Select Page

A survival checklist

I’ve said it before on this blog, and I’ll say it many times again: a man must learn to survive and thrive in uncertain conditions.

Survival is the art of preparing for the unexpected. If you find yourself surprised by a sudden change of events and unable to respond, it’s your own fault.

So how does a man prepare for the unknowable?

The most versatile survival tool you can learn is antifragility. This term was coined by N.N. Taleb in his book, Antifragile.

I consider the book essential reading. However, it’s not the easiest read. It’s over 400 pages, contains many nuances, and requires (in my case) several months just to digest the implications of the concept.

So I decided to write up a “bottom line summary” kind of post here.

The most concise summary of the book is found in the conclusion:

Everything gains or loses from volatility. Fragility is what loses from volatility and uncertainty.

In other words, expect there to be sudden & unpredictable changes that occur in your life. Whether you gain or lose will depend on whether you are fragile.

Ideally, you want to be antifragile. Position yourself in a way where you will gain from sudden changes.

Here are the basic categories of fragility vs. antifragility in my own words. Save this page and study it often. Much of your life as a man will be spent working towards putting yourself and your family in an antifragile position.

Read the book for the context and nuances.

Antifragile Thinking:

  • Identify what your peers confidently believe “cannot fail.” Remain skeptical and prepare for its destruction.
  • Forget trying to predict the future with statistics. Simply modify your exposure to potential changes.
  • Relying on theories is dangerous. Just learn the “rules of thumb” and other practical tricks.
  • Do not make your decisions on rational thought alone. Heed your emotions and use rational thought to keep yourself in check.
  • Do not think in terms of “true or false.” Ask yourself whether or not you’re being suckered.
  • Do not advocate or vote for more centralization at the national level or anything that increases public debt.
  • Ignore theories that attempt to explain “why” something is. Just pay attention to evidence-based phenomenons.
  • Don’t try to predict the future, just use the rules of thumb that help you avoid making bad decisions.
  • Don’t believe claims because they are (internally) logically consistent. Remain skeptical and try to find evidence that refutes the claim.
  • The parts cannot be separated from their holistic context.


Antifragile Learning:

  • Do not study modern ideologies. Study Ancient Mediterranean wisdom (e.g. the Bible) 
  • Too much explicit knowledge will harm you. Acquire tacit knowledge by actually doing the work.
  • Skip the curriculums, guided tours and lectures. Build yourself a large library, travel, tinker with your ideas.
  • Stay out of the classroom. Real life + personal library is a superior teacher.
  • Erudition is superior to academic knowledge.
  • Skip the ancient Greek philosophers (Plato, Aristotle, etc.). Read the Roman stoics, Nietzsche, Hegel, Jaspers.
  • Ignore the theories of economists. Religion creates better economic systems.
  • Study art, not science. (e.g. read science fiction, not science/futurist articles.)
  • Conversations outlast books (i.e. the purpose of books is to capture and stimulate more conversation)
  • Soccer moms raise nerds. Give your children time and freedom to explore the library and engage in “street fights”


Antifragile Finances:

  • Two is better than one. Use one, rent out the other.
  • Do not be dependent on corporate employment. Have options for freelance work and stash away some “screw you money.”
  • Play the long game; don’t get suckered in for short-term wins.
  • Industries change. Universal skills remain. Master a difficult and versatile skill to ensure financial security.
  • Don’t take on debt. Venture capital is a superior way to lose your money.
  • If your income is dependent on an outside agency, you’re gonna get screwed. Keep your business simple and be able to do everything yourself if necessary.


Antifragile Productivity:

  • If it takes complex infrastructure to launch, it’s too risky. Test small ideas and fail fast.
  • Don’t cover up mistakes. Embrace mistakes early so you can course correct.
  • Do not engage in (or trust) directed research. Better to tinker and allow for “happy accidents.”
  • Do not build (or rely on) centralized systems. Decentralized systems better handle randomness.
  • Large operations fall the hardest. Keep your operations small and versatile.


Antifragile Physicality:

  • Don’t let your body become weak as you age. Exercise your muscles now to get stronger.
  • Do not use additive treatment (e.g. medications) unless there is serious risk of losing the life. Focus on subtractive treatments (e.g. removing vegetable oil & sugar).
  • Muscles do not equal fighting ability. Learn to street fight.


Antifragile Relationships / Communication:

  • Don’t try to make friends. Develop your charisma, and people will be devoted to you.
  • Relate to others through stories and myths, not ideologies.


Antifragile Ethics:

  • It’s better to be strong than weak.
  • Do not trust the advice of anyone without skin in the game.
  • Do not make rules. Apply virtues.
  • Pain and trauma is an opportunity for growth.
  • The acute pain of change is better than the chronic pain of not changing.
  • Doing nothing is better than doing something harmful.


Antifragile Lifestyle:

  • The more nomadic you are, and the smaller your tribe, the less exposed to risk you are.
  • Avoid bureaucrats. Hang out with entrepreneurs.
  • If you can get fired for speaking the truth, you’re in the wrong profession.
  • The middle class dream is for suckers. Live an unconventional life that suits your preferences.



My first Twitter fight with a pastor

Believe it or not, I try to refrain from releasing too much heresy on my blog. Not all of my private musings are necessary for my readers to know.

But some stones are too important to be left unturned.

There’s an interesting guy I follow on Twitter named Michael Foster.  In his bio, he states that he’s a “presbyterian pastor with a special interest in ecclesiology and sexuality.”

And he’s definitely a red pill guy. So it’s refreshing to see a pastor who’s not shaming men or dishing out useless advice on masculinity.

Anyhow, being the disagreeable guy I am, I couldn’t help but take issue with a couple claims he made in a recent Twitter thread. Below are a couple snippets of our conversation:

Michael has made 3 claims I wish to address:

  1. “The fall, as spelled out in Gen. 3, has wrecked havoc on inter-sexual dynamics.”
  2. “Romans 5 makes it clear that the entire nature of man was corrupted which would include sexual.”
  3. We don’t need point #1 to explicitly stated. Romans 5 explains Genesis 3.

My contention to point #1 is simple. Here’s a list of the things that were changed according to the text of Genesis 3:

  • Knowledge of good and evil (3:5)
  • Shame over their bodies (3:7)
  • Curse on the serpent (3:14)
  • Increased pain for the woman (3:16)
  • Curse on the ground (3:17)
  • Aging and death (3:22)

Also, the woman’s desire for the man, and the man’s authority over her were emphasized, or possibly introduced for the first time (though there is no warrant for asserting this was a new addition to man and woman’s nature.)

Read the text carefully for yourself and check.

So there is nothing in the text of Genesis 3 that shows either the sexual nature of mankind or the “inter-sexual dynamics” becoming corrupt.

So what about Romans 5?

I’m assuming Michael is referring to Romans 5:18-19:

So then as through one transgression there resulted condemnation to all men, even so through one act of righteousness there resulted justification of life to all men. For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners, even so through the obedience of the One the many will be made righteous.

The first term in question here is “resulted” (eis).

The HELPS lexicon in the Discovery Bible (which was endorsed by J.I. Packer, John MacArthur, and R.C. Sproul… so you know it’s legit), sheds some light on this term:

But even without the help of our fancy lexicon, we can deduce the meaning by simply looking at how it’s commonly used in a concordance. (The italicized words are translated from eis):

So we can see that the word eis has nothing to with the nature of something. It has to do with a trajectory towards a particular end.

One sin penetrated the world and set the human race on a trajectory that resulted in condemnation to all men.

One act of righteousness penetrated the world and resulted in justification of life to all men.

And with that context, we reach the key statement in question:

For as through the one man’s disobedience the many were made sinners

The key term is “made” (kathistémi):

This definition is confirmed by the usage:

“Appointed sinners” or “constituted sinners” may be a more clear translation.

So Adam’s sin was the catalyst. Man acquired knowledge of evil. And from there, the sins of man multiplied on top of each other until all mankind was “made” or “appointed” sinners.

We see this theme play out all through Scripture. God never condemns a people until they reach full corruption (c.f. Gen 15:16; Ex 34:6-7)

Finally, God’s warning to Cain tells us much about the nature of sin:

And if you do not do well, sin is crouching at the door; and its desire is for you, but you must master it.” (Gen 4:7)

So we see that sin is not an integral part of man’s nature. Rather, it is something that man chooses to do.

Choices become habits. Habits become culture. Eventually “all men” become sinners.

But now we live in the era of grace… where, through the one righteous act of Christ, there is justification of life to all men.

If I have made any errors interpreting the texts, please let me know. I have reached out to Michael for his response as well.

My final “call to action” is this:

Let us interpret God’s Word plainly, by what the text itself says, rather than relying on traditions or theological concepts not explicitly found in the Scriptures.




My uncensored opinion on hypergamy (with an exciting detour!)

In yesterday’s post, I wrote about the differing attitudes towards hypergamy. Attempting to suppress my own bias, I believe the different camps can be fairly represented as so:

  1. “Hypergamy is an expression of a woman’s sinful (or deviant) nature.”
  2. “Hypergamy is not bad per se, but it needs to be regulated.”
  3. “Hypergamy is what it is. Use it to your advantage. Survival of the fittest.”
  4. “Hypergamy should be respected. It’s purpose is to make the human race better.”

Originally, I would have considered myself in Camp #2. But upon further thinking, I’ve changed my mind.

Here’s my (rather roundabout) explanation:

If you believe (like most people) that life has some kind of meaning, you can think of life as a story. This applies both to your individual life as well the human race as a whole.

A story has 3 essential elements:

  1. A character
  2. A destination
  3. A conflict

The conflict is actually the most important part of the story. Without conflict you don’t have a story. Conflict creates emotion and meaning. Conflict makes the destination valuable.

The main character in life’s story is easy to identify. It is us. The human race.

The crucial questions are what is the destination? What is the conflict?

There are many philosophies about life and the story we’re living in, but, as far as I can tell, there are essentially only two possible narratives:

Type 1 Narrative: We must pursue an ideal of some kind. And it is our biology that hinders us from reaching that goal.

Type 2 Narrative: We must follow our biology. And it is evil (or an “unforgiving world”) that hinders us.

I know this is all abstract, so I’ll give a few examples:

Some bio-engineers and futurists want to create “super humans” (an ideal) and must transcend the limitations of our biology to do so. (Type 1 narrative.)

SJWs want to create “safe spaces” (an ideal) and must eliminate “toxic” masculinity (biology) to do so. (Type 1 narrative.)

A young man pursues a degree in engineering because he feels it’s the “responsible” thing to do (ideal), but his brain is not suited for the work (biology) so he struggles. (Type 1 narrative)

Augustine wanted to desire God more (an ideal) but his sexual impulses (biology) hinder him. (Type 1 narrative.)

A man wants to pass on his DNA (biology) and must survive in an unforgiving world long enough to procreate and ensure his offspring reaches maturity. (Type 2 narrative.)

A man wants to start a family (biology) but is killed by his envious brother before he can establish himself (evil). (Type 2 narrative.)

Type 1 narratives are especially common. But the problem with these stories is that they run against the grain of our natural design. So the destination is never achieved. They only serve to advance a perpetual cycle of guilt for “falling short.”

The problem with Type 2 narratives is that, without belief in a Good Creator, these narratives quickly devolve into a “survival of the fittest” mentality and justification for cruelty to the weak. It is a story, but it is a cruel and heartless one.

Biology is not the problem…

There is only one life narrative that can work to completion:

God created biology (life) as good, and evil is that which hinders our natural God-given instincts for life. We must overcome evil in order to fulfill what we were meant to do by our nature.

Biology includes not only the sexual instincts to seek fertility and reproduce, but also the instincts to enjoy good food, do creative work, protect and advance our dominion… anything that is “hardwired” into us that we do by instinct.

And yes, hypergamy is hardwired into women. It was placed there by a Good Creator. Therefore, it must not be despised, but rather respected and cultivated so it can fulfill its purpose.

I believe the natural purpose of hypergamy is obvious: it creates stronger men.

Our natural instincts are not the enemy. It is depraved thinking that is the problem… that which goes against nature.

And when a culture is established on depraved thinking, evil can appear to be “natural” because everyone is doing it.

But evil is against nature. And, more importantly, evil is devoid of love.

Because the ultimate conclusion of the Narrative is love.

Love is not an abstract ideal.

Love is when you not only seek your own (natural) interests, but those of others as well.

Love is when you encourage a man to develop his masculinity… instead of sleeping with his dissatisfied wife.

Love is when create value for others in exchange for money… instead of stealing.

Love is when you help someone find work they’re suited for… instead of pressuring them down a path not suited for them.

And love is when you become a better man in order to better fill the needs of a woman… instead of criticizing them for what they do by nature.

And, by nature, loving others is rewarding to us. It is the highest form of fulfillment we can reach in life.


The death of the average man

If there’s one phrase that could describe the era we’re living in, it’s “the death of the average.”

It’s already been happening in the business/marketing world – nobody hires the second best applicant, chooses the second best product, or uses the second best network.

It’s #1 or starve.

Now we’re heading towards the same thing in the sexual market:

Soon enough, the majority of men will be off the sexual market. The competition will between the alpha males she knows and anonymous sperm donations sold as “good genes.”

Never underestimate a woman’s hypergamous drive for good seed… or the average man’s preference for convenience and avoidance of pain when it comes to getting sexual release.

Hypergamy + convenience will be the death of the average man. He will literally exit the gene pool.

Obviously, if these two forces play out unhindered, there will be a major disruption to the nuclear family model as the cultural norm. The vast majority of women will be unable to find men for monogamous long-term pairing… unless said men can be convinced to give up their easy life of government welfare, video games, and unlimited sex with robots that “feel better than the real thing.”

The future is unpredictable. There may be some unforeseen event that changes this trajectory. But the biological, economic, and political incentives for “saving the common man” are quickly disappearing.

On the one hand, I feel sympathy for the average man. He really did get screwed over by all the institutions that promised him a good life.

On the other hand, with the exception of height, every quality that increases a man’s sexual market value can be improved through training. So this crisis will likely force a lot of men to pull themselves together and become the man they were meant to be.

“The obstacle is the way.”

The silver lining to this is that mass culture does not equal micro culture. Wherever a tiny kingdom exists of both men and women who share the same values, there will be marriage.

Of course, if the church keeps shaming men and driving them away, the men will have to build their kingdoms elsewhere…



This post is more important than it appears

At first glance, this might appear to be a petty dispute over semantics. But I’m writing this post because I believe what follows is fundamentally important to masculine development.

First some background:

I began to sense a while back that there was a fundamental divide in the red pill community, but I couldn’t quite put my finger on what it was.

It was an invisible divide.

For the most part, we can all agree on the important concepts and we acknowledge the reality of a woman’s sexual nature.

But there is something that divides us. It is not the red pill philosophy itself, but rather a difference of attitude towards women.

Specifically, it is one’s attitude towards hypergamy that determines which side of the divide you fall on.

To test this, I posed the following question on Twitter:

Crucial question:

Is hypergamy an evil which must be managed? Or a standard which men must rise to meet?

I believe this is the fundamental divide in the red pill community.


In retrospect, I could have framed the question better. Nevertheless, it yielded the responses I was looking for.

At first, I thought there were two attitudes, but turns out there are at least three.

The actual Twitter thread can be found here. It’s somewhat chaotic, so I’ve organized the responses into what I believe are three fundamental red pill attitudes (with one variance):

  1. Hypergamy is deviance
  2. Hypergamy is neutral
  3. Hypergamy is neutral (with potential for evil)
  4. Hypergamy is (a good) purpose

Here are the responses in all their profanity-filled glory:

(Note: this is an image heavy post. If you are reading via email you may need to go to the blog to see the images.)

Hypergamy is deviance:

Hypergamy is potentially evil:

Hypergamy is neutral:

Hypergamy is purpose:

I think this post is long enough for one day. I’ll give my commentary tomorrow.

You don’t have to be a genius…

After spending some time on Twitter, I find it alarming how few people seem capable of backing their opinions with basic logic and facts.

And I’m not talking about SJW’s (I ignore them.)

I’m talking about red pill men. Men who are supposedly fighting to restore masculinity and Western culture.

Perhaps it is how we are educated. I never learned to construct a syllogism in school.

But it is simple. You do not have to be a genius to do it. And a syllogism can be communicated concisely.

Frankly, if you can’t communicate the essence of your argument in a tweet (280 characters), you don’t have an argument. You’re just blowing smoke and regurgitating rhetoric.

Yes, I understand the need for rhetoric, context and nuances and all that. In many cases, it’s best to conceal your logic so that the audience comes to the conclusion on their own and you avoid causing offense by speaking bluntly. (Christ himself was a master at this.)

But concealed or not, the basis of communicating truth is the syllogism. Just because something rhymes, has a punchy rhythm, or sounds clever in any other way does not make it true.

Here’s the breakdown:

A syllogism has two premises, a major premise and a minor premise.

I don’t know if this is true (because I’m a victim of the Idaho public school system), but I’ve noticed that the major premise tends to be a generalized assumption (e.g. “all men are mortal”), whereas the minor premise tends to be a specific observation (e.g. “Socrates is a man.”)

Regardless, you need two things that are obviously true to infer a new conclusion.

The classic example is one you’ve probably seen:

All men are mortal.
Socrates is a man.
Therefore, Socrates is mortal.

Here’s another example:

All swans are white.
Joe saw a swan.
Therefore, all the birds Joe saw were white.

The above example is a properly constructed syllogism. There are 4 ways you can disagree with it.

You can say I’m illogical: “Just because Joe saw a white swan doesn’t mean all the other birds were white.”

You can say I’m uninformed: “Joe specifically noted that it was a black swan that he saw. You might have missed that info.”

You can say I’m misinformed: “Joe actually saw a pigeon, not a swan. If you’d been there, you would have known.”

Or you can say I’m being frivolous: “Who the hell cares what kind of bird Joe saw or what color it was?”

Expressing opinions as syllogisms won’t necessarily solve disagreements, but at the least it allows you to identify what someone’s assumptions are and whether they have a plausible case.

People who are full of B.S. will avoid expressing their ideas logically when pressed. They intuitively know that their (lack of) logic will be exposed. Instead of addressing the question directly, they will dodge the question by appealing to outside sources or accusing their adversary of being “reductionist” or “Spock-like” or claim how there are many “nuances” or some such thing.

This is no small matter of concern. For it was suppression of truth that was at the root of God’s condemnation of man:

For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men who suppress the truth in unrighteousness, because that which is known about God is evident within them; for God made it evident to them. (Rom 1:18-19)

Observation and logic are the primary tools we have for discovering truth. Today, we have the Scriptures in addition to God’s creation and our conscience.

If someone denies what the Scriptures plainly say (or confidently affirms what they do not say), opting to rely on some kind of convoluted theological detour to make their point, they are suppressing the truth.

If someone denies God’s design and purpose of biology, calling it “evil” (when God did not), this is suppression of the truth.

And if someone denies the existence of a Creator at all…well, they’re just an idiot.

Logic is the primary tool for testing truth. Be a man and test your opinions against the rigor of logic. And call out other men when they confidently dish out fraudulent claims.

As N.N. Taleb put it:

“If you see fraud and do not say fraud, you are a fraud.”

Further Reading:


Tiny little kingdoms (a manifesto)

I think it’s about time for a manifesto.

Every man needs a personal philosophy to live by. A manifesto answers two important questions:

  1. What is wrong with your culture?
  2. How are you going to live differently?

You’re welcome to agree or disagree with my manifesto. At the least, you will better understand my worldview and decide if I’m worth reading. Perhaps it will inspire you to write your own manifesto.

Here are my 6 points of difference:

1. Actually give a f*ck about a problem

Apathy is the great killer of men today.

Most men make no effort to make a difference in the world they live in.

Forget finding your “passion.”

Just find a problem you care enough about to get off your ass and do something about it.

2. Build your own tiny little kingdom

Western culture may or may not collapse.

The mission is not to “save Western culture.” The future is in antifragile micro-kingdoms.

Build biblical culture, leveraging the advantages afforded by Western culture while there’s still time.

Rule your household like a tiny kingdom. And, if you have the ambition, build your own tribe of like-minded people.

The various traditions of Western culture will survive or die on their own through stress testing.

It is biblical culture that will win in the end.

3. Plant trees

A young man can hit his peak at about 40 years old. A 40 year old man can complete his greatest work at 70+ years old.

Don’t demand immediate results from life. Plant seeds. Establish habits, share vision, build a body of work over time.

Urgent problems are normally an illusion. If it won’t matter in 10 years, it’s not important.

All that matters is that you make progress towards becoming the man you want to be.

4. Hypergamy is a design feature, not a flaw

Every quality that a woman instinctively finds attractive can be acquired through training. (Height being the only exception.)

Quit whining about hypergamy. Recognize it for what it is. Grow up and become a man.

5. Feminine desire is the biological blueprint

A woman has needs and desires. A man rises to the occasion to fill the hole. (insert laugh track here)

If you want to know what it takes to be a man, understand the most primal instincts of a woman. Women are not an “unsolvable mystery.” All their behaviors serve a biological purpose. Learn those purposes and position yourself accordingly.

You cannot rationally explain to a woman why she needs to behave a certain way. You need to master her imagination and appeal to her instincts.

6. Risk-taking is the only safe path

We deceive ourselves by thinking that regularity implies safety.

Having a “steady job” appears to be safe… until you get laid off.

Surrounding yourself with people who believe the same as you appears safe… until reality proves your beliefs wrong.

Being compliant appears safe… until compliant people are no longer needed.

Not saying you need to start your own business or unplug from normal society. But you do need to assume that everything you depend on will one day collapse and plan accordingly.

The only safe path in today’s world is learning to survive and thrive in uncertain conditions.


A prayer for the young men of America

This is a prayer I delivered at my church this morning. About a dozen people or so expressed appreciation for the prayer after the service (out of a congregation of maybe 100 people)… including an elderly woman who thanked me with tears in her eyes for addressing the issue.

It’s a small sample, but I think the high response rate indicates people are ready to start talking about this problem.

Feel free to plagiarize or revise this prayer for your own purposes.

Father, I want to pray a special prayer this morning for the young men of our nation.

Today’s young men are growing increasingly apathetic and cynical. They are passively observing the downfall of Western culture, yet they have no motivation to save the good.

A large number of young men today have become bitter towards women and are “going their own way.” And this movement is gaining more and more momentum. As a result we are on the verge of a major crisis in the marriage market.

And these young men are afraid, Father. They are afraid to take risks. They are afraid to build. They are afraid of being rejected.

These are the Lost Boys. The orphans. They lack positive examples of masculinity. And they are shamed in every corner of society for their so-called “toxic” masculinity.

We live in a culture that exalts the weak. And strength is made into an evil.

We have lost the way of men, and as a result, we are losing our men… either literally through suicide, or figuratively through apathy and aimlessness.

Our young men today are without direction. Without confidence. And without hope.

Father, we live in an age of abundant information. We have access to more information than ever before. And yet deception is all around us.

It can be difficult to determine what is true… what will stand and what will crumble over time.

To navigate this era of great uncertainty, we need men to rise up. Men to lead their families. Men to lead the weak. Men to rebuild the culture.

So I ask Father, that you will allow examples and teachings of positive masculinity to break through the noise in the next few years so that more young men can be reached before they lose hope.

I pray that any man who is seeking perspective and guidance on how to lead himself and lead his family, will have easy access to such knowledge and that he will have no need to feel ashamed for being a man or for developing his strength to lead as you have called him to do.

All this I ask in the name of Jesus Christ, our King


Manly pleasures

There are four basic pleasures a man can experience in life:

  • eating
  • sleeping
  • playing
  • fucking

The ability to do these things unhindered is a man’s reward for both his labor and his refusal to compromise in the face of guilt manipulators.

Media propaganda will tell you not to eat meat, butter, eggs and other delicious fatty foods. They will try to get you on a diet of bland “health” foods that are not fit for a man.

Your boss and/or school demands that you prioritize showing up on time over getting adequate sleep. (Kids do the same thing.. but that’s another challenge.)

The cultural saturation of the so-called “Protestant work ethic” will make you feel guilty if you don’t spend almost every waking hour in some kind of industrious activity. Yes, a man must work for an income. But a life enslaved to the dollar is a miserable life unfit for a man.

And feminists and churches will shame men for wanting to have sex with their own wives. As if the farmer does not have the right to plow his field whenever he sees fit.

Point is, enjoying the basic pleasures of life is an essential part of manhood. God gave us these things so that we could enjoy life and give thanks to Him.

Don’t let the killjoys spoil your fun.

Predigested and ready to swallow

Like most people, I love when my opinions are reaffirmed by men more articulate and intelligent than myself.

In this case, here is my opinion about the limitation of opinions… expressed by a man with greater clarity of thought than myself. I’ve bolded a few lines to call attention to a few points.

Care should be taken to distinguish between truth and a set of our own opinions about truth. God’s Word is given us that our concepts of truth might be rectified respecting earthly things, and formed respecting heavenly things. We must ever go and keep going to it, lest the prejudices with which we are born and others which we have acquired obscure the light of truth as it is in fact and in God.

One difficulty with most people who would like to be students of God’s Word lies in their impatience to get everything all analyzed to a nicety, labeled and set up in rows on their mental shelves. They want to get their stock of truth in so that they can open up shop and do business. That is not always the most productive method, however; for truth does not always appear in one hundred percent purity. God’s truth is pure – His Word being the truth – but our concepts of it are usually colored more or less by teachers. We incline to look to this teacher and away from that one because this one speaks as though everything were crystal clear and that one says, “This will bear closer investigation,” “Here is a fruitful field for research,” etc.

The ability to discern fractional truths in teachers or groups of believers, to see and to say that “this man’s teaching is valuable and Scriptural on that point but faulty and unsupported on this” has only a heavenly reward in the present time; for certainly there will be no plaudits from men. People like to have their thinking dished out for them, predigested and ready to swallow.

The intimation on the part of a teacher that they should watch what they take into their mouths and that they should chew it well is right annoying, so annoying that they will likely hunt up another chef. People flock to those who speak as oracles, whether it be in politics or religion. Whoever says this man or that teaching is wholly right and the rest are wholly, hopelessly, and irretrievably wrong, will find himself surrounded and supported in very visible manner, but to attempt to judge dispassionately and discriminatingly is to invite loneliness on the human side at least.

F. H. Robison (1885-1932)
Are Bride and Body Identical?