I will no longer be working on Red Pill Fallacies. I have been heavily involved in the work of God in Carson City, and do not have time to devote to it. But also because I am seeking a deeper level of consecration. Studying what the red pill believes involves reading A LOT of toxic, negative, mysogynistic materials that make me ill to read them. I will however, leave what I’ve studied so far in place. People need to realize that the whole basis for their psychology/philosophy is based in falsehoods and that anyone calling themselves a Christian would not be adhering to such harmful beliefs. One cannot have fellowship with the works of darkness and be a child of light. Dalrock, Deep Strength, and other so-called “alpha men” will stand in judgment before Jesus Christ for leading people astray and leading them to worship at the altar of idols. Rollo Tomassi is a false prophet who God will hold accountable for the souls he has led astray.
And Jacob loved Rachel; and said, I will serve thee seven years for Rachel thy younger daughter. And Laban said, It is better that I give her to thee, than that I should give her to another man: abide with me. And Jacob served seven years for Rachel; and they seemed unto him but a few days, for the love he had to her. And Jacob said unto Laban, Give me my wife, for my days are fulfilled, that I may go in unto her. Genesis 29:18-21
Today I want to take a break from the order of things so that I can bring you a love story. In fact, it is one of the few instances of love at first sight recorded in the Bible. The above verses detail how Jacob the son of Isaac, grandson of Abraham came to be married to his wife Rachel. Jacob, as we know it, had to leave his home in Canaan because his brother Esau wanted to kill him. Rebekah sent him to Haran to the home of her brother Laban. When Jacob arrives he finds Rachel there tending her father’s sheep and he kisses her out of joy.
Shortly after, we are told that Jacob loves Rachel and asks Laban to give her to him to wife. We do know that Rachel is beautiful. However, the language of this passage, even in the Hebrew suggests that his love for her was more than just sexual passion. Several things rule against this. The word for love used in this passage is ahav, which can define many things, just as our word love does. Let me say that love in the Bible is not what we think of as romantic love. Romantic love idealizes the couple, whereas Biblical love is more real, more intense, and more soulful.
The things in this passage that rule for a heartfelt rather than an erotic love are:
- Use of the word love, which for the most part in the Bible does not indicate simply erotic sexual pleasure (I will go into that more)
- It says the time he served for her seemed like just a few days for the love that he held for her. Not only does he have to work for her for seven years, but when we go to later verses, it indicates that he had to work an additional seven years in order to get her for his wife. Fourteen years for one woman, whose looks I’m sure changed during that time.
Other things in the account of Jacob-Rachel that rule for a heartfelt love rather than pure sexual desire:
- He favored her children above Leah’s
- When he thought Esau was coming for them, he set her and her children in the hindmost position (the safest)
In several articles I have read on the Jewish concept of marital love, it indicates the importance of the aspect of giving of one’s self, of loving the whole person, of loving from the heart, and I will include the links for these at the end. Though not romantic love, it was important that a husband show his wife tenderness and affection. To treat her simply as an object of physical pleasure was to strip her of her humanity. Also, in Judaism, giving of oneself to one’s spouse is considered a mitzvot, a good deed. For the Jew, unlike other peoples, everything was about the divine, so that even the pleasures of life were gifts from God. In Judaism, human intimacy involves the heart and soul and mind, thus the commandment to love God in this manner. Giving of one’s whole self.
The Red Pill “Christian” blogger Dalrock feels that Genesis 29 is an erotic story of love as he reduces love to sexuality in general, much contrary to the Christian concept of love expressed throughout the New Testament, and in for the most part in the old. In this article, Dalrock admits he knows very little about the original Hebrew or the Jewish context of love, and so he has a very convoluted way of looking at texts about love (probably from aligning himself too much with the amoral Mr. Tomassi).
Dalrock uses a different version of the Bible and implies that because his version says Jacob slept with Leah and Rachel that that means there was no emotion involved. Erroneous logic. First, to assume that sleeping with Leah all night meant he had no emotional attachment to Rachel. If he didn’t know it was Leah, this must have meant it was either too dark, or she was in some way disguised. He had no way of knowing what Rachel’s body looked like or felt like, so it would have been easy to “beguile” him. Second, sleeping with your wife is expected! Are you not going to go in to your wife? Does that mean you don’t have feelings for her because you sleep with her? Juvenile reasoning, for sure.
He also compares the passage to that of Michal and David where it indicates Michal had feelings for David. Let me just say here, that just because it doesn’t mention Rachel’s feelings in the matter doesn’t mean she didn’t care. We simply have no way of knowing. She doesn’t protest the marriage, that is certain. However, we do know that the Hebrew text indicates Jacob’s great love for Rachel in the use of the word “ahavah”. Ahavah means a deeper love and in some cases can mean “lovesick”. It is the love Jonathan had for David, and David for Jonathan in 1 Samuel 18 and 1 Kings 1. So we do know that Jacob had more than physical love for Rachel.
Lastly, I want to point out that in the Septuagint, the translation of the Old Testament from the Hebrew to the Greek, the word for love is “agape” which is the highest form of love there is and involves affection and high esteem. It is the word used for divine love in the New Testament. If the passage in Genesis 29 was simply a tale of physical pleasure, they would have used the word “eros”. While the translation of ahav to agape can seem controversial, it is less so if one goes back to the meaning of marital intimacy in the Jewish context of loving the whole person. A man and wife can rejoice in this intimacy for this very reason that it does involve their emotions, as evidenced by the Song of Solomon.
Dalrock’s assessment that a man loving his wife is like two animals mating is contrary not only to Christian ideals, but to the Jewish context of love and what differentiates man from the beasts of the field. A woman is more than just a body to sate one’s pleasures on, or even to enjoy simply physical pleasure with her. It involves heart and soul. God gave us a heart and a soul for a reason, and the red pill advocates need to find theirs.
While reading an post from earlier this year on insanitybytes’ blog, I came across this post regarding Dalrock, a red pill “Christian” blogger and found that it so aptly demonstrates his lack of commitment to Christian morality and his double standard regarding marriage.
First, my thoughts on the purpose of marriage not only from a Biblical standpoint, but a societal one. Dalrock makes clear in this article, this condemnation of the views of the National Review and others, that his idea about the purpose of marriage is to maintain sexual morality, which he rightly associates with 1 Corinthians chapter 7. As I’ve stated on my blog The Glorious Wife, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. Dalrock evidently failed to read the book of Genesis.
The first commandment God gives to men and women is to “Be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth”. So one of the first purposes God has for marriage is reproduction. Second, God, prior to the creation of woman out of man, looks around and says, “It is not good for man to be alone, I will make for him a help meet.” God saw that man needed a help suitable for him. This isn’t just sexual; God intended that woman should help man in his endeavours in maintaining dominion over the earth. Someone to share his life and missions with and to assist him in them. He gave man and woman a desire for each other, to know each other so that they would reproduce, but it is, as Dalrock pointed out, also to maintain morality in relationships. Lastly, before getting into the societal reasons for this, I would point to Ephesians 5, which perhaps he also hasn’t read, which states that the relationship of a man and wife is symbolic of the eternal marriage between Christ and His bride, the Church.
From a societal, or even communal standpoint, monogamy, marriage stabilizes the society. This is clear in the early 20th century work of anthropologist Dr. J. D. Unwin who showed that across time and across the world monogamous societies were more stable. Take the family out of the society and it becomes unstable because people become depraved and hedonistic. This happened in Rome and it is happening in the US.
Dalrock is vitriolic in his assessment of the National Reviews encouragement for men to marry, stating, “How can I know? You just have to look at the long string of men that came before you, men they seduced with the very same lines. Once the wedding is over, once the men of National Review have gotten what they wanted, the men who naively trusted them are discarded like yesterday’s trash. Do you really believe you will be the special one, the one they don’t toss casually away once they get what they want?”
However, there are a couple of things that Dalrock fails to take into consideration. He sees women as fickle (probably fed by his red pill view that women marry men only to provide a living and then move on to the romantic man of their dreams). However, statistics show not only that age at marriage and education are huge factors in divorce, but that committed Christians are less likely to divorce than the general public. So, rather than denigrade women as heartless wenches marrying and discarding, he should be encouraging men and women to marry later, get an education and be committed to Christ.
I would also like to point out that this is the root of Dalrock’s hypocrisy. While he has no problem pointing out that the National Review, et. al. are encouraging men to marry and thus dooming many of them to the scourge of divorce, he has no problem marrying himself to the philosophy of Rollo Tomassi as espoused in the Rational Male. Tomassi’s works not only strips woman of her inherent human value and reduces her to a sexual market value, allowing her to be used and discarded at a man’s pleasure (treated like a plate, a sexual object), and essentially saying her value is determined by the man, but his blogroll is full of people who feel the same way. He never calls any of these men out for their heartless view of women, for belittling women’s sacrificial love while upholding man’s rights to self-interest and amoral power.
From Dalrock’s standpoint, love is sex, and the marital love expressed in the Bible is primarily sensual in nature. While he states that women are due love and affection, it’s clear what his idea of that is. A search of his blog shows very little about love and a lot about sexuality. By advertising the Rational Male, Dalrock buys into the totality of its sordid attitude about women, and this is hypocritical as he calls out those who at least encourage men to make commitments while espousing himself to the ideals of Tomassi, which reflects a poor view of the value of women, indeed, allows them to be exploited and tossed aside like yesterday’s trash.
Jesus Christ values all humanity, He sees all humanity as sinful and in need of redemption, He sees only the carnal and the spiritual man, and the only power factor in His gospel is the transforming power of the Holy Ghost which can achieve far more in human relationships than red pill/evolutionary psychology theories could. If Dalrock really cared about the plight of men ruined by Feminism, He would call them to the Cross and to the Upper Room.
In Jesus name
Pamela Parizo © 2017
This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, Without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, Traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; Having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. 2 Timothy 3:1-5
Rollo Tomassi’s The Rational Male is largely built on a foundation of self-importance, on promoting dominance and power, and dominating women in order to use them for one’s pleasure. It is similar to Ayn Rand’s philosophy of selfishness as a virtue. He builds his house on shoddy philosophy (solipsism, for example, is refuted by most philosophers, but he uses it extensively to denigrade women) and pop psychology. Some of his views on evolutionary psychology are diametrical to the research performed by others more reputable in the field. He does so to tap into the bitterness and anger of the Men’s Rights Movement fueled as a backlash against Feminism.
From a Christian standpoint, we can see that selfishness and self-interest are opposed to the sacrificial love that Jesus represents. If one gets anything out of the New Covenant, is that we are to love others as we love ourselves. When we seek the best interest of our loved ones, our Christian brothers and sisters, everyone is better for it.
Jesus represents the core of this sacrificial model of love, loving us so much that He went to the Cross for our sakes. Isaiah 53 goes into more depth as to the suffering He went through that we could be made whole. The Old Testament type of this would be Hosea, the husband who loved his wife unconditionally and sacrificially, yet redeemed her so that he could be her husband and not her lord. Jesus offers up the perfect sacrifice of His blood in order to atone for our sins.
Jesus told His followers to deny themselves, to surrender their lives so that they could find life in him. There is no room for selfishness in Jesus’ world. Love one another, put the other’s needs before your own, submit yourselves one to another. These are admonishments that oppose the hedonistic lifestyle of pleasure that Rollo is self-interested in. Power in oneself rather than God. Pleasure in oneself rather than God.
Though he admits men are egotistical, Rollo differentiates (indeed, tries to validate) this self-centered life from what he sees as female egotism by saying it is rational self-interest as opposed to the pragmatic survival egotism of women. In other words, a woman sacrificing her own needs for her children is not truly self-sacrificing because she sees them as an extension of self, whereas a man exploiting women for his own pleasure is ok. His loudest cry then is that women do not sacrifice themselves for their man.
The Bible makes it clear that we are all, man and woman, to be Christ-centered. The Apostle Paul uses the phrase, “Christ who is our life” in Colossians 3:4. A man must sacrifice his desire to please himself, and please Christ. A woman must surrender her desire for her children to Christ. Any Christian who thinks of his own pleasures above what God wants for him is not being led by the Holy Ghost. Particularly if they align themselves with those who advocate a pleasure-seeking lifestyle. The red pill blogger Dalrock needs to seriously examine his faith since he closely aligns himself with Rollo Tomassi and his woman-hating philosophy. Christianity has no place for lovers of self.
The Ephesians 5 model for marriage is based on self-sacrificial love. Agape love, that is one that is committed to the other, shows affection to the other, and holds the other in high esteem. It is the love of Christ for the Church, and the love of the Church for Jesus. Indeed, even before the chapter delves into the marriage relationship, it holds forth the offering and sacrifice of Jesus as the love we are to have for each other as Christians. Women are to submit themselves to their husbands, to reverence them. Men are to sacrifice themselves for their wives, loving her as they would their own flesh, nourishing and cherishing her. There isn’t any room for selfish desires in this model.
Jesus gave Himself for the Church, in order to wash it and sanctify it through baptism according to His word, so that He could present it to Himself. The Bride glorifies Jesus through her holiness and is glorious for the glory He brings to her through HIs love for her. That is the love a man ought to have for His wife.
When one sees value in others, when one loves others, one is truly loving oneself, and bringing glory to oneself. That is the glory of Jesus Christ. There is no greater power and no greater love than that exemplified by Him when He laid down His life for us.
Pamela Parizo © 2017