Author Archives: Free Northerner

Unrealistic Expectations

Donal pointed out this comment by Elspeth:

Most people (men and women) have unrealistic expectations, about themselves, about what they are worth, about what they should be able to have. And those who know they can’t have what they want will go without. Especially men. I’ve heard a couple of young men actually say that.

He then defended those with reasonable, but possibly unrealistic requirements. (Read his post for definitions).

I’m going to go farther: as a man you should have unrealistic requirements for marriage. I’ve created my list for marriage and it’s reasonable, but possibly not realistic.

Based on previous analyses only about 40% of women are even worth considering for marriage looks-wise (ie. are not fat or actively ugly) and only about 30% of women would be in the 0-2 sexual partners category (although, that’s a bit higher if you go younger) and less than half have not had a one-night stand. Throw on top of that that you should almost never* marry a woman over 30 and be wary of those over 25, and your pickings are getting slim. That’s not even considering the much more important (for marriage) aspects of personality and inner beauty.

we can estimate that only about a fifth of eligible women would be even worth considering marrying. If we then look towards such things as religion, shared values, mutual compatibility, personality, and the like, the percentage of women that would make a decent wife for any particular man is shockingly low. (The only reprieve is a man only needs one reciprocating girl to meet those requirements).

If only 20% of women are worthy wives, then that means that 80% of men are not going to be able to find a worthy wife. Now, it should be noted that most men won’t meet the requirements a worthy wife should have and many men will choose unworthy wives, but still, if even a quarter of men are waiting for worthy wives that means that 20% of those men are simply going to have to do without.

****

It is better to live in a corner of the housetop
than in a house shared with a quarrelsome wife. (Proverbs 25:24 ESV)

While a good marriage can be a great blessing, the consequences of choosing an unworthy wife are huge.

I remember reading somewhere (I can’t find the link) that 70% of marriages either end in divorce or perpetual unhappiness, which means that only 30% of marriages end up being happy and healthy. (That’s pretty close to my estimation that only 20% of women who are worthy wives, is it not?)

There is a 40% chance the marriage will end in divorce, the odds of which are strongly effected by how worthy the wife is. The cost of an average divorce to a man is about $150,000, the price of a smaller house. (This does not include child support, which will run an average man a pretty penny as well). The emotional costs of divorce are also huge: it is better to be single than divorced.

But even if the family stays together, there’s a chance the marriage will be miserable. Number I’ve read range all over the place. This study shows that 97% of marriages are ‘very’ or ‘pretty’ happy with their marriage, while this one shows 80% are satisfied with their relationship. I’ve seen lots of other numbers bandied around of anywhere from 20-60%, but most of these did not seem supported by anything. 80% satisfaction sounds right, which means 20% of marriages not ending in divorce are unhappy.

So, there’s a 50-70% chance that a marriage will be unhappy or end in divorce. If a man chooses a wife wrong, he will end up miserable.

****

Men should have unrealistic (but no unreasonable) requirements for marriage. IF only a fifth of women display the qualities that make a good wife, not all men will be able to find a good wife. Going without is much superior to entering a marriage that will end in divorce or misery.

So hold those requirements high and be unrealistic if necessary to so.

****

Before the accusations of misogyny start flying, know that I also advocate women demanding more from their relationships. Women should also hold high requirements for marriage and relationships.

****

* I have talked with one girl approaching 30 whom, had circumstances been different, I may have considered, but she had been engaged in her mid-20s then the guy calling it off because she wouldn’t have sex with him until marriage. There are not many women out there with that level of virtue, but every rule has an exception.

Preventing the Killing Fields

There was a discussion on Twitter of which I was not a part concerning Anders Breivik. Alice Teller made the following point:

I agree, it is better to lose to chaos than to become chaos ourselves. While killing children under the direct command of God may be acceptable, we do not have and likely will never have that divine command and hoping we can receive it is abhorrent. A divine command that horrific is something that should be feared, not desired.

I bring this up because just last week while reading of Rotherham I wrote a rash Tweet in anger to the effect of: ‘Where is England’s Breivik to cleanse Rotherham? No jury in the world would convict you.’ I deleted it a little while later because while I still support crucifying everybody who was involved with supporting foreigners in sexually enslaving English children, holding up a child murderer as a positive example is simply wrong.

Which brings me to my point: the goal of neoreaction is to prevent Breivik-style mass murders.

Eventually, there will be a reaction against the current order as white men lose their trust in government officials as they watch them support foreigners as they rape their daughters, murder their sons, steal their jobs, destroy their freedoms, and ransack the national treasury. They will feel rage, as it is only natural to feel rage, and they respond to this rage with right-wing folk activism. Breivik was not a madman, he was the first reaction of the powerless white working-class against their masters and their masters’ imported voting-class.

Right now, violence is the only response available to the white working class. If the situation stays as is, eventually the white working class will respond the only way they can. When one’s own are threatened, a violent response is the natural response; it is currently not white men’s response because white men are unnaturally generous and their ethnic identity has been repressed. But this could rapidly change if their good nature is abused.

The goal of the neoreactionary project is to ensure that it never comes to the point where working-class white males need to slaughter imported foreigners en masse to be able to be able to celebrate their own culture and ethnicity and be treated justly in their own lands.

****

Sidenote: When I’ve written on this before, some of whined that I’m making threats. I am not. This is not a threat, this is reality. Most men need a few things to be content: a wife, a family, meaningful work, and a cultural space into which he can fit. The modern progressive order is robbing men of all of this. When the white man realizes he has no place, he will become discontent. Enough discontent among the working-class will lead to violence, it always has and always will.

This is the way it is. It is not a threat, it is simply the way reality works.

Lightning Round – 2014/09/10

The results of the longest longitudinal study of men ever.

“I’m not interested in your opinion.”
Related: Another useful phrase: “Pardon me?”

How to be a professional artist.

The basics of flirting.

How to get an education without going to college.
Related: College is a means not an end.

Attraction, desire, and Christian marriage.
Related: A Christian manosphere glossary.

Chad finishes up his parable response to me. Related.
Related: A response to my recent genocide posts. Related.

What to look for in a wife.
Related: What a woman should look for in a husband.

Roosh asks: is this it?

Traditionalism and castes.

The hidden variable of neoreaction.
Related: NRx vs. progressivism.

Why Glanton is not a neoreactionary.

Towards a neoreactionary aesthetic.
Related: Bonds of chaos.
Related: Chaos and Dugin.

What Rotherham signifies.
Related: Boko Haram vs. Rotherham: Awareness-raising vs. awareness-lowering.
Related: British holiness.
Related: The NYT covers Rotherham.
Related: Anecdote of cousin kidnapped and raped with feminist support.

The only way out of a degenerative ratchet is catastrophe.

The public beauty deficit.

Field report: COCK.

Memes, reproduction, and Moloch.

The war on culture.

The wickedness of the media

Language is propaganda.
Related: Weaponizing orthodoxy.

How would a humanist hedonist design a society?

American government sides with foreigners against its citizens.
Related: Illegal immigration and employment.
Related: Conventional wisdom wrong on immigration once again.

The expanding circle of empathy.

Jim explains gamersgate.
Related: SJW’s hates gamers because gamers are immune to social rejection.
Related: The end of the gaming press.

From the teaching front lines. Related.

British ‘conservatives’ are as bad as Labour.
Related: Timothy Stanley, sucker of the summer.

A neoreactionary position on Scotland.
Related: What is the point of Scottish independence?

The BRIC’s separate world system.

Wars of the last 50 years.

Chaos at the top of the USG.
Related: America in decay.

The fruits of our intervention in Libya.

Kristof battles his commenters.

The end of the cult of Buckley.

Stop whining, start killing.

Socialization of costs is a moral hazard.

California State University de-recognizes IVCF.

China is going about destroying Christianity the wrong way.

Joel Osteen is the heretic America deserves.
Related: The MSM disccovers the personal Jesus.

Being a Christian can be offensive.

Nothing new under the sun.

Nice guys finish last.
Related: Study: Men are more romantic.

The ghosts of the alpha widow.
Related: Why low N matters.

Amicable divorce just as damaging as hostile divorce.
Related: What caused the men of Reddit to divorce.

The true risk of rape culture.

Kate Millet’s sister: Feminism ruins lives.
Related: Feminism rules: 25% of women in 40/50s take anti-depressents.

Catcalling womansplained.

The BS of Tor’s viking warrior women story.

The friendzone from the female perspective.

Arizona statutory rape victim forced to pay child support to rapist.
Related: How the law punishes boys who are raped.

Australian women sends sexual pics of her daughters to man: will be let off easy to spend time with daughters.

Canadian woman suing ex-BF for causing her to fail a class.

WRE: Barbershop edition.

Feminists have more masculinized digit ratios.

Vasagel research continues.

Less than a decade after the housing collapse, anti-redlining crusades start up again.

Who gets shot in America?

Protecting yourself from vibrancy.
Related: Another group of ’youths’ beating a man.
Related: “Adolescents” attacking “artists” in New Orleans.

On the Bruce Levenson racism event.

Just another hate crime hoax.

Geekdom has jumped the shark.

A review of the Communist Manifesto.

Economists ignoring individual preferences.

Another reason the stock market is overvalued.

The virtues of proportional representation.

Ivies need standardized tests.

A college bubble indicator.
Related: Almost half of recent college graduates are in jobs not requiring a degree.

Notes from reading military history.

Psychopathy is adaptive.

The wages of socialism: Venezuela set to import oil.

Britain faces winter of blackouts.
Related: Britain is poorer than every US state.

Canadian jihadist happy with CBC coverage.

What a coincidence: The IRS is losing the e-mails of everyone involved in the IRS scandal.

On literary derivation.

Heinlein as a fascist.

Arrested for writing science fiction.

Scalzi, the death of SF, and SF’s renewal.

A map of the rationalist community.

5 things movies get wrong about gunfights.

The identity of Jack the Ripper has been found.

In defence of movies.

H/T: HBDC, SCC, RPR, Land, SDA, Vox, Malcolm, Wright

A Quick Response

Continuing our genocide conversation, Malcolm points to a women who divorced her husband after ‘signs from the Lord’. My (hopefully final) response is short and twofold:

a) Is she a prophet through whom divine revelation flows?

b) Where in that mess of self-justification does God directly and undeniably command her to divorce?

All I read looking through the link is someone selfishly deciding to do something, then looking for every possible excuse to not feel guilty.

****

Maybe I have not been communicating as effectively as possible. While a specific divine command may override more general commands for the specified action/time/event, this is not some lightly taken thing.

In the Bible these overriding commands occurred when God spoke directly to and through His prophets while shaping the God-chosen nation the of Israel. Anybody receiving and transmitting a divine command from the Lord is a prophet and being a prophet is not something taken lightly. It is a major, nation-shaping event and any proclaimed prophet has tests to pass for which the penalty for failure is death (and likely damnation).

Breaking God’s law under God’s command is not something done lightly. There is no, ‘I was praying and saw a whisp of smoke, then my preacher spoke on something vaguely related’ to it. It is ‘God spoke directly to me clearly and unmistakeably and called me to Himself through miracles, angels, and visions.’

In the Bible, the prophets were clearly and unmistakeably called by God. They were generally hesitant to obey God and had fairly miserable lives. Those they prophesied to/for/against generally did not like what they had to say (hence, Saul disobeying Samuel) and usually responded grudgingly, at best. So, when I write of following a revealed divine command, it is no small thing I speak of. It is a divine revelation of Biblical proportions that you will likely detest and will shatter your life and the lives of those around you.

A prophecy isn’t needed to call people to do what they want or would have done anyway. Anybody using a divine command to justify something they wanted to do already is engaging in delusional self-justification and anybody desiring divine revelation for themselves strikes me as foolish.

When I talk of a divine command it is something on a fundamentally different order than the everyday Christian interactions with God such as praying over which job to take, learning something revealing from a sermon, the small coincidences of life chalked up to God’s grace, ‘small morsels from God’, or feeling God uplifted you through worship.

****

Finally, on the topic of divorce and divine command, we can look to Ezra.

While Ezra prayed and made confession, weeping and casting himself down before the house of God, a very great assembly of men, women, and children, gathered to him out of Israel, for the people wept bitterly. And Shecaniah the son of Jehiel, of the sons of Elam, addressed Ezra: “We have broken faith with our God and have married foreign women from the peoples of the land, but even now there is hope for Israel in spite of this. Therefore let us make a covenant with our God to put away all these wives and their children, according to the counsel of my lord and of those who tremble at the commandment of our God, and let it be done according to the Law. Arise, for it is your task, and we are with you; be strong and do it.” Then Ezra arose and made the leading priests and Levites and all Israel take an oath that they would do as had been said. So they took the oath.

Then Ezra withdrew from before the house of God and went to the chamber of Jehohanan the son of Eliashib, where he spent the night, neither eating bread nor drinking water, for he was mourning over the faithlessness of the exiles. And a proclamation was made throughout Judah and Jerusalem to all the returned exiles that they should assemble at Jerusalem, and that if anyone did not come within three days, by order of the officials and the elders all his property should be forfeited, and he himself banned from the congregation of the exiles.

Then all the men of Judah and Benjamin assembled at Jerusalem within the three days. It was the ninth month, on the twentieth day of the month. And all the people sat in the open square before the house of God, trembling because of this matter and because of the heavy rain. And Ezra the priest stood up and said to them, “You have broken faith and married foreign women, and so increased the guilt of Israel. Now then make confession to the LORD, the God of your fathers and do his will. Separate yourselves from the peoples of the land and from the foreign wives.” Then all the assembly answered with a loud voice, “It is so; we must do as you have said. But the people are many, and it is a time of heavy rain; we cannot stand in the open. Nor is this a task for one day or for two, for we have greatly transgressed in this matter. Let our officials stand for the whole assembly. Let all in our cities who have taken foreign wives come at appointed times, and with them the elders and judges of every city, until the fierce wrath of our God over this matter is turned away from us.” Only Jonathan the son of Asahel and Jahzeiah the son of Tikvah opposed this, and Meshullam and Shabbethai the Levite supported them.

Then the returned exiles did so. Ezra the priest selected men, heads of fathers’ houses, according to their fathers’ houses, each of them designated by name. On the first day of the tenth month they sat down to examine the matter; and by the first day of the first month they had come to the end of all the men who had married foreign women.

(Ezra 10:1-17 ESV)

Weasels and a Rhetorical Lesson

I’ve been trying to work on my rhetoric as I’ve never been very good at it, and have troubles with those with higher improvisational, verbalization abilities. So, as a learning exercise for myself and others, I’m going to go over a Twitter conversation I had a couple weeks ago that will illustrate some common occurrences when debating leftist weasels.

To begin with, here’s the background. CRX48 posted this and the homosexual brigade dogpiled him over the course of multiple tweet ‘conversations’.

Here was one of their responses which played a part later:

If you look at this @homophobiaphobes account, it’s dedicated almost entirely to tracking down ‘homophobes’ (a word which, as we’ll see later, has absolutely no definition beyond a person this homosexual dislikes) and starting 2-minute hates on their Twitter feeds.

https://twitter.com/homophobiaphobe

That’s the background. At one point CRX posted this:

To which the homosexual replied:

I replied with this and the game was on:

Remember, homophobe, racist, sexist, bigot, shitlord, etc. have no real semantic meaning, they are not words that reflect a reality reality in any way. They exist solely as ad hominem attacks on people progressives don’t like.

When a leftist uses a word, especially an emotionally loaded word like homophobe, sexist, racist, etc., always get them to define it. Leftists do not beleive in truth; they ideologically hate truth. They don’t beleive words are used to refer to real concepts for teh purposes of communication, but rather they exist as tools of power. If you do not get them to define a word, they will change the meaning of the word to whatever is most convenient to their emotional state at the time.

I ask for a definition, and notice the wording: “Most people use it to mean…”. This is specifically stated so that the leftist can continue to use the word however she wants. A leftist will deliberately try to avoid attaching a real definition to one of their emotionally charged words, because then it will lose its power if they do. Press them; force them to define words. You’ll see why was we go.

This is just the first weasel attempt, plenty more to follow.

Again, the leftist weasel will dodge to avoid having to actually having to do a real debate. Remember, she said I don’t udnerstand what it means then refused to provide what it means. We can watch the lying weasel dance for quite a while:

Lying leftist weasels will absolutely refuse to define their terms when it comes to their favoured shit-flinging phrases. Press, press, press. Never, ever let them use emotionally-loaded words on their terms. They will abuse them like the dishonest liars they are.

Now, there was a second thread occurring at the same time.

Again, the leftist will straight out lie. The whole thing started with the original tweet against public sexual displays, but admitting that would show how much BS her original accusation was. So she will deny.

Warning, the links in these next two tweets range from mildly NSFW to extremely NSFW.

This is in response to the first set of links, linking to some homosexual/fetish street parties in SF. Here we see the leftist through equivocation; she’s very subtlety trying to change the terms of the debate.

Remember, the original tweet referred to “that “pride parade” mentality where rather than keeping private things private they demand we watch. It’s sick.” Obviously a gay fetish parade would count, but because the parade wasn’t specifically labelled ‘pride’ the lying weasel tries to shift the terms to a false rigorous exactitude that never existed. Also note

Always be aware of weaselly attempts to shift terms or to bring into play exactitudes that don’t exist. Failing to notice can lead to a rhetorical trap.

I call her on her dishonesty:

Her dishonesty readily apparent, she switches tactics:

When a leftist is losing she will retreat to disqualifying you for whatever reason. The reason for disqualifying you doesn’t matter, its almost always a dishonest tactics rather than an actual true belief. Never let a leftist disqualify you. If their disqualification was a true reason for ignoring your argument they would have ignored you from the beginning. A disqualification partly through a conversation is always a tactic taken because they are losing.

Also, because the disqualificaiton is always an excuse, never defend against it. It is a sign blood has been drawn, press the attack:

This is to the second tweet of links, which were to homosexual-friendly mainstream news and therefore didn’t show anything R-Rated. These pictures do include fetish gear, public floggings, men wearing only sexualized jockstraps, sexualized dancing/grinding, almost full nudity (for example, one man had no more than a cap on his penis head), shirtless women, etc. But because they do not include anyone actively sticking their dick in someone else’s orificies she counts this as ‘no sexual acts’.

Anyone not completely sexually jaded would realize these are sexual acts, but again, lying weasels will be selectively (and falsely) precise when it suits their ideological needs of the moment.

Also note the subtle shift of terms. I said sexual displays earlier, which she changed to sexual acts. The latter being somewhat defensible through selective pedantry, the former not. Lying weasels will shift terms to cosntruct rhetorical traps, do not let them.

Whenever lying weasels do this, call them on it.

They’ll try to keep going with their dishonesty, keep calling them on it:

Again, the lying progressive weasel will try to define terms to whatever is emotionally or ideologically convenient at the moment.

From here it kind of petered out. I thought I had another closing tweet but can’t seem to find it in Twitter’s interface.

Anyone, the points to take from this: progressives are naturally dishonest and will use words as weapons rather than as reflections of reality used to communicate information. Make them define terms and don’t let them get away with dishonest equivocating or the shifting of terms.

 

Responses to Genocidal Mercy

I wrote on the Israelite genocides a couple posts ago and am going to respond to a few of the response here.

First, Zippy responded, to others and possibly me, in two posts, here and here.

When the Bible tells us that Samuel said “Thus sayeth the Lord of Hosts”, it is entirely possible that it is giving a literal account of words actually spoken by the actual prophet Samuel. I rather expect that it is; although that is not the only possible interpretation, and inerrancy only really guarantees that true and accurate interpretations exist, it doesn’t guarantee that I have it right.

But Samuel saying those words as a formal preliminary to issuing commands doesn’t necessarily imply what folks think it implies. We know that, as Popes do now, prophets had authority from God. But the fact that Papal authority comes from God doesn’t imply that every word and deed of every Pope is tantamount to a literal act of God. In reality Papal infallibility is something very rarely invoked, and the use of a formal introduction for the words of a Prophet doesn’t convert those words into a set of axiomatic syllogisms from which a positivist theory of everything can be constructed. Samuel’s formalism could conceivably mean that God actually spoke those words from a burning bush; but in the full context of the OT that seems less than likely. At best we can say that we don’t really know whether the formalism “thus sayeth the Lord of Hosts” is a formality – like the wearing of a crown – when the prophet gives orders.

This is intellectually untenable.

To argue that a prophet of the Lord when saying he is proclaiming the will of the Lord is not proclaiming the will of the Lord, ruins any ability to take anything from the Bible. If we can not trust a God-anointed prophet of the Lord to be proclaiming the will of the Lord while saying he is proclaiming the will of the Lord, how can we trust the words of any of the other prophets or teachers? Why would we give heed to Isaiah? Why would the words of John the Baptist be trustworthy? Why would we trust the revelations of John? For that matter, why would we trust the words of Jesus? (Not to mention, for the Catholics, why would we trust Peter or those who claim to be the successors of Peter?)

It is also not just Samuel’s introduction, but Samuel’s pronouncement of judgment on Saul where he also directly claims to speak for the Lord. Saul accepts Samuel’s judgment as being from the Lord, and, as far as I know, no one in the Bible argues that this judgment was ever outside the Lord’s will. Given that Samuel’s appointing of David as king, and, ultimately, the birth of Christ through the lineage of David hinge on this event, it is hard to argue God wasn’t behind this.

And Samuel said, “Though you are little in your own eyes, are you not the head of the tribes of Israel? The LORD anointed you king over Israel. And the LORD sent you on a mission and said, ‘Go, devote to destruction the sinners, the Amalekites, and fight against them until they are consumed.’ Why then did you not obey the voice of the LORD? Why did you pounce on the spoil and do what was evil in the sight of the LORD?” And Saul said to Samuel, “I have obeyed the voice of the LORD. I have gone on the mission on which the LORD sent me. I have brought Agag the king of Amalek, and I have devoted the Amalekites to destruction. (1 Samuel 15:17-20 ESV)

To add to this, without accepting Samuel’s words, we have no reason for why God rejected Saul. David’s crowning and 1&2 Samuel lose their meaning and coherency if this event does not take place as written.

What is being pitted against each other is some folks’ personal interpretations of the OT against the intrinsic immorality of murder.

What is being pitted against each other is Zippy’s personal interpretation of natural law against the direct words of the God-ordained prophet of the Lord on a mission from the Lord directly commanding the people of the Lord as the voice of the Lord to destroy the Amalekites. Then the prophet of the Lord stripping Saul of His kingship over the people of the Lord in the Lord’s name for disobeying the Lord’s commandments.

There are 5 ways this event could be interpreted: God commanded the destruction of the Amalekites, God lied to Samuel, Samuel lied to Israel, some other spiritual force deceived an anointed prophet of the Lord and the writer of a book of the Bible in such a way that influenced that entirety of the Christian story and the prophet was never corrected, or the Bible is lying to us (or being metaphorical, which in the case of a book purporting to be history recounting a historical event would be functionally equivalent to a lie).

The second is blasphemy, the third renders the words of the Biblical prophets meaningless, the fourth renders God ineffectual, and the fifth essentially makes the Bible impossible to decipher. Any but the first would make any attempts at understanding Christian natural law impossible.

If you read the Bible and come to the conclusion that a bedrock Christian doctrine such as the absolute prohibition of murder under the natural law is wrong, this doesn’t demonstrate a problem with bedrock Christian doctrine.

The claim is not that murder is okay. The claim is (or in fairness, if this was a criticism of someone else, my claim is) and was specifically ‘Murder is unlawful killing and God’s law is the highest law. If God orders a killing, it is by definition lawful, and is therefore, by definition, not murder.’

God ordered the genocide of the Amalekites, therefore it was not murder. It  has not demonstrated that this was murder; the argument ‘murder is wrong’ misses the point entirely.

In the comments Zippy states the following:

I am equally intolerant of an approach that is unwilling to start with what we actually know – e.g. that slaughtering infants is intrinsically immoral, always wrong, and therefore not something God would ever command – and work the problem from there.

Zippy should prove, not assert, not simply repeat ‘natural law’, but show logically and scripturally that 1) God would never command the slaughtering of infants (despite His prophets specifically commanding the slaughter of infants in His name) and 2) the slaughter of infants is wrong even if God does command it.

The only way to know apodictically that God is ordering it is if you are God. Otherwise it is always possible that you are deceived: that you are wrong. So we can’t escape from comparing how likely it is that we are deceived that murder is always wrong versus how likely it is that it is actually God telling us to do it.

We might not be able to know for certain and no matter what we think we might, but we can and shold reason out the most likely answer. If we follow through on Zippy’s argument how can we know God orders anything? We aren’t God. We can’t know anything of His will apodictically. In that case and what Zippy’s position implies in the context of this debate why even bother trying to ascertain God’s will on any issue? We’ll never know apodictically and it will always be possible we’re deceived.

We can’t escape from comparing how likely is is that Samuel as recorded in the word of the Lord, speaking as a prophet of the Lord in the name of the Lord to the Lord’s people who accepted his words as being from the Lord was deceived or deceiving versus how likely it is that Zippy’s interpretation of the natural law is wrong?

****

malcolmthecynic asked:

Something claiming to be the voice of God commands you to kill children.
Do you obey, or are you convinced this was the voice of Satan, and refuse?

I would test the spirits:

Beloved, do not believe every spirit, but test the spirits to see whether they are from God, for many false prophets have gone out into the world. By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, and every spirit that does not confess Jesus is not from God. This is the spirit of the antichrist, which you heard was coming and now is in the world already. Little children, you are from God and have overcome them, for he who is in you is greater than he who is in the world. They are from the world; therefore they speak from the world, and the world listens to them. We are from God. Whoever knows God listens to us; whoever is not from God does not listen to us. By this we know the Spirit of truth and the spirit of error. (1 John 4:1-6 ESV)

If after a period of prayer, fasting, consultation with trusted Christian leaders, and testing the spirits I understood the spirits were those of the Lord I would obey. Depending on the ‘level of wrongness’ (for lack of a better term springing to mind), this period would be longer and more intense. I might also try to bargain with God as per Abraham.

****

Anonymous Coward stated:

This is the same argument that the Muslims make: we cannot put man’s law above God’s law, and man has no right to judge God. Anything Mohammed did is good by definition.

So clearly your argument is wrong, because it defends and promotes the great evil of Islam.

The Muslims are wrong in that their god is not God and Muhammed is not God’s prophet.

****

Aeroguy stated:

I’m not sure you guys really appreciate the full implications of Euthyphro’s dilemma. Defining god as good either denies god agency, the ability to choose, or it makes good relative, not absolute. I didn’t take you for a moral relativist. God could have never sent the angel to stop Abraham from sacrificing Isaac and it would have been equally good as sending the angel. If right and wrong are absolute and not apart from god then he has no will of his own. The temptations of Jesus would be meaningless since he never had the capacity to sin in the first place.

Bottom line, you can’t use god to justify something. Either justice stands on its own or is rendered meaningless.

You seem to mistakenly think you can separate justice and God. God is just. He is the yardstick by which justice is measured; morality is relative to God. I am unsure how would that render justice meaningless.

Lightning Round – 2014/09/03

What if?

The challenges of being gifted, so ignore them.

Patriarchy and collapsing civilization. Related.
Related: What happens when the patriarchy is smashed?
Related: Men aren’t the violent brutes they’re portrayed as.

Some basic Christian red pill.
Related: Don’t respect women, but get respect from women.
Related: Love, respect, want, and need.

Scott analyzes how the manosphere is growing and recognizes the beginnings of the problem. He misses the system level problems though (when being decent is disincentivized, what do you get more of?). Eventually he will be logically forced into agreeing with us.

Life, death, and emotions.

1,400 children sexually exploited by Muslims.
Related: Muslim predation in Rotherham.
Related: Anti-racism fosters rape and child abuse.
Related: It’s anti-racist’s fault .
Related: The BBC is a rape enabler.
Related: Revolutionary racial terror.
Related: Rot Britannia.
Related: Enoch Powell is still right.
Related: Institutional malice.
Related: The evasiveness of the Pakistani head of England’s largest children’s charity.
Related: Immigration is rape culture.
Related: England’s easy meat.
Related: The state will not protect you.
Related: Domesticated humans.
Related: American media coverage in pictures.
Related: British civilization is dead, as is leftist credibility.
Related: The failure of conservatism.
Related: It will all be swept under the rug in a few weeks.

UKIP growing in England.
Related: Ireland for the Irish.
Related: Hope for Norway.

Abandon the political spectrum.
Related: Don’t vote.

Anarcho-tyranny.

The rise of the troll.

A handbook for deconstruction.

The validity of sterotypes.

The deliberate dumbing down of America.

On the stupidity of correlation does not equal causation.

The rise of the cultural domination of the Puritans.

To stop the caliphate, we need to abandon democratic fundamentalism.

Income and ideology by religion.

UNESCO man.

A female game developer on the Zoe Quinn controversy. Related.
Related: Video games, the press, and right-wing mobs.
Related: On leftist witch hunts.
Related: The rending of the video game community by feminists.
Related: Did Anita Sarkeesian fake death threats against herself?

The spiritual slavery of the modern age.

Gentrification research results.

Study: Poverty does not cause violence. ‘Unobserved familial factors’ do. Related.

The decay of bourgeois values.

Why blacks are struggling.
Related: The Georgia plan for blacks.
Related: Black and brown ethnic cleansing.

The federal government’s role in the civil rights struggle.

Michael Brown’s juvenile record may have involved 2nd-degree murder.
Related: The reality of ‘he was unarmed.’

A recap of Ukraine.
Related: Ex-US intelligence officer on Ukraine.
Related: Vox’s thoughts on Russo-EU war.

The coyness of God.

The first violence was the armies of God putting down a democratic rebellion.

Denying the meaning of marriage is the new virtue.

On binge-drinking, hook-ups, marriage, and feminism.

There is no rape epidemic.
Related: Remember, women never lie about rape.

Half of women would lie about contraception to get pregnant.

The cost of premarital sex.

Weight as a proxy for virtue.
Related: Hip size and fidelity.

40% of managers avoid hiring young women to avoid maternity leave.
Related: Why venture capital firms don’t hire women.

The leisurely life of a 1950s housewife.

More Tracy Clark-Flory: She racked up huge credit card bills and wants her (oh so lucky) husband to bail her out.

Feminists are not just ugly, they’re manly too.

The fattening of English women.

The grim reality of the MMP for aging divorcees.

Remember, there is no homosexual agenda.

Priciest divorce ever: $17-billion up for grabs.

Schools help with crystallized knowledge but not with fluid cognitive skills.

Poll shows losers have a losing attitude.

Warren Buffet shows exactly how honest he’s being about taxes.

Why we should default.

SF: When ignorant snobs, like Damien Walter, attack.
Related: More on Damien Walter.

A list of what Gavin McInnes believes.

An anecdote of how bad the entitlement class has gotten.

The competitive advantage of Canada.
Related: Canadians renouncing US citizenship over tax laws.

European gun laws.

Eskimos wiped out pre-Eskimos.

On the ‘97% of papers support global warming’ statistic. Related.
Related: The myth of melting ice.

The CDC hid vaccine data.

The narcissism of the aging boomers.

H/T: Land, SDA, RPR, Isegoria, SSC, GCBH