Dear Dianna Anderson

You recently responded to some criticism we here in the Christian manosphere have pointed your way. There are a few points I would like to make.

First, the most important point:

In their eyes, I was a “slut,” a “whore,” and a “temple prostitute,” as well as a “liar,” and a “deceived, wicked jezebel,” all for having the gall to fool around with someone on a loveseat before I was married to them.

You are not a wicked Jezebel or a false teacher for having pre-marital sex. We all commit sins, which is why Christ died in the first place. Forgiveness can be had by all through repentance.

This leads to the actual reason you are a wicked Jezebel and a false teacher: you do not repent your sins. In fact you do not even state that you probably should repent but are struggling, instead you proudly proclaim no repentance for sin is necessary for you have not sinned, calling your sins holy. Not content even with this, you even go farther by declaring your sins a form of sacrament.

This is what makes you a false teacher. You lead the flock or rather, given that you have been writing these pieces for secular audiences, non-Christians into damnation. Not content to repent, or at least keep your sins private, you publicly flaunt them to draw others away from Christ and his message of salvation.

For the sake of your own soul, please repent your sins and declaim them as sins as publicly as you have previously lauded them.


With the most important matter out of the way, I’ll note a few other concerns.

Your article is little more than ‘those evil, white, sexist, cishets!’ I must admit I’m kinda disappointed you missed racist, homophobic, transphobic, and classist from the litany of crimethink we have committed. That being said, something more substantial, using reason and the Bible would have been preferable.

Second, we are (mostly) not MRA’s and, in fact, we mostly reject the MRA label. Although we do share some MRA concerns and goals, particularly in the area of family law, a degenerate pro-male liberal modernity is no more desirable than a degenerate pro-female liberal modernity.


If you are assigned female at birth, you must live with this burden of motherhood and servanthood.

All Christian are called to “the burden” of servanthood. The difference is only in whom they most immediately serve on this earth. As well, not all woman are assigned the burden of motherhood, some, those called to singleness, may be workers for the Lord in other ways, just as some men are not called to fatherhood.


One would think that such a view of women would be checked simply by the idea that identifying as Christian means that we are part of a Body, with one God. Moreover, the Bible explicitly calls Christian brothers to respect their sisters. That seems to be hugely overruled, however, by masculinists’ so-called distress that sisters aren’t doing the same for their brothers.

Christians are to respect their brothers and sisters, yes, but respect requires correcting people on their sin. Calling out sinning Christians on their sin is the respectful and loving thing to do, and sometimes harsh words are encessary to do so, especially in an age where less harsh words have been deprived of their meaning and/or emotional impact.


Conservative Christians need to confront the extremes to which their movement has been taken and the things that are being said in the name of their God. Conservative Christianity and the Christian manosphere have different intentions—supporters of the former ostensibly just want to put the world back on track, while those of the latter are using their theology to fuel explicit hate for women.

Our goal is to put the world back on track as well, we have just realized that the mealy-mouthed liberalism-of-30-years-ago we now call “conservatism” is the wrong way to go about doing so.

Also, it is not about hate. Women have been hurt just as much as men by feminism and progressivism and we wish for them to have godly, happy, healthy lives rather than the unsatisfying lives of loneliness, bitterness, and pill-popping unhappiness they have now.

You yourself missed out on a loving marriage to a man you cared about while following what feminism indoctrinated into you, causing you to feel “totally abandoned and misled by this God”. We would like other young women to not have to go through that as well.

Teenagers Don’t Exist

Recently the topic of teenagers, and how awful they are, came up in a Twitter conversation I involved myself in. While I’ve mentioned the topic in the past, I thought I’d write a bit more on them here.

Adolescence is a modern invention/perversion. Until about the 1800s or so, a person of about the age 13 was considered an adult. Since about that time, better nutrition has led to puberty occurring earlier (in the 1800s it occurred at about 15-16, it now occurs at about 12-13), but at the same time independence has also decreased. A teenager is a biological adult. (Mentally, a person continues maturing until sometime in their mid-20s).

The problem of rebellious or destructive teenagers is not a fault of the teenagers, but rather a fault of society. A teenager is an adult being treated as a child. A 14-year-old should be learning independence and self-sufficiency by going out into the world on his own (on an apprenticeship, to college, to his own shack on the family farm, etc.) and should be looking for a wife shortly therefore after. Instead, in our modern world teenagers live under the dominion of their parents as a child.

Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and they shall become one flesh. (Genesis 2:24 ESV)

Of course teenagers rebel, any adult treated as child will rebel against being infantilized. They lash out because they know at some level that their parents having dominion over them is wrong, because an adult still under their parents is against the natural order. It is not teenagers that are the problem, it is the parents and the society.

Now of course, teenagers are not always going to make the best decisions because they are new at being adults and are learning the basics of adulthood, but in our current order, instead of learning about adulthood at age 15 so they are responsible adults by their 20s, people are now making the same failings in their early-20s and sometimes even their late-20s/early-30s, so your average person is not a responsible adult until their 30s.

Despite this, most modern teenagers would probably break is left on their own. This is, again, not the fault of the teenagers, but most children nowadays are so thoroughly over-protected and over-controlled by their parents and infantilized by the school system that they have never been learning the kinds of independence a healthy adult needs.

Children nowadays are being raised to learn a horrible combination of lack of freedom and lack of discipline. A child learning both will be the most self-actualized and most successful. A child with freedom but no discipline will generally pick up some level of discipline through trial and error, and a child of of discipline but no freedom will usually be able to survive although possibly not thrive, but one with neither will drown.

Ideally, we should start training our children to become adults when they should do so, in their mid-teens.


This is not going to happen on a society wide scale because infantalized adults are useful for the long march.

Adolescence gives the public school system an extra 4-6 years (8-12 extra if he goes to university) to condition a person to the docility and obedience necessary to get a man to be willing to work in a cubicle or factory for 3-4 decades of his life. It conditions a man to accept schooling and academics as being the primary measures of worth, so that he is willing to feed his mind, time, and money into the progressive college system. It prevents early family formation and helps keep the squeeze on the family so the state can continue to interject itself. It conditions dependence and a slave mentality in a man so he is more likely to see dependence on the state as normal. Adolescence is just another case of how its all related; the long march continues.

Lightning Round – 2014/10/01

Drinks and gendering objects.

Never trust a man who hasn’t been punched in the face.
Related: Civic virtue.

Mangan has a new book on supplements.

Being from a large family reduces divorce risk.
Related: Science: Predictors of infidelity.

On the Iliad.

The culture war is turning.
Related: The SJW’s mistakenly think they have won.

Men don’t share feelings.
Related: Attempting the impossible.

Weimar Germany and America.

The way of the gang.

The lumpenintelligentsia.

Reaction, Jews, and Christianity.
Related: Jews and divided loyalties.

Ordinary racism and future hyper-racism.

Hawks, doves, and game theory.
Related: Population, decline, and productivity.
Related: Game theory and the omega point.

Neoreaction as an analytical rightward synthesis.

The real culprit is the government.

Pulling the centre.

How standardized testing undervalues men.

Ethnic cleansing in Europe.

Britain: the sick man of Europe.
Related: Britain is only getting what they wanted.

A brief history of black riots.

Woman is culturally enriched, diverse vibrant stopped by armed man.

Repatriation is off the table.

Land has some fun with one Michael Rectenwald on Twitter.

Disconnected NYT alienated from Christianity.

White evangelicals and discrimination.

Philosophy vs. tradition.

Truth, love, and tolerance.

Christian college’s accreditation threatened because it adheres to Christian values.

More on our previous conversations on the Israelite genocides. My opinion remains as it was. I still need more than ‘it’s wrong because it’s wrong’ to be convinced.

“There are 65 employed [unmarried] men for every 100 [unmarried] women.”
Related: Vox: Get the Fed to fix women’s marriage prospects.

A war on men waged through false accusations and courts.
Related: Men are fighting back against false rape accusations.
Related: It has come to this: A ‘yes means yes’ app.
Related: Any man accused of rape should be immediately convicted with no evidence, even 2 years later.
Related: Man fired from Forbes for trying to protect women from rape. The article.
Related: If we applied feminist logic to other crimes.

University of Michigan: Withholding sex and ignoring feelings are abuse.
Related: Indian court: Denial of sex is cruelty.

Women commit domestic violence as much as men.

The BETA shield.

How feminism holds women back from high achievement.

Men unemployed; women hurt worst.

Why there are so many marriage problems today.

Modern women follow those with indifferent contempt for them, rather than their loving husbands.
Related: Stay-at-home moms are happier and have stronger sense their life is worthwhile.

Those aging eyeballs.
Related: Science: Men like women in their mid-20s. Surprising.

Science discredits feminism.

An anecdote of why you should avoid loose women. Another.
Related: Another alpha widow.

Remember: Women self-admittedly bang the assholes & losers, while making responsible men pay full price.
Related: Woman spends youth with bad boys, now wants to find someone ‘who deserves her’. Just as she hits 31 too.

Feminist: Feeding illegal, potentially unsafe drugs to your child is awesome if it’s to do an abortion.

25 signs of the destruction of modern women by the sexual revolution.

The back-up plan. Half of women have a plan B.

“Emma Watson wants you to know her life – that of a pretty, rich, famous, popular female megastar – has been monstrously traumatic, because of sexism.”
Related: Feminist Emma Watson: Says men should move from gender stereotypes, dates says dates alpha male rugby star.
Related: Emma Watson’s banal hypocrisy.

Laci Green is trying to censor Youtube.

Trolling and the business of rage.

Transgender man joins women’s MMA, seriously injures woman.

College allows old perverts to expose themselves to little girls.

Female secret service agent overpowered.

No fault divorce hurts women as well.

An actual objective mainstream article on #gamersgate. Bravo TechCrunch.
Related: No need to be a whiny bitch.

The bureaucracy of a bulldozer.

China has fewer bureaucrats than us, but still let go of 100,000 employees who did no work.

Gladwell was wrong: 10,000 hours won’t make you great.

One of my friends once recommended Mister to me.

German Ethics Council: Incest a fundamental right.

On asexuals.

Nerds, science, and testosterone.

Streetlight psychology.

Scientist argues black holes don’t exist.

The leftism of Wikipedia.

Neil Degrasse Tyson: ‘Maybe you can’t find that quote in official records, but I cite the highest authority: me.’
Related: Criticize Neil Degrasse Tyson and they’ll delete your Wikipedia page.

Buzzfeed has a list of evil authors. Wright is number 6.

Appearing on the Daily Show is a bad idea.

Global warming ‘97%’ figure is a lie.
Related: Science: Wind farms create more CO2 than they prevent.

On cannon fodder.

An amusing twitter conversation.

H/T: RPR, SCC, SDA, RoM, VD, Dalrock

Euler and Tradition

Scott writes on what he calls getting Eulered: when someone tries to convince you of something or rebut something you believe using arguments (particularly mathematical ones) you are either not intelligent or not trained enough to understand.

I’ve never heard the term before, but I’ve thought of this. I am intelligent, but not exceedingly so, there are a number of things I won’t be able to understand, at least not fully or without much more effort and time than I am willing to put in.

So, I follow a simple heuristic: what does someone smarter than me who agrees with me on things I understand and is willing to put in time/effort think on the issue?

If you know he agrees with you on the things you understand for similar reasons as you, you know he reasons in similar fashion to you from similar presupoositions. If he reasons in a similar fashion as you, you then know that his thoughts on another issue you don’t understand will be the most reasonable approximation of what you would think if you were either smart or knowledgeable enough to be able to form an informed opinion on the matter.

No matter how smart you are you can’t know or understand all things. In the case where you can’t, the wise course of action is to fall back on those who think the same as you, but are either more intelligent or more knowledgeable on the subject matter.

All rational organizations outsource when it’s more efficient, so why not outsource your thinking when it is more likely to be correct if someone else does it for you?

Agreeing with someone because he generally agrees with you when you don’t understand the argument in question is usually the most rational form of action.

Of course, this is not an original heuristic, and is no different than asking, ‘what does my father, my priest, my teacher, etc. say?

But what if you move your intellectual outsourcing beyond a known individual to something greater. This is where tradition comes in: why outsource your thinking to a single individual when you can outsource your thinking to the collective reasoning of every single previously-existing mind of your society?

Is it not much more efficient and wise to follow the collective wisdom of thousands of minds much more intelligent and knowledgeable than yourself than to go through the intellectual labour of thinking something through for yourself and likely arriving at a rationally inferior position?

From this, is not the person saying, “I believe what my ancestors, the magisterium, my intellectual forebears believe” being more rational than the one who tries to reason everything out for himself?

Maybe, argument from authority, if the authority stands firmly upon a mount of tradition, is the most rational argument of all.

Ruining Games

I didn’t really have anything to write about today, but it’s post day, so I’ll say just a bit more on gamersgate, inspired once again by Cracked and Mark Hill. Two articles were up today.

One was yet another anti-gamergate piece, (sadly, Cracked has now reached my Unvisit list) this one so stupid. For someone who is as supposedly pro-reason as Luke McKinney this is based very strongly in unreason. Despite this I’m going to engage it from points 7 to 1: genetic fallacy, irrelevant ad hominem, fallacy of composition/anecdotal, irrelevant to anything (his argument in #4 boils down to ‘people shouldn’t be allowed to discuss’), ambiguity fallacy, straw man, and, finally, genetic fallacy again. I should also note that the asinine immaturity of Luke McKinney in this piece is rather ironically humourous given that point #1 in last week’s article on gamersgate was “We’re Incapable of Mature Conversations About Gender”.


At this point, I’m going to make a small aside on the term Social Justice Warrior (SJW), as Luke McKinney is not the only one I’ve seen commenting on how SJW sounds awesome.

SJW is a term of pointed mockery. The mockery comes exactly from the fact that SJW’s are the farthest things possible from warriors. Fatties who revel in their obesity, feminists that go into conniptions when its pointed out that sluttery and tattoos go hand in hand, women that become physically ill from words, people who try to ban trashtalk from games because it hurts their feewings, and psychologically ill perverts who can not tell fantasy from reality are as unlike warriors as is humanely possible.

Using the term social justice warrior simply points out, in an ironic fashion, the pathetic weakness of the SJW’s (on an individual level; as a screaming, anonymous lynch mob they do have some social power).


Cracked and the rest of the SJW’s seem so very confused by gamers’ motivations against SJW’s that they can posit no explanation but ‘those evil mysoginists hate women’. Which bring us to the second article, where Mark Hill goes on about why video game narratives need to change. At first glance, this article seems relatively benign, what’s wrong with making suggestions to improve video games, but if we look at it closely, his arguments essentially boil down to:

6: Stories should have fewer sociopaths. He specifically points people who do things that make games fun as sociopaths, but, in context of other anti-gamersgate Cracked articles, it is clear that anyone deviating from SJW orthodoxy is a sociopath.

5: Villains should be made more morally grey, so the difference between heroes and villains are less stark (ie. break down traditional morality and replace with prog morality).

4: Games should decide your character’s emotions and reactions for you, the game should think for you, rather than you reacting to the game yourself.

3: The reason we’re shooting at people can not be ‘fun’, there must be a justifiable reason that is very easy to understand without reading.

2: Suggestions having to do with pacing and structure, which are not relevant, one way or the other, to my point.

1: Games should dictate morality, particularly SJW morality, rather than let gamers figure out moral quandaries for themselves.

Why, oh why, would gamers be against this? Why would gamers be against people trying to remove the fun parts of games and turn games into morality lectures?

Mark Hill is a perfect demonstration of why gamers are against the SJW’s entering gaming, and it has nothing to do with misogyny. They want to turn games away from the objective of fun and towards the objective of forcing their SJW moral system on people who just want to relax for a few hours.

Lightning Round – 2014/09/24

Start a blog that makes money forever.

The manosphere, hedonism, and reaction.

Red pill alienation.

Radish knocks it out of the park: Reign of Reason.
Related: …And social justice for all.

The first in a series on becoming an American traditionalist.

Preparing for the beginning of the end.

Gamersgate as an ideological litmus test.
Related: Gamersgate, cultural Marxism, and intellectual bullying.
Related: An indie developer writes on the diversity police.
Related: 4chan furor.
Related: Has 4chan been purged?
Related: War for the internet’s soul.
Related: Gamersgate escalates.
Related: Women suck at making video games.
Related: SJW’s get black developer fired for Gamersgate.
Related: Ebola-chan.
Related: Moot and Anita.
Related: Nazism is PC.
Related: GameJournoPros: Game journalists secretly colluding.
Related: A blacklist.
Related Conspiracy: Gamergate/DARPA connection?
Related: More conspiracy.

Feminism kills civilization.

Game theory solutions to collective action problems.

A wonderful progressive, pacifist, feminist civilization.

On the post-labour economy.
Related: On universal basic income. A response.

The great circle of make-work.

On the middle class.

Reaping the fruits of democracy.

Who killed adulthood?

Maturity, prominence, and homosexuality.

The media is the true power.

The SC judges know their invincibility and power.

Intelligence, education, and health.

Before slavery.

On the ISIS beheading videos. Related.

50 ways millenials are subhuman troglodytes.

The truth about the Spanish Inqisition.

The roots of marriage counselling.

Defending women who let evil men near their children.

Go to college to become a better whore.

Study: Women ignorant of fertility reality. (Also 1/8 couples struggle with fertility).

Why women are rejecting perfect men.
Related: Another concern-trolling ‘where are all the good men?’ article.
Related: 30 is the new 50: ‘old age’ is killing my dating life.

I wonder why no one replies to her messages.

More on the stupidity of pushing women into STEM.

Women have agency.
Related: Courts to decide whether women have agency in Occidental case.

NYT: Who runs the girls?

Teach women not to rape.
Related: Teach women not to rape 2.
Related: Rape epidemic by women.

A false rape accusation over $20.

Prostitutes with college degrees earn 31% more.

WW2 solipsism.

Homeless man uses game to find a place to sleep each night.

Even if you got it made, your kid still might not call you daddy.

Lying to the government.

Some links on Neil Degrasse Tyson.
Related: Wikipedia deletes mention of Tyson’s fabricated quotes.

A small mistake on Mao by the Economist.

The ebola exponent.

Japanese positioning against the yen.

World population likely to expand, mostly in Africa.

36 killed by vaccines in Syria.

Ted Cruz’s lying circus.

Democrats and Republicans are different. Vox discovers the ratchet.

Ancient DNA re-writing genetic history.

Ad for reliable workers banned as discriminatory.

How to decipher a book review.

On fake bestsellers.

A thread on the decline of Cracked.

What evolutionary biology can learn from creationists.

H/T: Land, RPR. Aurini, SSC, SDA, CC, Bill

Dianna Anderson: A Wolf in the Pen

This is the way of an adulteress:
she eats and wipes her mouth
and says, “I have done no wrong.”
(Proverbs 30:20 ESV)

Dalrock pointed out this piece by “Christian” Dianna Anderson where she called her fornication “a different kind of sacrament.” She then rages against the purity culture. Now, I’m no fan of the purity culture, having called it a sickness, among other epithets, but the proper reaction against the purity culture is not to embrace sinful hedonism, it is to embrace God-ordained marriage.

Looking over her Twitter and blog, she’s obviously your average young progressive with the typical progressive beliefs about social issues glossed over with a smear of vague “Christianity” over it. As with most progressive “Christians”, she loves the world and has simply smeared a Christian sheen over the doctrines of the world. Now to any orthodox Christian Dianna’s obviously a false teacher, and 2 Peter 2 says all that’s necessary about false teachers:

But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.

These are waterless springs and mists driven by a storm. For them the gloom of utter darkness has been reserved. For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error. They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved. For if, after they have escaped the defilements of the world through the knowledge of our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ, they are again entangled in them and overcome, the last state has become worse for them than the first. For it would have been better for them never to have known the way of righteousness than after knowing it to turn back from the holy commandment delivered to them. What the true proverb says has happened to them: “The dog returns to its own vomit, and the sow, after washing herself, returns to wallow in the mire.”


There’s nothing all that special about her beliefs and her article is chalk full of such obvious rationalizations for sin that commenting on all of them would be a waste of time but I think there’s a few things here worth pointing out.

I’d met him at a local book club, and we hit it off almost instantly. Our first date started at eight p.m. and ended shortly after one a.m. Though we’d planned a second official date for the following Tuesday, we ended up hanging out every evening for the next few days. I was smitten, he was smitten, and it wasn’t long before we were A Thing.

Two months later, I moved to Chicago and we broke up. But before all that happened, before this relationship went down in the flaming ball of pain that plagues so many long distance relationships, we had several wonderful evenings together.

I obviously can’t say for sure why she moved to Chicago but moving at age 25, moves are almost always either the pursuit of a job or the pursuit of a relationship, and given that she worked “as a radio producer in Chicago” it can reasonably be assumed obvious she left for the job.

The problem here is not the purity culture, the problem here is that she had what likely would have become a marriage, then dumped it so she could pursue other priorities in her life. While pursuing other priorities is fine, she can not then turn around and blame purity culture for her own choices. So, all her feeling “totally abandoned and misled by this God” was not God depriving her or the purity culture damaging her, but her depriving herself of marriage to a guy she cared about so she could pursue a career. Her entire “ministry” is little more than her rationalizing her mistake and blaming the natural consequences of her own decisions on others. “I have done no wrong” indeed.


She outlines six warnings of purity culture (which she obviously thinks are wrong):

Having sex outside of marriage will take away pleasure from sex within marriage.

Absolutely true. Most women’s best sex was with someone other than their husband and most women would rather do almost anything else before sex. Anecdotes of alpha widows are legion.

Having sex outside of marriage with make connection with your future spouse harder.

Absolutely, it does. Pre-marital sex is one of the strongest indicators of future divorce.

Having sex outside of marriage means disappointing God, disappointing family, and causing unnecessary pain and heartache for yourself.

Absolutely. Regret over sexual encounters is common among women. Deuteronomy 22 alone is enough to show exactly how much fornication disappoints God. As for family, that would depend on your family.

Having sex outside of marriage will essentially destroy you, ruining your witness, your faith, your relationships.

Given that the woman writing this is currently advocating sin as a form of sacrament, it would be hard to argue this is not true in many cases.

Having sex outside of marriage is the slippery slope to hedonistic atheism.

Not always atheism, sometimes its a slippery slope to a false, damnable “Christianity”.

Her ‘problems’ with purity all fall on the side of purity culture being right.


My doubt had taken a toll on me; I didn’t know how to process this new perspective of God that I was developing. I was beginning to see the cracks in the armor of the evangelical church, especially as my views on politics became more progressive and I began to be more concerned about loving LGBT people than condemning them to hell.

And yet, she insists on condemning them to hell. Why do progressive “Christians” not realize that by tolerating sin they are the ones condemning people to hell?

Also, take notice of the order of events. She did not have a theological revelation that turned her to progressive politics. She became progressive then decided to fit the superficialities of her old faith to fit her new religion.

She had a choice between the world and Jesus, she chose the world.

This also isn’t a conversion story of how losing my virginity made me realize how far away I’d fallen and now I’m chastened, back on the straight-and-narrow and celibate. I’m not celibate and I’m dating around. And I’m a Christian whose faith, at this point, is probably stronger than at any point in my younger years. And I know that this faith, this commitment, wouldn’t have been possible had I not actively made the decision to give up on purity.

I believe her here, her faith is probably stronger than it’s ever been, but the mistake she makes is that her faith is not Christianity, it is progressivism.

Rather than preying on the flock and destroying whatever remnants of morality still exist in the church, she should be honest with herself and God and either repent or go apostate.

For me, making the decision to have sex without shame, to own that part of myself and to make those decisions, has only improved my faith and my understanding of God’s love. Sex liberated me from my puritanical judgment and strict ideas about what’s right and wrong.

Peter was so very right, “They promise them freedom, but they themselves are slaves of corruption. For whatever overcomes a person, to that he is enslaved.”

It taught me to meet people where they are – just as Jesus did – and in that way, it became a different kind of sacrament.

Just like Jesus did to the adulteress, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.” Dianna is missing the ‘sin no more’ part. Also, I’m not sure she even understands what a sacrament is.

I judge people less now. I don’t wrap my faith up in whether or not I’m performing the rules in the right way. And I understand God’s love for God’s people on a deeper, more personal level than ever before… Sex, in this way, can be a sacrament, a movement toward understanding God, a form of holiness experienced in a deep, mystical way. Sex can be holy, whether or not you have a ring on your finger.

Peter once again speaks, “For, speaking loud boasts of folly, they entice by sensual passions of the flesh those who are barely escaping from those who live in error.”

I’m almost surprised just how well she lines up with Peter’s words on false teachers.

In conclusion, Dianna Anderson has chosen the side of darkness and her own words pronounce her own judgment on herself. I hope she can see the errors of her ways and repents or at least stop trying to drag others to hell with her.


My son, be attentive to my wisdom;
incline your ear to my understanding,
that you may keep discretion,
and your lips may guard knowledge.
For the lips of a forbidden woman drip honey,
and her speech is smoother than oil,
but in the end she is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a two-edged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps follow the path to Sheol;
she does not ponder the path of life;
her ways wander, and she does not know it.

(Proverbs 5:1-6 ESV)