Select Page

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.

 

 

 

Are women evil?

[Note: This ended up being a weird, but perhaps important, post where I started with one question and ended up going down a rabbit hole. Read at your own risk.]

If you’ve been reading red pill philosophy for a while, you’ve probably come across the term “open hypergamy.”

“Hypergamy” refers to a woman’s nature to secure the best man she can get. In a society that values marriage and shames having children out of wedlock, hypergamy means “marrying up.”

But in our “sexually liberated” culture, hypergamy simply means securing the best genes from a man and then finding an alternative source of provision (e.g. welfare or a beta male.) This strategy can accurately be termed as “fucking up.”

This second scenario is commonly called “open hypergamy.” It’s a woman’s hypergamous nature without restraint. And it’s not good for society.

It’s not good for women, who end up leading miserable lives as single mothers or get “stuck” in a sexually unfulfilling marriage with a beta male.

It’s not good for the majority of men, who become involuntary celibates (“incels”).

It’s not even good for the alpha males, as successful pick up artists soon find that an abundance of sex without meaningful context only creates disillusionment and ruins their ability to find satisfaction in a long-term relationship.

In short, it seems that God’s design is best: sex is for marriage.

There’s no doubt that “open hypergamy” is bad. But there is some controversy over whether hypergamy itself is bad.

After all hypergamy is what drives women to commit adultery. And adultery is clearly a sin.

Unraveling the Nature of Women

So is hypergamy part of a woman’s “sin nature”?

To answer this question we have to look at what the Scriptures say about the nature of women. There are two fundamental passages on this topic [emphasis mine]:

And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. (Genesis 2:18)

Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee(Gen 3:16)

When it comes to interpreting Scripture, I follow the Occam’s razor principle: the explanation with the fewest assumptions should be tested first. Theological theories are usually unnecessary when a plain explanation suffices.

Case in point:

“Help meet” (ezer) can be translated as “succor” which means giving assistance in a time of hardship and distress.

So what was Adam’s distress?

Was he having a hard time classifying the animals?

No. His mind was well-suited to that task. Adam’s distress is found in verse 20:

And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.

Now, not to get too crude here, but it’s important to note that it was studying animals that caused Adam to recognize his distress.

Last I checked, animals are not particularly romantic creatures. They are primal and driven to mate.

No doubt, Adam thought something like, “I need to do that to. But the parts don’t align. What do I do with this urge?”

It was only after God made Adam aware of the need, that he introduced the woman. Hence the significance of Adam’s expression “This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.”

At last! Adam had found his sexual counterpart.

So the first fundamental aspect of woman’s nature is this:

A woman was designed to fulfill a man’s primal urges. And, as a corollary, a woman feels most fulfilled when she is relieving a man of his primal “distress”. She is the “help meet”… the succor.

But then something happened that changed the sexual dynamic:

Sin entered the world.

As a consequence, God made some adjustments to female nature.

The first thing God did was adjust the woman’s anatomy. It would now be painful to give birth to children. Presumably this would also mean it would be painful to have sex with a man. She is too “tight” to be penetrated with ease.

Now, if God had stopped there, sex would be ruined. No woman would ever want to have sex or get pregnant. It’s all pain, and no pleasure.

So how did God resolve this problem? With a change in the woman’s psychology:

“thy desire shall be to thy husband”

Note that “husband” is ish which simply means “man.” There was only one man on the marketplace at the time. And, unlike our “soy boy” culture of today, being a man back then had a connotation of strength… a masculine man.

So with these clarifications in mind, the meaning of “desire” becomes apparent:

A woman yearns for a strong man.

This is in contrast to the pain involved in having children. If it’s a masculine man, the desire for that man’s seed overrides the future pain of childbirth and even the pain of intercourse.

In other words, in the presence of a strong man, a woman becomes (to a certain extent) masochistic. She derives pleasure from pain.

This also explains humanity’s timeless obsession with the tightness and size of certain sexual parts. The scripture itself illustrates in vivid terms what happens when female sexuality runs out of control:

There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses. (Ezek 23:20)

This is “open hypergamy” at it’s most extreme. All pretenses of restraint are thrown out the window and men are judged simply on the size of their members.

This potential degradation of female sexuality necessitates the final point of God’s decree to the woman:

“and he will rule over you.”

A woman’s sexuality requires domination from the man. If she is not dominated by a man (or if she rebels against the “patriarchy”) she will seek lewd avenues of expression to her sexuality.

So in sum, the fundamental nature of woman is:

  1. Finding fulfillment in relieving a man’s primal urges (the succor role)
  2. Yearning for the strongest man she can get (hypergamy)
  3. Deriving pleasure from pain and subjugation to a strong man (masochism)

Female Nature: Sin or Design?

Now, to bring this full circle back to the original question: “is hypergamy sinful?” There’s something worth noting in the Genesis 3 account:

When God made his decrees, both the serpent and the man were given a “because you did this… therefore this” type of judgment. But the woman was not.

The woman was simply told, “this is what is going to happen.”

The responsibility fell on Adam. “Because you listened to the voice of your wife.”

In other words, it seems that the nature of woman was changed because of the man not because of the woman.

What you believe about the nature of women will determine your attitude toward them.

One worldview says, women are the way they are because of sin. The female nature must be suppressed because it is evil.

The other worldview says, women are the way they are because it makes better men. Feral women is a consequence of weak men. The proper solution is to build stronger men.

It’s easy to call hypergamy a sin. When unrestrained, it can wreak a lot of havoc.

But what if hypergamy is simply the challenge designed by God to make stronger men?

I’m hesitant to call “sin” what was apparently designed by God.

 

 

 

The Case for “Objectifying” Women

Contrary to the script young men are indoctrinated with, learning to properly objectify a woman is a critical manhood skill.

I’m not talking about the degrading kind of objectification… like telling her she doesn’t need to use her brains or any such nonsense.

I’m referring to the skill of being able to look at a woman as an object that needs to be acted upon. 

Most men try to view their woman as a friend. And friendships are fragile. Friendships only last as long as there is shared interest.

But marriage is not a friendship.

A real marriage occurs when a man actively cultivates and protects a woman.

The Lord God took the man and put him in the garden of Eden to work it and keep it. (Gen 2:15)

Man was created to fulfill two tasks:

  1. Work the garden (abad) – in this context, to till or cultivate the garden so that it brought forth it’s fruit
  2. Keep the garden (shamar) – keep watch, preserve, protect the garden

Now, as we learn in the Song of Songs and in Ephesians 5, man’s real work is not gardening. The garden was a real life metaphor to help men understand women.

Some clarification on the cultivation process might be helpful here:

Loosening and breaking up (tilling) of the soil. The soil around existing plants is cultivated (by hand using a hoe, or by machine using a cultivator) to destroy weeds and promote growth by increasing soil aeration and water infiltration. Soil being prepared for the planting of a crop is cultivated by a harrow or plow.

A woman must be regularly “loosened” and broken in to destroy the negative effects that accumulate in her body. She must be opened up and “prepared” to be nourished with life-giving water. Deep plowing is especially necessary when planting a new “crop” or opening up new channels for “water infiltration.”

Also note that cultivation is not for the timid. The man must use the appropriate amount of force that the situation calls for. The ground gives resistance and a slack hand cannot penetrate the ground deep enough to properly plant his seed.

In short, the gardener cannot be preoccupied with whether he’s hurting the ground’s feelings. He “objectifies” the ground by seeing it as something that needs to be worked upon.

Most men lack confidence with women. Seeing a woman as a garden that needs to be “worked” is the key to confidence.

 

Prove Me Wrong: The Song of Songs is Nonsensical

I got side tracked with this conundrum. An intellectual puzzle with important consequences.

I’m (seriously) inviting any reader with an interest to try to poke holes in my logic and assumptions.

The Problem:

The Song of Songs text, as we have received it, is largely nonsensical. Sure, there are random insights that can be gleaned by understanding the images. But (to my knowledge) no scholar has ever been able to demonstrate any obvious logical connection from one set of verses to the next.

So the question a layperson should be asking is “Why is the Song of Songs so damn confusing?”

The Case for a “Restored” Song of Songs Text:

  1. The Apostle Paul warned Timothy that, in later times, some would withdraw from the faith and forbid marriage (1 Tim 4)
  2. In order to effectively forbid marriage, it would be necessary to obscure the exuberant praise of erotic love found in the Song
  3. The church’s allegorical interpretation of the Song began as early as the 2nd century with Origen. (The Jews likewise adapted an allegorical interpretation probably much sooner than this.)
  4. The oldest complete set of Scriptures we have are copies of the Greek Septuagint from the 4th century A.D.

In short, the timeline looks like this:

1st century – warning of religious prudes to come

2nd century – Song of Songs is “spritualized”

4th century – latest complete copy of the Song of Songs

I find it highly unlikely that the confusion surrounding the Song is not a direct result of these demon-obsessed sociopaths that the Apostle Paul warned us about.

But we have no explicit evidence of this tampering. So we’re in the realm of probabilistic thinking and risk calculation.

So let’s give this a go…

What are the Odds?

What are the odds that a scholar (and a liberal one at that) could completely rearrange the Song of Songs text and have it make more logical sense the original?

Probably extremely unlikely.

Imagine trying to cut up a bunch of Shakespeare sonnets and trying to rearrange them to make better poetry.

Nevertheless, that is exactly what Dr. Paul Haupt did in 1902. Regardless of your feelings on the “artistic liberties” he took with the text, there’s no doubt that his version of the Song makes more logical sense than the version found in our Bibles.

Now, what’s the risk? What if Haupt is wrong?

Well, first off, we’re not dealing with revelation in this case. We’re dealing with wisdom. 

In other words, the Song of Songs is not an direct oracle from God. Rather, it’s a series of poetic observations by a wise and godly man (men?).

And the standard for judging wisdom is not “what text is most accurate?” The question is “what works in the real world?”

To illustrate, let’s say I told you that Seneca once advised “Luck is what happens when preparation meets opportunity.

If you try to argue that Seneca didn’t really say that or that those words aren’t accurate, then you’ve entirely missed the point.

But if you ponder the quote and see if it holds true to reality, then you’ve acquired wisdom.

So it is with the Song of Songs.

It doesn’t matter what order you read it in or even who wrote it. What matters is whether it communicates truth about sex. Does it cause you to think about sex in new and profound ways? If so, then it’s wisdom.

So, for all the reasons above, I think the most prudent course of action for the sexual man is to ignore the (mostly) nonsensical arrangement of the Song found in the Bible and use the more logical rearrangement of the text.

The Superiority of Biblical “Porn”

It’s arguable that the Song of Songs can be accurately classified as pornography.

It’s certainly not low-class pornography, but it is certainly “naughty” and inspires the reader to explicitly imagine sexual acts that would normally only be found in pornography.

Regardless of how you classify it, what matters is understanding it.

Towards that end, I have posted a rendition of the Song below. I have used Dr. Haupt’s “restoration of the Hebrew text” as my basis for the sequence. While I’d normally be skeptical of attempts to reorder the sequence of the received text, I find that Dr. Haupt’s version simply makes sense while the received version is mostly nonsensical. At the least, the Haupt version can stand alone as a work of art with useful insights into sexuality. It is probably the most “red pill” poem ever written.

The only limitation of Dr. Haupt’s text is that he took a good deal of liberty with the translation (it’s more of a paraphrase) and he left out a good deal of material for the sake of rhythm. But since I’m wanting to study the Song of Songs rather than read as poetry per se, I have used the Concordant Literal Version for the biblical text in place of Dr. Haupt’s paraphrase.

So all that aside, here is the Song of Songs restored to what is (most likely) the proper sequence.

(There are 12 scenes that are not necessarily connected through a unifying plot. The titles are Dr. Haupt’s, not mine.)

The song of songs, which is Solomonic

1. Procession of the Bride

Who is this ascending from the wilderness
Like pillars of smoke,
Who is this ascending from the wilderness,
Intimately leaning on her darling?

Behold, his couch, that which is Solomon’s!
Sixty masterful men surround it,
From the masterful men of Israel,
All of them holding a sword, taught in warfare,
Each with his sword on his thigh,
Because of alarm at night.

King Solomon made the sedan-litter for himself
From wood of Lebanon.
Its columns he made of silver,
Its bolster of gold,
Its riding seat of purple,
Its interior inlaid with love
By the daughters of Jerusalem.

Before I knew it,
My soul set me among the chariots of my princely kinsmen.
Come forth, O daughters of Zion, and see king Solomon,
With the crown with which his mother crowned him
On the day of his espousal.

 

2. Charms of the Bride During Her Sword-dance

Who is this who gazes forth like the dawn,
Lovely as the moonbeam,
Pure as the sunshine,
Majestic as standard bearers?

Return, return, Shulamitess;
Return, return, that we may perceive you.
What do you perceive in the Shulamitess?
Something like the Mahanaim chorus?

How lovely are your sandaled footsteps,
O princely daughter;
The curvings of your thighs are like eardrops,
The work of true craftsman hands.
And your two breasts are like two fawns,
Twins of a gazelle.

This is your stature: it is like the date palm,
And your breasts like clusters. I said,
Let me ascend into the date palm;
Let me take hold of its topmost branches.
Oh that your breasts may become like the clusters of the vine,
And the scent of your nose like apricots.

Your head upon you is like Carmel,
And the tresses of your head are like purple:
A king is bound by the strands.
Your neck is like a tower of ivory.
Your eyes are like reservoirs in Heshbon by the gate of Bath-rabbim;
Your nose is like the tower of Lebanon, watching the face of Damascus.
And your palate like the best wine.
May it go to my darling,
As evenly gliding over lips and teeth.

How lovely you are, and how pleasant you are,
O love, among rich delights.
Your belly is like a grain pile of wheat, fenced about by anemones.
Your navel is like a goblet, well-rounded, which does not lack liquor.

 

3. Brothers of the Bride

I am my darling’s, and my darling is mine;
He is grazing his flock among the anemones.
I am my darling’s,
And his impulse is toward me.

Like an anemone among the thistles,
So is my dearest among the daughters.

Do not stare at me because I am dusky,
Because the sun has glared upon me;
My mother’s sons burned hot against me;
They placed me custodian over the vineyards;
Over my vineyard which was for myself, I had not the custody.

Get hold of the foxes for us,
The small foxes that harm the vineyards,
For our vineyards have vine blossoms.

We have a young sister,
And her breasts are not yet grown.
What shall we do for our sister
On the day when she is spoken for?

If she is a wall,
We shall build a battlement of silver upon it.
We shall make bead-rows of gold for you,
With specks of silver.

And if she is a door,
We shall buttress it with planks of cedar.

I am a wall,
And my breasts are like towers;
I have, then, become in his eyes
Like one providing peace.

O that you were as a brother to me,
Who suckled at the breasts of my mother!
Then if I found you outdoors I would kiss you,
And no one would despise me.

I would lead you and bring you to my mother’s house,
Who has taught me.
There I shall give my affections to you.
I would give you to drink of wine that is compounded,
Of my pomegranate juice.

His left hand is under my head,
And his right arm embraces me.”

I have adjured you, daughters of Jerusalem,
Why do you rouse, why do you rouse up love,
When it already delights?

 

4. One sole love

For Solomon, there was a vineyard in Baal-hamon;
He gave out the vineyard to custodians;
Each would bring for its fruit a thousand silver pieces.

I have my own vineyard before me;
The thousand are for you, Solomon,
And two hundred for the custodians of its fruit.

Sixty queens, they may be, and eighty concubines,
And damsels may be without number,
But only one is she, my dove, my flawless one,
The only one is she of her mother,
The pure one is she of the one who bore her.

Daughters see her and call her happy;
Queens and concubines, let them praise her.

 

5. Protection from All Dangers

With me from Lebanon, O bride,
Come with me from Lebanon;

Regard the scene from the summit of Amana,
From the summit of Shenir and Hermon,
From the habitations of lions,
From the mountain ranges of leopards.

 

6. Beauty of the Lover

I was asleep, yet my heart was aroused;
The sound of my darling knocking!

“Open to me, my sister, my dearest,
My dove, my flawless one,
For my head is filled with night mist,
My locks with moisture of the night.”

I have stripped off my tunic; how should I put it on again?
I have washed my feet; how should I dirty them again?

My darling put forth his hand into the latch hole,
And my bowels clamored for him.
I arose to open for my darling;
My hands dropped myrrh,
And my fingers with overflowing myrrh–
On the handgrips of the latch. I opened for my darling,
Yet my darling had vanished; he had passed aside.

My soul had gone forth when he spoke;
I sought him, yet I did not find him;
I called him, yet he did not answer me.

The guards who go around in the city found me;
They smote me; they injured me;
They lifted my cape off me, those guards of the walls.

I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem,
If you find my darling, what shall you tell him?
That I am ailing with love?

“Whither has your darling gone, loveliest among women?
Whither has your darling faced?
Let us seek him with you.
How is your darling better than another darling, Loveliest among women?
How is your darling better than another darling
That thus you adjure us?”

My darling is shimmering and ruddy,
Preeminent among ten thousand.

His head is certified gold, glittering gold;
His locks are pendulous, dusky as a raven.
His eyes are like doves by channels of water,
Washed in milk, seated by a brimming pool.

His cheeks are like beds of aromatics, towers of sweet compounds;
His lips are like anemones, dropping overflowing myrrh.
His hands are like ring-bands of gold, filled with topaz;
His belly is like reflecting ivory, bedecked with sapphires.

His legs are like columns of marble, founded on sockets of glittering gold;
His appearance is like Lebanon, choice as its cedars.
His palate is most sweet,
And all of him is coveted.

This is my darling, and this is my dearest,
O daughters of Jerusalem.

 

7. The Bride to the Bridegroom on the Morrow After the Marriage

How lovely you are, my dearest!
How lovely you are; your eyes are like doves!
How lovely you are, my darling, indeed so pleasant!

Indeed our divan is under flourishing trees,
The rafters of our grand house are cedars,
And our gutters are firs.

Like an apricot tree among the trees of the wildwood,
So is my darling among the sons;
In his shadow I covet that I may sit,
And his fruit is sweet to my palate.

He brings me to the house of wine,
And his standard over me is love.”
Support me with raisin cakes;
Reinvigorate me with apricots,
For I am ailing with love.

His left hand is under my head,
And his right arm embraces me.
While the king was in his surroundings,
My nard gave forth its scent.

A sachet of myrrh is my darling to me,
Lodged between my breasts.
A cluster of henna blossoms is my darling to me,
In the vineyards of Engedi.

Let him kiss me with kisses of his mouth.
Indeed your affections are better than wine.
As for scent, your attars are well pleasing;
Your name is like attar as it is being emptied out;
Therefore, the damsels love you.
The upright love you.

Draw me after you; let us run;
The king would bring me to his chambers.

We would exult and rejoice with you;
We do commemorate your affections as better than wine.
Eat, associates!
Drink and be drunken, friends!

My darling is mine, and I am his;
He is grazing his flock among the anemones.

While the day blows gently,
And the shadows flee,
Turn around, my darling, be you like a gazelle
Or a fawn of the deer on the sundered mountains.
Hasten away, my darling,
And be you like a gazelle
Or a fawn of the deer
On the mountains of aromatics!

I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem,
By gazelles or by hinds of the field:
Do not rouse, and do not rouse up love
Until it delight.

 

8. The Maiden’s Beauty

How lovely you are, my dearest!
How lovely you are!

Your eyes are doves behind your face veil;
Your hair is like a drove of goats that streams down from Mount Gilead;
Your teeth are like a fashioned drove that ascends from the washing;
All of them have their twin,
And there are none among them bereaved.

Your lips are like thread of double dipped scarlet,
And you mouth is comely;
Like a slice of pomegranate are your temples behind your face veil.
Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an armory;
A thousand shields are hung on it, all cuirasses of the masterful.

To my mare among the chariots of Pharaoh I liken you, my dearest.
Your cheeks are comely with bead-rows,
Your neck with threaded gems.
Your neck is like the tower of David, built for an armory;
A thousand shields are hung on it, all cuirasses of the masterful.

Your two breasts are like two fawns,
Twins of a gazelle that graze among the anemones.

While the day blows gently,
And the shadows flee,
I shall go myself to the mountain of myrrh
And to the hill of frankincense.

You are lovely, my dearest, as Tirzah,
Comely as Jerusalem,
Majestic as standard bearers.
Turn your eyes about from in front of me,
For they beset me.

Your hair is like a drove of goats that streams down from Gilead;
Your teeth are like a drove of ewes that ascend from the washing;
All of them have their twins,
And there are none among them bereaved;
Like a slice of pomegranate are your temples behind your face veil.
Turn your eyes about from in front of me,
For they beset me.

Your hair is like a drove of goats that streams down from Gilead;
You stir my heart, my sister, O bride, you stir my heart
With one glance from your eyes,
With one coil of your necklace.
How lovely are your affections, my sister,O bride,
How much better are you affections than wine,
And the scent of your attars than all aromatics!

Your lips drop sweetness as the honeycomb, O bride;
Honey and milk are under your tongue,
And the scent of your raiment is like the scent of Lebanon.

You are a garden latched, my sister, O bride,
A garden latched, a spring sealed.
You are a spring for gardens,
A well of living waters,
Even those flowing from Lebanon.

Your runners form a park of pomegranates,
With finest fruit,
Henna blossoms with nards,
Nard and saffron, reed and cinnamon,
With all the woods of frankincense, myrrh and aloes,
With all the topmost aromatics.

Rouse, north wind, and come, south wind;
Blow on my garden that its aromatics may flow!

 

9. The Bride’s Fair Garden

The Bride:
Let my darling come to his garden
That he may eat its fine fruit.

Do come, my darling, let us go forth to the field;
Let us lodge among the henna bushes;
Let us go early to the vineyards;
Let us see if the vine has budded,
The vine blossom has opened,
And the pomegranates have flowered;
There I shall give my affections to you.

The mandrakes give forth their scent,
And at our portals are all fine fruits,
Both new and stored,
That I have secluded for you, my darling.”

The Bridegroom:
I descended to the walnut garden
To see the pollination about the watercourse,
To see whether the vine had budded
And pomegranates had flowered.

I come to my garden, my sister, O bride;
I nip off my myrrh with my aromatics;
I eat my wildwood fare with my honey;
I drink my wine with my milk.

The Bride:
My darling has descended to his garden,
To the beds of aromatics,
To graze in the gardens
And to glean anemones.

 

10. Springtide of Love

Hark, the voice of my darling!
Behold, this one comes,
Leaping over the mountains,
Bounding over the hills!

My darling is like a gazelle
Or a fawn of the deer;
Behold, this one stands behind our house-wall,
Peering through the windows,
Gazing forth through the lattices.

My darling answered and said to me:
“Arise, you, my dearest!
My lovely one, now go you forth!
For behold, the wintry weather has passed;
The downpour has passed on and has itself gone.”

“The flowers are seen in the land;
The season for pruning is attained,
And the voice of the turtledove is heard in our land.”

“The fig tree flavors its green figs,
And the vines give scent to the vine blossoms.
Arise, you, my dearest!
My lovely one, now go you forth!”

“My dove, in the encircling crag,
In the concealment of the cliff,
Let me see your appearance;
Let me hear your voice;
You who are dwelling in the gardens,
The partners are attending to your voice;
Let me hear it.”

“For your voice is congenial,
And your appearance is comely.”

 

11. Pasture Thy Kids

Do tell me, you whom my soul loves,
Where do you graze your flock?

Where do you recline them at noon?
Why should I become like a muffled woman
Beside the droves of your partners?

“If you do not know for yourself, loveliest among women,
Go forth for yourself at the heels of the flock,
And graze your kids by the tabernacles of the shepherds.”

 

12. Omnia vincit Amor

On my bed in the nights
I sought him whom my soul loves;
I sought him, yet I did not find him.

Let me rise now, and let me go around in the city,
Through the roadways and through the squares;
Let me seek him whom my soul loves.

I sought him, yet I did not find him.
The guards who go around in the city found me.
He whom my soul loves, have you seen him?

Barely had I passed by them
When I found him whom my soul loves;
I held him and would not slacken my grip on him,
Until I brought him to my mother’s house,
To the chamber of her who became pregnant with me.

I adjure you, daughters of Jerusalem,
By gazelles or by hinds of the field:
Do not rouse, and do not rouse up love
Until it delight.

Place me like a seal upon your heart,
Like a seal upon your arm,
For love is strong as death,
Its jealousy hard as the unseen,
Its burning coals as burning coals of fire,
The blaze of Yah.

Many waters cannot quench love,
Nor can streams overwhelm it.
If a man should give all the wealth of his house for love,
People would despise, yea despise it.

A Glossary of Sexual Sin

So… I’ve been thinking about porn lately.

More specifically I’m trying to get to the root of why it’s a problem. I feel this is a topic where there are a lot of soundbites and virtue signaling, but not much thinking. So this post will include some foundational concepts for my philosophical adventure through yet another inappropriate subject.

The first step is to define the relevant terms correctly. As Vox Day has pointed out, the earliest sign of a charlatan is that they use commonly understood words in unusual ways in order to fit their argument. This could also apply for people who have been infected by false teaching and haven’t yet done any thinking of their own. And I will have none of that boondoggling around here! So let’s start with a basic glossary…

(Links are included to relevant dictionary entries. I used the Greek words when it is a term found specifically in the Bible.)

Erotica – literature or art intended to arouse sexual desire

Art – the expression or application of human creative skill and imagination

Pornography – printed or visual material that contains explicit descriptions or display of sexual organs or activity

Sexual immorality (porneía) – a “selling off” of one’s body; promiscuity of any kind; illicit sexual intercourse. Derived from pórnosmeaning a male prostitute.

Lust (epithumeó)- a focused passion to do or possess something; a compound of epi (“upon”) and thymós (getting heated up; passion-driven behavior; intense emotions). Lust is an intense and growing obsession with an object.

Adultery (moicheuó) – sexual intercourse with another man’s wife. Jesus taught that the root of adultery is lusting for another man’s wife (see above.)

Tempt (peirazó) – to try or test. Often used in a negative sense but could be used in a positive sense. The context determines whether it’s positive or negative. James says that it is epithumea (“lust”, “passionate desire”) that creates our temptations.

Sin (hamartia)– derived from “not” and meros “a part, a share of”. Means to have no share or part of something due to missing the target. In the Biblical context, sin is that which causes one to lose his place or share in God’s kingdom because he did not reach the target (i.e. the end goal.)

So now that we’ve clarified the definitions, the next question is how do these terms relate to each other? Here’s a few starting observations:

The Song of Solomon is not pornography because it does not explicitly describe sexual organs or activity. Rather, it uses metaphors to indirectly refer to sexual functions.

Pornography is art because it is an application of creative skill and imagination. The question is whether it can be good art.

Viewing pornography is not the same as sexual immorality (porneia) because one can certainly look at porn without engaging in illicit sexual behavior. The right question is whether it inspires illicit sexual behavior. There are also other factors to consider… just because something is not a categorical sin doesn’t automatically mean it’s “good.” Nevertheless, the answer is probably not as black and white as we tend to make it.

The Song of Solomon is certainly erotica and it’s included in the Bible for all to read. Hence we cannot categorically condemn erotica as sinful.

Lust is not inherently sinful. Whether it’s sinful depends on whether or not one is able to lawfully possess what he desires. A man can (and should) lust after his wife. And a man looking for a wife could, arguably, legitimately lust after an unmarried woman. Though from a Red Pill perspective, lusting after an unmarried woman is unadvisable… akin to “oneitis.” It’s better to lust after wife rather than a particular woman.

Lust is not the same as the desire for sex. It’s not even the same as desiring to have sex with a particular woman. Lust occurs when there is a “focused passion” (i.e. an obsession) that continues to grow in intensity. But, as a matter of wisdom, it is best that a man avoid dwelling on any woman other than his wife; there is no need to create unnecessary temptation.

Sin is a distinct (but related) concept from “temptation” and “lust.” According to James 1:14, there is a progression that, when allowed to develop, ultimately leads to death:

Lust => Enticement => Temptation => Sin => Death

In regards to pornography, the question we need to pursue is twofold:

  1. Does intentionally viewing or reading sexually explicit material cause one to lose his place in God’s Kingdom? If so, why?
  2. If there is nothing inherently wrong with viewing or reading sexually explicit material, then what are the Biblical boundaries that need to be placed around it to prevent us from being tempted to sin?

 

 

What Christians Can Learn from a Gay Black Man

I’ve never personally been exposed to gay culture. But this story told in a recent email by Antonio Cortez echoes the descriptions I’ve heard from my father:

When I was in college, I had a friend, his name was Marcus. He was in the dance program, and he was flamboyantly, hysterically GAY.

Gay with a capital G.

He was a 6’3 black guy with an athlete’s build, probably would have been a phenomenal football/basketball/baseball player, but he was a dancer.

A gay black dancer that fulfilled every stereotype you could think of that comes with a designation.

Marcus and I always got along, as I was essentially the only heterosexual male in the entire department, and being highly masculine myself, I was a definite counterbalance to pretty much everyone I was around.

And when I say got along, I mean he drove me fucking insane most of the time and he always semi joking claiming he was going to rape me.

Its hysterical to think about now, as I realize most people have never been truly exposed to Gay male cutlure, but gay men are the most sexually aggressive, promiscuous, and probably disgusting by most “proper” standards you can imagine. There is a reason the gay men carry the most STDs and use ridiculous amounts of drugs, they are constantly screwing each other and swapping partners.

Two thoughts occurred to me after I read that story:

First, it makes sense to me why God prohibited male-on-male sex in Leviticus and Paul referred to the act as “abandoning the natural use of the woman” and how they “received in themselves the due penalty of their error.” The sin, at it its root, is an improper channeling of aggressive masculine sexual energy. God intended for this energy to be directed towards a woman.

My second thought was that a man can do well with women by positioning himself in an arena where there is an overrepresentation of females and almost no masculine heterosexual men.

Anthony is an interesting alpha male. He’s a high testosterone red pilled ballet dancer who’s fanatical about fitness. Hard to beat that unique positioning. (I recommend following his daily email tips. He’s got some good stuff.)

I Never Knew Law Could Be So Sexy

One of the amusements I like to provide on my blog is showing how things you thought had nothing to do with sex actually have much more to do with it than you thought.

Case in point: Latin law.

There’s an old Latin legal saying:

Exceptio confirmat regulam (the exception confirms the rule.)

I’d never given the principle much thought until I read this interesting article on Mental Floss. The saying is more insightful than I initially gave it credit for:

The principle provides legal cover for inferences such as the following: if I see a sign reading “no swimming allowed after 10 pm,” I can assume swimming is allowed before that time; if an appliance store says “pre-paid delivery required for refrigerators,” I can assume they do not require pre-paid delivery for other items. The exception here is not a thing but an act of excepting. The act of stipulating a condition for when something is disallowed (or required), proves that when the stipulated conditions do not hold, it is allowed (or not required). The general rules are that swimming is allowed before 10pm and that pre-paid delivery is not required. The fact that exceptions to those rules have been stated confirms those rules hold in all other cases.

Exceptio confirmat regulam is a foundational principle for understanding biblical laws, including those about sexuality. The biblical “restrictions” suddenly becomes more interesting. For instance:

  • If God said not to lust after our neighbor’s wife, then it’s allowable for men to desire unmarried women.
  • If Paul said it was allowable to refrain from sex on occasion in order to pray, then constant sexual activity was expected as the norm.
  • If a woman could have her hand cut off should she decide to “taketh a man by the secrets” in a fight, then the male genitalia was normally regarded as a sacred object.

As I’ve illustrated in my post on sexuality in Leviticus, God is not a prude. The exception confirms the rule.

For those who have eyes to see…

Whither Shalt a Man Disperse His Fountain?

Yesterday, I claimed that the “sealed fountain” in Song of Solomon 4:12 is a reference to female ejaculation.

earl responded by pointing out that Proverbs 5 has similar language in reference to marriage vs. adultery. (The popular interpretation of Song 4:12 is that it’s a reference to female chastity.) This reminded me of something interesting I came across a while back…

Proverbs 5:16-17 has long been a difficult passage for translators. It’s typically rendered as something like:

Drink water from your own cistern,
And running water from your own well.
Should your fountains be dispersed abroad,
Streams of water in the streets?
Let them be only your own,
And not for strangers with you.
Let your fountain be blessed,
And rejoice with the wife of your youth.

But the Hebrew does not literally say that. (You can see for yourself here.)

It was changed into a rhetorical question by the translators because they couldn’t make sense of it as a straight statement. They assumed that a man’s “fountain” should NOT be dispersed.

But the Stone Edition of the Tanach, edited by Rabbi Nosson Scherman, renders the passage as follows:

Drink water from your own cistern and flowing water from your own well. [Then] your springs will spread outwards, streams of water in the thorough-fares. They will be yours alone, strangers not sharing them with you. Your source will be blessed, and you will rejoice with the wife of your youth.

While the conclusion remains the same (don’t sleep with an adulteress), the meaning behind the conclusion drastically changes.

Solomon is not simply saying adultery is bad. He’s saying it’s shameful for strangers to share your seed (e.g. your “springs”, your “source”). It is better to channel your springs into your own wife, so that you keep what is yours.

A man who is “fruitful” will visibly spread his seed (offspring) throughout the kingdom. But to produce bastard children would be a shame to your seed.

Your seed and your identity are bound together. You are only bringing shame to yourself by planting it in foreign fields.

Same conclusion. Different meaning.