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.
Then the Lord God said, “It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helper fit for him. Genesis 2:18 RSV
In the Book of Genesis, God creates all the animals and then He creates the Man, His image reflected in human flesh. I first want to state that man is a separate creation from the creatures of the earth and IS NOT an animal by God’s definition. God saw that Man was alone, unlike all His other living creatures, so He decided to create for him a help suitable for him. God caused a sleep to come over Adam, and brought a rib out in order to fashion the woman. Eve is not a clone of him, but it is a separate, biologically distinct creation that is nevertheless a complementary part of mankind. So while we share a common humanity, we are biologically different.
The question has arisen in recent times, whether God intended for man to be polygamous. The primary thing in the Bible that rules against this is that God twice had the opportunity to provide multiple partners for man and He didn’t. At the Creation and at the Flood, God chose to have one man, one woman as the ideal to carry on mankind. In considering this problem, I play the opposition and ask the question, what rules against man being polygamous? Why would being polygamous not be in God’s gameplan? I think the key goes back to the original directive God gave to the man and to the woman, to “be fruitful, multiply and replenish the earth.” I’m going to call this command, God’s Imperative. While they are to produce children, and produce them exponentially, the purpose of all this is to replenish the earth, to fill it at the correct proportions. At current, there are near 7.5 billion people upon the earth. In 1900, that was 1.6 billion. So we can see that when man multiplies at a high rate, it overruns the earth. So, if God had given man multiple partners they would have multiplied faster than God intended.
This one male, one female pattern can be seen further throughout the Bible. Animals on the Ark were assembled by pairs. The majority of people mentioned in the Bible were monogamous. At the Flood, not only the animals, but the humans also had only one mate. In scripture after scripture, man is directed to enjoy his wife, not wives. To be satisfied with his wife. Jesus reinforces this ideal when he says that God made two in the beginning. It is true that God did not condemn polygamy in general but it was never his ideal. Abraham had serial wives; Isaac had one wife; Jacob would have chosen only one wife but through deceit and his wives concern for having children, he ended up with two wives and two concubines. Men were allowed to take extra wives in wartime. David also had multiple wives. God did not condemn these relationships because it did not violate His imperative.
Monogamy has been the most stable factor in human history, so one has to ask that if male was naturally polygamous, why there have not been more polygamous societies. It’s because some men choose not to be monogamous. Some men are not satisfied with one wife. And this has been borne out in a recent scientific study. Men and women experience lust, which is natural to our carnal natures, always wanting more than we have.
The Red Pill (and more specifically Rollo Tomassi) puts forward the evolutionary theory that Men are by nature polygamous (Male Imperative) and that Women are by nature both hypergamous (seeking the highest quality mate–the Female Imperative) and monogamous (seeking commitment). I’ve already stated that evolution is not true, it is theoretical in nature, and violates the tenets of the Bible. Rollo in many instances disparages the Bible.
The Male Imperative then is contrary to God’s Imperative of one man, one woman and the directive to replenish the earth. It is born out of man’s lust. While polygamy was allowed, as Christians we should seek God’s ideal and not man’s. The Apostle Paul directs men to have their own wife (again, implying monogamy). Neither the Mosaic Law nor Christianity condones men having harems of unmarried women, of having man exploit the sexuality of women, which the Red Pill and Rollo Tomassi condone. In fact, Rollo in one place tells men they should avoid getting married. He developed something called plate theory and believes powerful men, these “alpha males” should only pursue their self-interest and it is within their self-interest to keep many options open (women as plates) in order to avoid what he calls Oneitis. While Oneitis (the soulmate theory) is false, I would call the Male Imperative a half-truth. It does not meet God’s ideal.
Which brings us to the Female Imperative. How does the Female Imperative measure against God’s Imperative? If woman is naturally hypergamous, that is, she is seeking the most dominant, attractive and powerful mate to marry, that would not meet the ideals of Christianity. Christianity is based not on the natural man, but the spiritual. So, in Christianity, it is not the natural man that matters to God’s kingdom, but the spiritual man. While we all as humans want to have a valuable companion to spend our life with and build the Kingdom of God, women who profess godliness are not looking for any of the qualities suggested by hypergamy, but rather the qualities of a godly husband–provision, protection, and spiritual leadership. Qualities of physical beauty and attractiveness are subjective. In terms of woman seeking commitment in a relationship, of seeking a mate who can meet her needs for safety and security for herself and her children I would say that that portion of the Female Imperative is true. So, also, in terms of God’s Imperative, the Female Imperative is also a half-truth.
God wants us to find a mate that is suitable, both for His directive of replenishing the earth (which is less urgent in these times) and of building the Kingdom of God, building spiritually sound Christian families. He isn’t interested in man’s lustful desire for more than one woman, or in woman’s need for an attractive, powerful mate. He is interested in Christian families, which meets man’s and woman’s needs for companionship, love and stability within our society and the church. A monogamous, loving relationship is God’s Imperative.
Pamela Parizo © 2017
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.
There is no man that hath power over the spirit to retain the spirit; neither hath he power in the day of death: and there is no discharge in that war; neither shall wickedness deliver those that are given to it.–Ecclesiastes 8:8
All power comes from God. He made the Universe and everything in it, within 6 days. He did so just by speaking things into existence. God set man over His creation on earth, giving him dominion over all the creatures of the earth.
God is in control of everything that exists. While man can manipulate his environment to some extent, the things a man has can be taken from him. The Book of Job points to a test between God and Satan to test the righteous man Job. Within a process of time, Job’s sons, his material wealth, even his health are taken from him. One can see from the example of Job how the physical things of this life can be taken away from one. I have seen very healthy men acquire physical disease. One only has to look at the example of John Kennedy, Jr., a man who had everything, who was killed in a flying accident. For a man then to think he has the power is a gross absurdity.
The Red Pill advocates that a man, which they call alpha which the Bible does not even recognize (see my article on Two types of man) can obtain power through his domination of his environment. This includes women, which the red pill gives very little value to, except in so much that women have sexual value. To red pill men, women are only valuable as long as they are young and attractive and can be used in a sexual manner either through a committed relationship or through amoral sex. Rollo Tomassi, in his Red Pill devotional, The Rational Male explains that power in relationships is obtained by the person who needs the other the least.
First, God alone holds power and to whom He will give it (1). Jesus Christ said “All power is given to me in heaven and in earth.” (2) Jesus received all power as God manifest in flesh, and shed abroad the Holy Ghost on the Day of Pentecost. He told the disciples they should go to Jerusalem and wait for the promise of the Father, saying “And ye shall receive power after that the Holy Ghost is come upon you (3). The only way to have power in God’s kingdom is to receive the Spirit of God.
Red Pill “Alt-Christianity”, for it is not true Christianity, would have men come to the altar of the red pill rather than to the source of true power, Jesus Christ. It would rather they be lovers of themselves, hedonistically seeing marriage as sexual alone in nature, and aligning themselves with those who deny women’s inherent value as a creation of God and deny that Christ alone is sufficient to combat the evils of Feminism. Somehow evolutionary psychology saves the day for these Alt-Christians and restores their true masculinity. They epitomize the admonition of Paul that in the last days men would be lovers of self, and lovers of pleasure rather than God, having a form of godliness but denying the power thereof (4).
The Bible tells us to turn away from these types of people because they do deny the power of God. The Red Pill (secular) upholds evolutionary psychology which is contrary to Christ in its amoral approach to relationships, and the Christian version is still bad for Christian men as it still reduces women to a sexual market value, aligns itself with the amoral red pill advocates, and does not lead men to Christ. It denies the power of God to transform people, and see themselves as the controlling factor in relationships rather than the Spirit and the agape love of Jesus.
From such, turn away.
Pamela Parizo © 2017
(1) Psalm 62:11
(2) Matthew 28:18
(3) Acts 1:8
(4) 2 Timothy 3:5
Wherefore I say unto thee, Her sins, which are many, are forgiven; for she loved much: but to whom little is forgiven, the same loveth little.–Luke 7:47
Red pill theory would diminish a woman’s capacity for great love. In fact, they will say it is beyond a woman’s nature to love unconditionally, that a woman loves her husband for what he can provide her. What these people are missing is that a woman desires her husband to provide for her because that is a promise from God. Out of the Law of Moses, a man is to provide for his wife. So is the Law incorrect because man’s philosophy/psychology says that woman is wrong to want a man’s resources? God forbid; let God be true and every man a liar. Is a man excused from this because of Christ? How much more should a husband who is portraying Christ and his sacrificial love to his wife provide for her out of his worldly goods? Christian women are not looking for wealth; if they are, their focus is wrong. What they are looking for is the support of their husbands.
With that said, let’s transfer that picture to Jesus. Does a woman love God for what He can provide her alone? Or is she capable of loving the Lord her God with all her heart and mind and soul? Let’s take a look at the New Testament text to see what it says.
First, we know that the first and greatest commandment is to love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, soul, mind and strength (Mark 12:30). This commandment is to all Christians, both men and women. The Greek word used for love in this verse is agapao, that is agape love. So we know that not only can a woman love God in this manner, but she is commanded to, even though he is her Lord and master, and superior to her in all things. So, we can see that the superior/subordinate construct has no effect on the capacity for agape love. We do know that as Christians, we all love God because He first loved us, but we also can see that we are expected to return that love from our inner being.
Second, we know that a woman is specifically said to have loved Jesus much. In Luke 7:47, the woman in Simon’s house who came to wash his feet with her hair, is forgiven of her sins and Jesus says, her sins which are many, are forgiven her for she loved much. Again, the word used for love is agapao. The woman loves him much as her Lord.
In Ephesians, chapter 5, husbands are commanded to love their wives as Christ loved the Church and gave himself for it. The word is agapao. Because this passage does not likewise command women to love their husbands, many assume a woman cannot or should not show agape love to their spouse. I would like to submit, that if the husband is portraying Christ, and that if a woman can and should show Christ agape love, there is nothing to say a woman cannot show agape love toward her husband. She is commanded to love God with agape love, shown to love Christ with agape love.
In the Song of Solomon in the Septuagint ( a Greek translation of the Hebrew), the Jewish scholars used the word egapesen in the phrase “him whom my soul loveth”. This is the same word found in many verses in the New Testament reflecting Christ’s love for us. The Jewish scholars of the Septuagint felt then that a woman does have the capacity for agape love for her husband. Although their use of agape for ahav is controversial, they certainly did not feel that agape was outside the emotional capacity of a woman’s nature. This is the same form of agapao that is used in Luke 7:47.
Having already shown that a woman is capable of agape love, I put forward my opinion that in the act of submission there is a component of agape love. Just as we love our Lord and surrender ourselves completely to Him, putting our trust in Him, a woman, through the act of submission is showing her husband her love for him. We are definitely called to submission through obedience, but love and trust are important. It reminds me of the passage in Exodus 21:5 where the servant says “I love my master” and chooses to stay as a servant rather than go free. Now, I say this by opinion, not as fact. This is definitely a choice a woman makes when she marries a man, knowing that she is called to submit to and obey him.
Those who feel a woman incapable of loving her husband as he is are following after erroneous pseudo-science and philosophies, the vain deceits of men.
Pamela Parizo © 2017
Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not charity (LOVE), I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal. And though I have the gift of prophecy, and understand all mysteries, and all knowledge; and though I have all faith, so that I could remove mountains, and have not charity, I am nothing. And though I bestow all my goods to feed the poor, and though I give my body to be burned, and have not charity, it profiteth me nothing. 1 Corinthians 13:1-3
The Beatles once sang, “All You Need Is Love”, and while I don’t hold them up as being models of behavior or for anything else, they were right in this. God is Love. His greatest attribute is Love. I brought this out in my article Christ’s view of humanity. The evidence of this love was the sacrificial death of Jesus Christ upon the Cross.
Jesus repeatedly admonished his disciples, his followers to love one another, as He had loved us. To have that attitude that we should give our all for each other, even to the laying down of our lives. Our sacrifice doesn’t always go that far, but if we look at it from the point of view that we esteem each other higher than we esteem ourselves, this great love works toward the good for all involved. There is no force more powerful on the earth than Christian love. God puts this love in our hearts through the Holy Spirit.
Love transforms. It can turn a stony heart into a soft heart. It can turn away wrath. It can dispel bitterness, anger, envy, and other negative emotions. It not only transforms the recipient of love, but it transforms the giver. Love is one of the gifts of the Spirit, and is the greatest virtue of all, even greater than hope and faith.
Lastly, it’s important to realize that Love is the fulfillment of the Law (Romans 13:10). Paul indicates here that because love doesn’t work any ill toward it’s neighbor, love fulfills all of the commandments of God. The word love is repeated over and over in the New Testament in every aspect of our relationship to God, to each other, and very specifically in the relationship between a man and his wife. Man is directly commanded to love his wife. In Ephesians 5, Paul doesn’t emphasize the sexual aspect of marriage at all.
The Red Pill is very much focused on sexuality. It is a strategy of sexual relationships between men and women, and in it’s theory, marriage or any other long-term relationship/commitment takes a back seat. At its core is the idea that men, who achieve power through the aspect of aloofness from his world, recognizing his own value, should be able to use and discard anything, including women, according to his own self-interest, his own egotism. He does this through domination.
While God does give man dominion over the world and expects him to establish that dominion, God’s ultimate purpose is to create a spiritual kingdom, not a carnal one, and so a sexuality loosed from the ideal of commitment, is contrary to God’s purpose which is love for each other and for God. Commitment to love, agape, is very much at the core of our relationship to God, and His to us. It’s core to our relationship to each other, and men and women are called of God to commit themselves to each other, not to use each other and discard like so much trash.
To those who have been used and abused by the circumstances of life, by the twin evils of Feminism and the manosphere, by the raw deal that life gives to us all, there is an answer. The Spirit and the Bride (the Church) say Come. We are bid to the banqueting table of God’s love for us, to the abundant love held out to us in Jesus Christ, that will shed into our hearts love for God and for each other.
Pamela Parizo © 2017
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