill The Law Of Moses.

    Just because you, Dalrock, and Vox, failed follow Jesus’s LEAD and exalt the LAW OF MOSES and OLD TESTAMENT in your CHURCHES, doesn’t give you the right to bastardize Christianity and transform your Churchian Churches into Gamey clubs/brothels worshipping at the altar of gina tingzlzozozozozl instead of the LAW OF MOSES which JESUS CAME NOT TO ABOLISH, BUT TO FULFILL.

    A new generation will rise who HONORETH THE FATHER, and they shall resurrect the TRUE CHURCH, leaving you with your gamey clubs/brothels and hatred of Christ and Moses.

    [Ed: Nice job ignoring my argument, by the way. Care to explain how Christian marriage existed back then but doesn’t now? Oh, and nice accusation against Vox and Dalrock. I’m sure that they have advocated making Game part of official Christian teaching in their posts.]

  26. Ok, that should be easy enough.

    3 is the one that seems pretty much consistent with Christian teaching.

    As for the others, some are clearly unChristian, but others aren’t necessarily in violation of God’s laws. They are neutral on their face, and could be used for good or evil.

    1 is probably not violate of God’s laws, although its questionable.

    3 is perfectly keeping with Christian teaching.

    4 is also right. You should play by God’s rules, not hers.

    6 isn’t necessarily a problem either.

    8 makes sense, and isn’t wrong on the face of it.

    9 is smart and not necessarily opposed to God’s laws.

    10 seems consistent with Scripture, actually. Beauty is fleeting, and all that.

    12 is just common sense.

    14 is over the top, but then again, there is Song of Songs…

    15 seems like a pretty good description of being in control, an example of Godly Masculinity.

    16 is interesting. The command to walk away from her is wrong. But fearing losing her is wrong as well. We should only fear the Lord.

    Oh, and Heartiste, for all the attention you show him, is not the be all and end all of Game. Game existed before he was born (although it wasn’t called Game then), and will exist after he is dead (and might have another name then).

  27. Great Books For Men GreatBooksForMen GBFM (TM) GB4M (TM) GR8BOOKS4MEN (TM) lzozozozozlzo (TM)

    There you go again, attacking Heartiste in addition to denying Christ and Moses.
    [Ed: Whiskey Tango Foxtrot? Attacking Heartiste? Really?]

    Churchians have no shame and deserve every divorce/broken marriage they get. Their failed gamey crusade shall soon be forgotten, while the Christ and Moses they castigated, ignored, belittled, censored, and impugned shall Rise Again and Serve the Rising Generation who honors the Law of Moses and our Lord Jesus Christ over gamey game and gina tiznzgzlzlozozozo.

    “Those who live by the tingzlzozozozozl shall die by the tingzlzlzozozlzoz” -GBFM

  28. Pingback: Godly Masculinity Versus Game | Donal Graeme

  29. Pingback: Jesus Christ Exalted the Law of Moses, not Dalrock / Vox Gamey Game. More Gamey Churchians Threaten to Ban and Censor the Words of Da GBGM for Quoting Jesus Christ and Honoring THE LAW OF MOSES Over Gamey Churchian Butt and Gina Tingalalozozzoozzo | Great

  30. Pingback: “I will betroth you to me in faithfulness. And you shall know the Lord.” | Sunshine Mary

  31. Pingback: The Last Couple Weeks in Reaction | The Reactivity Place

  32. Pingback: Lightning Round – 2014/01/08 | Free Northerner

  33. Pingback: Further Ruminations on Game | Donal Graeme

  34. Pingback: Reclamation | Donal Graeme

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s