The war against personal weakness is an ongoing battle waged within everyone. It’s a struggle that has been fought throughout human history, as individuals strive to better themselves and conquer their own limitations. There is no nobler war than the one we wage against ourselves. Forever and always we are waging war against personal weakness.
The Concept of Total War
Total war is a strategy in which all available resources are mobilized and used to achieve a particular goal, occasionally without regard for the rules of war or the potential collateral damage. This means war in the battlefield as well as war on the economy, and psychological warfare using propaganda and other tools.
In the context of personal development, total war involves using all available tools, strategies, and resources to combat our weaknesses and limitations.
The ancient Greeks and Romans were known for their military prowess and their ability to wage total war. They committed their entire societies to the pursuit of victory, as exemplified by the legendary Spartans and the Roman legions. By studying their methods and philosophies, we can learn how to apply the concept of total war to our own personal battles.
The Stoic Philosophy
Stoicism, an ancient Greek and Roman philosophy, has much to teach us about waging war against personal weakness. The Stoics believed that individuals should strive to maintain a sense of inner calm and tranquility in the face of external events by focusing on what they can control and accepting what they cannot.
One key Stoic principle that can be applied to overcoming personal weakness is the idea of “Amor Fati,” or the love of one’s fate. This concept encourages us to embrace the challenges and obstacles we face in life, viewing them as opportunities for growth and learning. By adopting this mindset, we can approach our weaknesses with a sense of purpose and determination.
The Practice of Self-Discipline
One of the most effective ways to wage war against personal weakness is through the practice of self-discipline. The ancient Spartans were renowned for their rigorous training and strict adherence to a code of conduct that prioritized the needs of the state above individual desires. That is one of the reasons this site is named after them. Christianity is not Christianity unless it is rigorous. It must involve constant war against the self.
A key aspect of Spartan discipline was the practice of “agoge,” a rigorous training program that began in childhood and instilled in young Spartans the virtues of courage, endurance, and self-sacrifice. By subjecting ourselves to challenging and demanding tasks, we can develop the mental and physical fortitude required to overcome our limitations and achieve our goals.
The Art of Strategy
The ancient Chinese military strategist Sun Tzu, in his seminal work “The Art of War,” outlined a comprehensive philosophy for achieving victory on the battlefield. Many of his principles can be adapted to our personal struggle against weakness.
Sun Tzu emphasized the importance of understanding oneself and one’s enemy, stating: “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles.” In applying it to your own life, this means that we must first understand our own weaknesses and limitations, as well as the external factors that may exacerbate them. Armed with this knowledge, we can develop targeted strategies to overcome our obstacles and achieve success.
Shield Wall
Ancient societies often placed great emphasis on the importance of community and collective responsibility. The Roman legions, for example, were known for their tight-knit structure and strong sense of camaraderie, which enabled them to operate as a cohesive fighting force.
While waging war against personal weakness, we can draw on the power of community to provide support, encouragement, and accountability.
By surrounding ourselves with like-minded individuals who share our commitment to self-improvement, we can create a network of allies who will help us stay focused on our goals and push us to confront our weaknesses.
One way to build such a community is to join or create a group of people who are focused on similar goals, whether it’s a fitness club, a mastermind group, or a support group for a particular challenge. Engaging with others who share our values and aspirations can strengthen our resolve and provide us with valuable insights and resources to help us overcome our limitations.
The best possible outcome would be to find a church that promotes this type of thinking with regards to personal development, masculinity and faith. Many churches bow at the altar of the feminized man, and this is an empty and worthless pursuit. Find a church that teaches you how to leverage your masculine desire for war in a righteous manner.
Embracing Failure and Learning from Experience
Throughout history, many great figures have experienced failure and setbacks on their path to success. The ancient Greek philosopher Socrates, for example, was sentenced to death for his teachings, but his ideas and methods continue to influence Western philosophy today. Rather than being discouraged by failure, we can view these experiences as valuable learning opportunities that help us grow and develop as individuals.
Be willing to embrace failure as a natural part of the process. By analyzing our setbacks and identifying the lessons they contain, we can use these experiences to refine our strategies and better understand our limitations. In this way, failure becomes a powerful tool for personal growth and self-improvement.
Cultivating Resilience and Adaptability
The ability to adapt to changing circumstances and bounce back from adversity is a crucial aspect of waging total war against personal weakness. Ancient societies were known for their adaptability and resilience in the face of challenges, often incorporating new ideas and technologies into their military strategies.
To cultivate resilience and adaptability in our own lives, we must be willing to embrace change and remain open to new ideas and approaches. By maintaining a flexible mindset and being willing to adjust our strategies when necessary, we can more effectively combat our weaknesses and achieve our goals.
Individual sports have always held a special place in the hearts of many athletes. This is because individual sports offer a range of benefits that are simply not available in team sports.
I – For one, individual sports allow athletes to focus entirely on their own performance without worrying about the actions of their teammates.
This means that individual athletes are solely responsible for their success or failure, and they cannot blame anyone else for their shortcomings. This is a lesson that people who engage in team sports miss out on.
The team athlete does not have to do this because the strengths of the other members will compensate for him.
If he does not want to, he does not have to improve. Therefore he becomes myopically focused only on his sole contribution to the team and never rounds out other areas of his skill set. He becomes one-dimensional in sports performance.
This plays out later in their life. You have likely known several people who love to talk about the “good ole days” when they played football or some other sport. Maybe they were excellent at their sport, yet they are failing in life. Because there are critical life lessons learned while working alone that cannot be learned while working with a team.
It is sad when these people have to look in the review mirror to find success or glory. But this is the case for many team sport-oriented athletes
Working alone improves you. It improves your ability to work on a team. But working on a team does not make you more effective at working alone.
Team sports often rely on the performance of the collective group. If one person on the team is not performing well, it can have a domino effect and affect the entire team’s performance. This dependence on others leads to frustration, disappointment, and a sense of helplessness when things don’t go as planned.
Additionally, team sports often have a hierarchy where certain players are valued more than others, creating a sense of favoritism and animosity among teammates.
II – Individual sports offer a level playing field, where all athletes are judged solely on their own merit.
There are no team politics or favoritism, and athletes must rely entirely on their own skills, dedication, and hard work to succeed. This sense of fairness creates a more level-headed and mentally tough athlete, as they know they cannot rely on anyone else to pick up their slack.
III – Another significant advantage of individual sports is the opportunity to be self-sufficient.
Athletes in individual sports often have to manage their own training, nutrition, and equipment, which can foster independence and self-reliance. This self-sufficiency is a valuable trait in both personal and professional life, as it teaches people to take responsibility for their actions and to be self-motivated.
While team sports have their advantages, individual sports offer unique benefits that cannot be overlooked. The accountability, fairness, and self-sufficiency fostered by individual sports are valuable traits that can benefit athletes in all aspects of life.
Success in individual sports is not simply a matter of physical skill but also requires mental toughness, discipline, and a willingness to take responsibility for one’s own actions.
These are all qualities that can be developed and applied to personal development, masculinity, and Christianity.
In Christianity, there is dualistic teaching about teamwork – you need to be able to work on a team, but you also need to be able to work well alone.
We lean on one another, but we should not be dependent on one another for spiritual strength. Every Christian must have the strength to stand alone the vast majority of the time. This is key because the enemy will rarely attack us when we are strong. He will rarely assault us when we are together.
The enemy waits until we are isolated from others. He waits until we are weak and lonely and then attacks.
It is because of this that we must be strong not only when we are with other Christians, but when we are alone.
If we cannot resist temptation alone, we will be defeated simply because we cannot constantly be surrounded by people who share our faith.
In life, you can only trust yourself.
People are going to fail you. They are going to let you down every time you turn around. You cannot put hope, faith, or trust in other human beings. At least not that the expense of faith in yourself.
Every great leader throughout history has known that the people are the sand of the seashore. you should not attempt to construct any lasting structure on the foundation of people.
The self-reliance you learn in individual sports teaches you a lesson about relying on yourself in life and faith.
Note that the Bible’s examples of sport also revolve around individual events: races and boxing.
Therefore we also, since we are surrounded by so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which so easily ensnares us, and let us run with endurance the race that is set before us.
24 Do you not know that those who run in a race all run, but one receives the prize? Run in such a way that you may [i]obtain it.25 And everyone who competes for the prize[j]is temperate in all things. Now they do it to obtain a perishable crown, but we for an imperishable crown.26 Therefore I run thus: not with uncertainty. Thus I fight: not as one who beats the air. 27 But I discipline my body and bring it into subjection, lest, when I have preached to others, I myself should become disqualified.
When the Apostle Paul makes sporting analogies, he uses sports that rely on individual, not a team effort.
Paul experienced first-hand the disappointment that comes from relying on others when he was abandoned by John Mark.
37 Now Barnabas [m]was determined to take with them John called Mark. 38 But Paul insisted that they should not take with them the one who had departed from them in Pamphylia, and had not gone with them to the work. 39 Then the contention became so sharp that they parted from one another. And so Barnabas took Mark and sailed to Cyprus; 40 but Paul chose Silas and departed, being [n]commended by the brethren to the grace of God.
Determined not to be burned a second time, Paul refuses to take John Mark on the journey and eventually splits with his traveling partner.
Paul understood a simple lesson: when people give you a reason to not rely on them, then don’t rely on them. Do not suffer because you placed yourself in a position of dependence on others.
Dependence on any other than God is a weakness. It is reserved for times of physical or spiritual turmoil and difficulty, but it should not be our default state. We should avoid naturally falling into a state of trust and dependence on others.
The moment you place too much trust in those you believe to be your allies, you will fall. And you will wonder how you forget the simple lesson of self-reliance and individual strength.
This is not pride, it is simply realism and rationality.
People will accuse you of being prideful, but they are speaking out of emotionalism that they mistake for morality. they have no evidence for this. When people cannot safely be relied upon, then you would be a fool to rely on them. Trust yourself.
One of the more popular attacks made on Christianity and the Bible is this idea.
“The Bible endorses slavery”.
The short response is this: there is a huge difference between endorsing slavery and providing regulations for the institution of slavery that has been consistently practiced across time and culture.
Additionally, we must define terms when we talk about slavery. Slavery in America is a far cry from slavery across time and history. Each iteration of slavery in history is different across time, therefore blanket statements cannot be made about slavery.
I – What was slavery in history?
Human beings have always held slaves. Just because this is what human beings do does not mean that God condones it. There are many behaviors that people engage in that God does not condone – but He allows it to happen so we can use our free moral agency. God also does not condone sex outside of marriage or between people of the same gender, so He placed regulations on marriage.
The institution of slavery has changed significantly throughout history, encompassing a wide range of practices with differing levels of treatment of enslaved individuals. To fully understand the complexities of slavery, it is crucial to examine the cultural context of different eras and regions.
1 – Slavery in Ancient Egypt: The Plight of the Israelites
In ancient Egypt, the Israelites endured a period of brutal slavery. As depicted in the biblical narrative of Exodus, they faced harsh labor, dehumanization, and oppressive conditions. This would continue for about 400 years. The Israelites were subjected to forced labor, building monumental structures such as the pyramids under the command of their Egyptian masters. Their treatment exemplified the extreme end of the spectrum regarding the abuse and mistreatment of enslaved individuals.
Why is it then, when people criticize slavery, that no one points fingers at the Egyptians for their treatment of slaves across centuries? No, but we will take a vacation to go photograph the Spinx, pyramids, and other great structures so we can post them on social media. We call the result of slave labor in Egypt one of the great wonders of the world but tear down historic plantations in America.
This is one of the many examples of a double standard with regard to passing judgment on civilizations that have owned slaves. Much of it is rooted in simple hatred of America. Racist individuals blame America for slavery but turn a blind eye to all other civilizations that have engaged in the same.
2 – Slavery in Ancient Greece and Rome: A Shift in Dynamics
Ancient Greece
In ancient Greece, slavery played a significant role in the socioeconomic system. Slaves were acquired through various means, including capture in wars, debt bondage, and birth into slavery. While the treatment of slaves varied, they generally experienced a lack of personal freedom and were subject to their owners’ authority. However, some slaves in Greece enjoyed relatively better treatment, particularly those who worked as household servants or tutors.
Roman Empire
Slavery in the Roman Empire demonstrated notable shifts in treatment compared to earlier civilizations. The Romans acquired slaves through conquest, trade, and birth. While some slaves endured harsh conditions, such as those engaged in manual labor or as gladiators, others held more privileged positions. Slaves were employed as tutors, doctors, accountants, and administrators, and their skills were valued. Roman society recognized that treating slaves with fairness and respect could help with productivity and loyalty. Some slaves were even able to earn their freedom through work or valor in gladiatorial tournaments.
3 – Cultural Context: Understanding the Variations in Slavery
It is crucial to acknowledge that not all forms of slavery are equal, and the treatment of slaves varied significantly depending on the cultural context. And nearly every nation across history can point to a time when they likely employed some version of slavery. And some even suggest today that a modern form of slavery exists called “wage slavery”, which is not a completely misguided notion.
Slavery in ancient Egypt was characterized by its cruelty and dehumanization, while in ancient Rome, slaves could experience a wide range of treatment, from harsh conditions to relative fairness and respect.
The cultural, social, and economic factors of each society influenced the treatment of slaves. In Rome, for instance, the concept of “paterfamilias” granted masters immense power over their slaves. However, philosophical ideas and shifting moral standards also played a role in shaping attitudes toward slavery. Stoic philosophy, prevalent in ancient Rome, emphasized the moral duty of masters to treat slaves justly and humanely.
“Hitting closer to home, the pages of history dealing with the formative years of the United States are despoiled with gruesome stories of ships carrying slaves sold to the Americas by their fellow Africans (and others, e.g., Arabians). These slaves frequently were packed so densely in lower ship decks that many of them died of disease or malnutrition. Those who lived to see the States soon learned that their fate hinged upon those who purchased them. Some slaves were ushered into homes with kind masters, decent living facilities, good food, and freedom to worship. Other slaves were purchased by cruel, greedy people who overworked them, abused them, underfed them, and allowed them no freedom”
II – What was slavery in the Bible?
Slavery means different things in different places.
The Israelites were slaves to Egyptians in the classic sense of slavery. this is what we might traditionally think of when we picture slavery.
There are references to slaves in the new testament, especially the Epistles which advocate for fair and equal treatment of slaves, who were likely closer to employees than actual slaves in some instances. But this is not what we might think of when we picture slaves.
Modern people often picture slavery in America when they are asked to think about what slavery means. Many times, American slavery was closer to voluntary work [if there is such a thing] than what the Israelites were experiencing. In fact, it may be closer to what we classically call “jobs”. And in fact, later in the Biblical text, Christians will be told to “become slaves of righteousness” [Rom 6:18]. And the etymology of the word teaches us that a slave is someone who sets aside the personal desire for the desire of the master [a lesson in itself].
III – Human nature.
Human beings have engaged in various immoral practices throughout history, including slavery. However, it is essential to understand that just because people engage in certain behaviors does not mean that God endorses or condones those actions. God allows humans to exercise their free moral agency, which includes making choices that are contrary to His will.
Slavery is an unfortunate consequence of human free will, not a divine endorsement.
The Bible often portrays God using the behavior of His people to bring about His ultimate purposes. This does not mean that God approves of every action taken by individuals, including slavery. Instead, God may work within the existing societal framework to gradually shape human understanding and guide people toward justice and righteousness.
Throughout history, we have witnessed gradual transformations in societal norms, including the abolition of slavery [thanks to America, the supposed boogeyman of slavery], driven by a growing understanding of human rights and dignity.
When examining the New Testament’s references to slavery, it is key to recognize that the institution described differs significantly from the brutal, dehumanizing slavery that we often associate with historical accounts.
In the context of the New Testament, the term “slavery” referred to a broader range of relationships that encompassed general work and employment arrangements. Slavery in the ancient Roman world involved various degrees of servitude, ranging from indentured laborers to those employed as household servants.
It is important to note that the New Testament teachings emphasized fair treatment and respect for slaves, urging masters to treat their servants justly and kindly. The Bible advocates for human-like work conditions.
IV – Slavery is a Cultural Phenomenon
The Bible is a collection of texts written over a long period of time, reflecting the ethical development and understanding of human societies at various times. God’s attitude and thoughts towards slavery never change because God Himself does not change [Malachi 3:6]. The Bible contains passages that reflect the cultural norms of their time, including slavery, but they should not be seen as definitive statements on God’s stance regarding slavery.
Slavery existed across cultures and across time. God did not approve of it, He simply communicated to His people the manner in which slaves were to be treated which included fairness, decency, and respect that is deserved by all people.
V – America receives the most criticism about slavery even though it was a county that Abolished it.
Very few people sit around criticizing China for the fact that they have slaves even now, in this very day. If you own a smartphone, chances are it was produced as a result of modern slave labor.
But many modern people are too steeped in the irrational hatred of America, which is generally their own country, to have time to pay attention to Chinese slave labor. And even if they knew, most of them likely would not care. After all, “Chinese slavery is something happening “over there”, it does not affect me, so why should I care?”
While slavery has been a dark chapter in human history across various regions, it is important to address the selective criticism leveled at certain countries, particularly America. Despite being a country that abolished slavery, America often receives the majority of the blame and scrutiny regarding its historical involvement in the institution. This focus on America, while important for acknowledging past wrongs, overshadows the ongoing instances of slavery in other parts of the world.
China continues to face accusations of forced labor and human rights abuses.
In recent years, reports have highlighted the existence of modern-day slavery within manufacturing and agriculture in China. However, these instances receive considerably less attention and criticism compared to America’s historical past.
The discrepancies in criticizing different countries suggest that the issue of slavery is often influenced by political, social, and historical factors. While it is essential to confront and acknowledge historical wrongs, it is equally important to shed light on present-day instances of slave owning, irrespective of the country involved.
Matt 19:3-10 outlines the key authority for the fact that there were some things permitted in the Old Testament that did not reflect God’s will.
Because of the hardness of Israel’s heart, God allowed certain things, including divorce and slave owning even though these did not reflect His will.
The OT clearly teaches people to love their neighbors (Lev 19:18). But just because something is a command in scripture does not mean that men will be obedient to it or live out the complete ideal.
Even today, when the complete pattern for the church is laid out in the New Testament, how many denominations and religions try to invent their own path to God? The ideal exists in the NT, but men still fail to live up to it.
Slavery often existed as a form of debtors’ prison or a way to do something with prisoners of war. And as such, humane regulations for the institution were required.
Certain types of slavery are not morally wrong.
When someone is sentenced to prison, he is a slave of the state for a period of years, sometimes even his whole life. And during this time he is forced by the state to do things he would rather not do. His choices cost him his freedom. This is a morally acceptable revocation of freedoms which could accurately be described as slavery.
The Israelites were forced to deal with the nations that they encountered by destroying them completely, but when they were unable to do this, they had to do something with the survivors. Usually, they put them in Servitude or under tribute. They were allowed to live but under slave conditions.
What is better: complete eradication from the face of the earth or a life of servitude?
God does not condone slavery. He simply regulated it in scripture to allow for the humane treatment of people who would otherwise have been left to suffer under the discretion of man.
The purpose here is to outline why many people [primarily women] have difficulty understanding why men and boys do dangerous things for seemingly little reward. The primary accusation that we, as men receive from time to time, is the following: “Boys are stupid”.
No context. No attempt to delve deeper. Just a surface-level judgment passed by many people who do not understand why it is that boys and men do the things they do. This is understandable in a way. Because men tend to know about men’s things and women tend to know about women’s things. We seldom take time to understand the other sex.
You hear “Boys are Stupid” parroted even by some men.
Generally, these men have forgotten what it is like to be a boy. Or they have forgotten what it is like to have to earn their place in a group of other males. The main type of men repeating this accusation are ones resting on the laurels of previous accomplishments. I’m much less forgiving of men who repeat back the idea that boys are stupid as opposed to women because men should know better. When the accusation comes from women it’s understandable since the majority of women do not know why it is important for boys to be “stupid”.
What is the evidence for this statement? Many will cite that men/boys [who we will just combine and refer to as “males” for this discussion] engage in behaviors that are dangerous for no reason.
The faulty idea that dangerous acts are done for no reason at all is key to figuring out why boys appear to be doing stupid things.
When boys play they are trying to see who can jump off the highest rock without getting injured. Maybe they try to see who can throw the biggest object at their friend while their friend tries not to move. Perhaps they try to climb the highest tree and hold on with one arm.
Males do dangerous things. It makes us feel alive and masculine in a world that stifles masculine energies.
And in the minds of many women, this “meaningless danger” is absurd. And from a woman’s viewpoint, that is an understandable conclusion to draw. What women don’t understand, because they do not have to understand, is the role these seemingly dangerous behaviors play in demonstrating courage in the men’s group.
One of the four principles attributes of men, as outlined by Jack Donovan, is courage. The four attributes are components that make men masculine across time and culture. Go back as far as you want in history, and go into any culture you want, and the common themes of masculinity will be these four virtues. Courage, along with strength, mastery, and honor, are the attributes that across time and culture are consistently associated with masculinity.
For a man to have greater strength means he is more masculine and more valuable to the group of men.
A weak man is less valuable to the group. He is less valuable both to men and women. A man does not get bonus points for being weak, but he gains points for being strong. It does not matter if a woman does or does not have strength. She is not less of a woman for being physically weak. And she is not more of a woman if she is physically strong. Her physical strength has no bearing on her value to a women’s group and intersexual social groups while a man’s strength is very important to his value in the men’s group.
If he has mastery of a skill, he is more valuable. He can provide something to the group of men that improves the group.
Whether it is the ability to build, make weapons, fight [which can be combined with strength], or any other observable skill – to have more or better skills makes a man a more valuable man. He is more of a man than a male with less skill mastery. Whether or not a woman has the skill, she is valuable to a group. She does not necessarily have to pursue mastery in anything she does. She is certainly welcome to pursue mastery, and many women become masters of many crafts. But she will not be considered a deadbeat if she masters no skills throughout her life. She will be competent at many skills, but she will not have mastery and this is perfectly acceptable. However, that is not the case for men.
Each of the four attributes are facets of masculinity that every man must develop.
He has no choice but to develop himself unless he wishes to be less valued in the men’s group. Women do not have to develop any of these attributes if they wish to be valuable. They are not more womanly if they have strength, courage, mastery, or honor. But men are certainly more masculine if they have these attributes. Women are not less womanly if they do not develop strength, courage, mastery, or honor. But a man is certainly more masculine if he develops these attributes. And it is the fact that women do not experience the pressure to develop these attributes that is a key reason why they do not understand why men have to develop them. And also why they do not understand the cost of developing these traits, as well as the price of not developing them.
If a man is courageous, he is more valuable to the group – and this is the key virtue to pay attention to when discussing the dangerous acts that males engage in.
For the purposes of this discussion, courage isthe willingness to risk harm to oneself for the betterment or safety of the group.
And in the context of men and masculinity, this is the willingness of a man to confront something dangerous in order to promote the betterment or safety of the group.
How do you know who is going to be brave? Well, you don’t. But you do know that you don’t want to wait until you are in a survival situation to find out.
This is where and why males engage in seemingly stupid activities. This is because they are trying to demonstrate courage to the group. And they are trying to do so in a controlled environment before they are in a survival situation.
Before men are dropped into a survival situation by world circumstances they evaluate one another in a survival simulation. Dangerous play is the first survival simulation boys experience.
Like the other masculine attributes already mentioned, women do not have to demonstrate courage. They are certainly capable of being courageous, and they do courageous things all the time, but they do not have to be courageous in order to be womanly and valuable. Their worth is not diminished if they are not brave, because that’s the man’s role after all. But a man must be courageous in order to be masculine and valuable.
If the ship is going down, women are expected to take the life rafts and take the children with them to safety. If a man takes a life raft, he is a coward.
A woman is not expected to be courageous in this survival situation, but a man is. If a woman stays on the ship or leaves, in either case, her worth is not diminished. But a man only has one option unless he wants to be known as weak and demonstrate a lack of courage.
But before a man proves he is willing to lay down his life for the betterment of the group in a survival situation, he must first demonstrate this willingness in small dangers.
He must take on small challenges that do not risk his life, but may certainly end with him in an arm cast.
By doing these things he proves his worth to the men’s group. Women do not have to engage in this behavior to prove their worth to the women’s group or to other men.
This is mainly because women are born with the ability to give birth and raise children. By virtue of this, women are born with their value, while men’s value must be built from the ground up.
A woman’s worth is certainly not limited to her childbearing ability – she can absolutely increase her own value using a plethora of techniques.
But the fact remains that she begins life with a baseline value due to her incredible ability to bring children into the world.
I know someone will end up saying, “Wow, you are just reducing a woman to her reproductive structures and are treating her like an incubator”. And that is certainly not the case. That is why I take the time to note, again, that women can furtherincrease their value – it is just that they start out with a baseline level of value while men do not. And even if they never increased their value through skill acquisition and personal development, they would still be perceived as valuable because of their ability to have children.
If a man does not build his own value he will not have any – nothing is given to him by virtue of his reproductive capabilities because his sperm is cheap while her eggs are expensive. No man was ever a valuable man just because he was a man.
Boys have an innate understanding of this need to prove themselves to the group. Before the feminized school system educates their masculinity out of them, boys have a built-in understanding of the need to take on small risks and engage in slightly dangerous behaviors in order to prove value to the group. They will not be fully trusted or accepted if they do not do this. To be “one of the gang” you have to do something a little dangerous. While they may be taunted by women who say that “boys are stupid”, these young men know what they have to do.
Women never engage in such a developmental gauntlet. They do not need to. And as a result, they often do not understand when men engage in these behaviors.
Well, ladies, those “stupid boys” are just trying to get a head start on building the value that you were already born with.
The following are a few notes and comments I made from a sermon that is available to you online on the topic of “Put down your trumpet”. It includes some interesting points that I believe are worth noting. I hope you find it interesting.
42:45 – 43:16 – Does it matter why we do something? The speaker suggests yes because it “causes problems later”. Here is the Transcript from this timestamp:
“Does it matter why we do what we do or does it just matter that we do the right thing? Well I guess you could ask this in a number of different settings couldn’t you?
If you asked within a marriage to a husband or a wife does it matter what you do in a marriage or does it matter why you do it?
I think every husband and every wife would say of course it matters why my husband or why my wife is doing something. I don’t just want them to do the right thing I want them to do it for the right reason”.
“I think” – Note that this is not a fact. This is what the speaker thinks. Based not on reason but emotion. He begins to make a point about what a wife or husband would want. I suppose this is an attempt to translate it into something God would want. For example, “If a wife or husband acts this way then God would act this way too”. This is not a position supported by scripture [Is. 55:8].
“Right Reason” – The speaker refuses to define what the right reason is. Who has the boldness to define such a thing? What is the reason? We seldom take time to define the “right reason” because it would require some combination of biblical evidence and rationality – something we try to avoid in religion if we can. A biblical bit of evidence for this entire cited section is lacking. Not that the evidence is not there, but this is something to note.
What about some comments on rules and motivation?
43:21-43:53 – In a family does it matter why a mother and a father give rules? Does it matter why they discipline? Does it matter why they give their children structure? It certainly does. Because the wrong motivation can lead to to some wrong things occurring in that family. Within that same family, does it matter why children obey or does it just matter that they do what they’re told? Well, it certainly matters why – because if they’re not obeying for the right reasons then that obedience is certainly not what God’s looking for”.
Let’s analyze a few of the statements made here.
“The wrong motivation can lead to some wrong things occurring in that family”. I always enjoy when a speaker takes the following stance “Well if you don’t do it my way, then bad things will happen later. I won’t specify them, but they are things, and they are very, very bad”. It is very common for a speaker to take this stance when discussing sexual discipline. “Don’t have sex before marriage or baaad, very bad things will happen“. This may be true, but the fact that the “problems” are not specified and then the cause of those problems is not identified nor the progression from faulty motivation to negative outcome analyzed, this statement is relegated to opinion.
“That obedience is certainly not what God is looking for”. Well, then what type of obedience is God looking for? Again, what are the so-called “right reasons”? If these are not specified, the entire speech runs into problems because underlying motivation is a core tenant of the speech. But we cannot make assumptions about that topic. But because the speaker does not address the topic, we can only assume.
I also enjoy when people speak for God without BCV [book chapter verse]. If you are going to say God is or is not looking at something, you better immediately back it up with scripture or you are speaking in the place of God without authorization.
Again, this is a doctrinal matter when we start to talk about acceptable and unacceptable forms of obedience – and it demands a “God Said”.
“Do not listen to the words of the prophets who prophesy to you. They make you worthless; They speak a vision of their own heart, Not from the mouth of the Lord.”
When it comes to our actions, it is possible to do:
Good things for the bad/wrong reasons.
Good things for good/right reasons.
Bad things for the good/right reasons.
Bad things for bad/wrong reasons.
These are the 4 possible permutations of this viewpoint. Perhaps there can also be combinations of motivations, which is an intellectually rigorous topic that will not be discussed here.
To analyze the motivations/intents etc. behind actions is of secondary importance as opposed to looking at the outcomes or actions themselves. This is not binary thinking – I am not suggesting that motivations do not matter at all. What I am suggesting is a hierarchy, where the actions themselves are primary and the intentions/motivations are secondary.
I understand that there is a delineation between the old and new laws of the Bible. While the old law focused primarily on the action of the individual, the new law focuses on a person’s attitude and inner person, their thinking center, in conjunction with their actions [because a person’s action will show his heart – Matt 15].
I’m not suggesting an OT style of what might be labeled legalism by the uninformed. At the risk of seeming to be a reductionist, I am suggesting that when a person’s intentions, motivations, attitude, or heart may seem to be opposing what he wants to do, as in temptation, it is his actions that are most important.
Does it matter if your intentions were good if you fail to resist temptation?
Does it matter what you were motivated by or the reason behind why you did something if you failed in the end? No, because at the end of the day you failed, you sinned.
On the other hand: what if I do what’s right despite my intention and motivations?
What if I hold on to righteousness by the skin of my teeth through vicious spiritual warfare [Eph 6]?
What if I’m very motivated to do what’s wrong yet I do what’s right anyways out of love for God?
Or what if I’m very tempted and have a strong desire to sin, but even though I’m not feeling the so-called “loving” emotion at the time, out of an obedient, action-based love for God I keep his commandments [John 14:15, 21]?
As you can see there are times when intentions or motivations are opposed to the righteousness of God and to the lives He requires us to live.
Nevertheless, it is primarily our actions that determine rightness. Actions again are primary while intentions are merely “a shadow of the thing, but not the very image of the thing”.
It perturbs Me when speakers come to moral conclusions without biblical evidence or logical sequencing of events. If someone dares to place a moral requirement on members of the church, he better do so with the explicit authorization of God as evidenced by scripture – the BCV.
It is critical to understand this point about the Bible, and about placing religious requirements on individuals, that each of those requirements has the authorization of the word of God.
Doctrinal matters demand a “God said”. Without “God Said” in conjunction with a logical argument, the religious requirements placed on individuals are relegated to the category of “Opinion”. Worse yet, they should be relegated to the category “doctrines of men”, which by biblical definition constitute vain worship [Matt 15:9]
48:50 – 49:04: “Beware of practicing your righteousness [that’s an entire category of good works that you and I might do publicly or maybe even privately]. Beware of practicing your righteousness – this is not the righteousness that that the Holy Spirit helps us develop in our lives that’s kind of inward righteousness, or the righteousness that God attributes to us when we obey the gospel.”
The speaker also makes a comment about inward righteousness that one develops inwardly with the assistance of the Holy Spirit. Unless the speaker means that the Holy Spirit assists the individual through the word of God, then He has no evidence for his statement. Because the only way the Spirit works today is through the word of God. That is the only way the Spirit works that we have biblical evidence for [Heb 4:12, Eph 6:17] which means that all other alleged ways He is claimed to be operating are relegated again to the category of opinion.
If I do not have a book chapter and verse for what I believe, it is an opinion.
While there is nothing wrong with opinions, and we have to use discretion and logic regarding non-black-and-white issues in the scripture, we still have to be careful to not pass off our opinions as biblical facts.
50:14 – 52:25 – “When you give to the needy – did you see that? When you give to the needy. Not if. There’s an assumption being made here by Jesus. The idea of being generous to the poor and the needy, especially among God’s Own people is something that is all through scripture from beginning to end. You certainly find it commanded in the law of Moses and we don’t have time to list all of those passages, but Exodus chapter 23:10-11; Leviticus chapter 10:10; Deuteronomy 15:7-11; etc etc. The law commands generosity to the poor and needy in a variety of ways. The prophets reminded God’s people about the necessity of this in places like Amos chapter 2:6-7; Isaiah 3:14-15; Ezekiel chapter 16:49. We’re reminded of it in Proverbs in the wisdom literature Proverbs 14:31; Proverbs 21;13.
Jesus taught about it His teaching about it. Here he teaches about it in Luke chapter 6:37-38; Matthew 19:21; Mark 14:7. And you certainly see it in the life of the first-century Christian in the first-century Church, don’t you? We see it in Acts chapter 2; Acts chapter 4; James chapter 2:14-16; First John 3:17-18. So it’s an assumption that God’s people are going to give to the needy. And so when Jesus talks about this he’s not saying ‘you really need to be giving to the needy’ – they’re already doing that. In fact, even people who did not even believe in Jesus were practicing this. They were giving alms. They were giving to the poor and needy. That’s an assumption. We’re going to come back to that in just a moment but Jesus assumes that everyone’s doing this. The problem is their motivation they’re doing this before people in order to be seen by them”
Regarding point B on the PowerPoint: The assumption.
The speaker begins to talk about this passage, Matthew 6:1-4 and describes the fact that there is an underlying assumption that Christians will be giving to the poor and needy. Especially those of the household of faith. And I would agree with that statement.
What I don’t agree with is an Inception-style assumption within the assumption. So often you hear speakers today talk about the poor and needy and they’re often indirectly or even directly describing the people you might come across in the street or on highways. I have known of some speakers to even make it a point to suggest that you are neglecting a Christain duty if you drive past the panhandler on the highway. They then place some moral judgment on you based on how you view those people and what you do for those people.
Here’s the problem: these speakers have no idea if those people are actually poor or needy.
The assumption within the assumption is that panhandlers are actually poor.
But as I state frequently, those so-called poor and needy are often better off financially than most of the members of the congregation that are being shamed for not supporting those allegedly poor, needy people.
Panhandlers have a good business going, and they’re providing value to people who give them money. This is a point in and of itself and a side note that deserves further elaboration.
I’ve often wondered why panhandlers and loiterers receive so much money. I wonder this because my underlying belief has always been that if a person receives money he/she must be providing something of value in return. And what value are panhandlers providing?
This question disturbed me for some time until a potential answer became quite clear. People aren’t just giving these loiterers money. No, people giving money are purchasing the right to feel good about themselves. It’s Self-Interest.
They are purchasing a feeling of altruism. They are purchasing the freedom from the guilt they feel when they ignore those panhandlers.
Panhandlers allow donors to lift their spirits and feel morally superior to those who don’t mindlessly donate money. Not that everyone behaves or thinks this way after giving money, but it is a common theme among religious people.
Giving money to the allegedly homeless person provides you with the feeling that you are righteous. And that’s what you’re doing. You’re attempting to purchase righteousness.
It’s not about helping another person primarily, it’s about the emotional and spiritual elevation of the self with the secondary benefit of doing a good deed. Whether or not this is done on a conscious level is irrelevant – because this is based on an analysis of human nature. We are pleasure-seeking and pain-avoiding organisms. We seek to avoid the pain of guilt we feel when we drive by those people and seek the pleasure we feel from giving them money. It is an emotional proposition all the way around.
When it comes to the discussion on generosity, and being generous to people, giving of our means, it is important to note that this first extends to people inside the faith.
Being taken care of by religious people is first and foremost one of the benefits of being religious yourself. The religious community is a tight-knit community and they take care of one another. This is one of the benefits of belonging to a religious group – Other people will take care of you when you need it and you have a responsibility to take care of them when they need it. However, this benefit should not be blindly applied to everyone outside the religious community.
Obviously, as resources allow, people outside the community of the religious can and should be taken care of with the application of discretion, but not before the religious themselves have been taken care of – and certainly not without encouraging those people to join the religious community.
You can’t blindly provide people with food and expect them to join the religion. You are just training them to look for a handout.
If they’re getting all the benefits of religion without being a part of religion what is the incentive for them? People will respond to incentives.
55:29 – 55:54 – “What’s the compensation for that what are you going to get out of that? Well, that’s where Jesus says you will have no reward from your father who is in heaven. Later on the same passage, ‘they have received their reward’. In other words, the reward that you get [and there is one] but the reward that you get when you seek the praise of other people for doing good works terminates on itself. That’s it.”
Regarding point E: “Compensation”.
Indeed, everything we do has a reward. everything we do provides us with something or we wouldn’t do it.
Or it provides us the opportunity to even further maximize the benefit in the future of the process of delayed gratification. We as human beings respond to incentives – and this is a good point.
59:55 – 1:00:25“But let’s move on to what probably is a bigger issue for most of us, and that’s the issue of motivation and sounding a trumpet. The Pharisees are a bold and extreme example of this, but I believe Jesus is encompassing every kind of hypocrisy that this would involve – right down to [listen to this] the secret desire to have all of our Good Deeds discovered and praised by other people.”
“I believe” – Again, what we have is a personal opinion stated without an accompanying “God said”. The speaker does not provide the BCV for this opinion. And he is again committing what I believe to be the intellectual crime of binding moral, and religious requirements on people without the requisite authority. That is not to say the authority for his statement is not in the scripture, but rather that he simply does not cite his authority here while binding a moral requirement on others.
“The secret desire” – The speaker makes the following Point by asking the crowd if we sound a trumpet before our good deeds. He then talks about the secret desire to be seen. I see this frequently in speakers, who condemn the very desire of a thing rather than the thing itself. And maybe that has merit. certainly, there are times we need to analyze behavior to eliminate it down to the very root which would be the desire. But overly demonizing the desire misses the entire point of what it means to resist temptation.
Temptation comes primarily from desire, we learned that in James chapter 1.
We are constantly fighting the desire, the want, the temptation [all synonyms] to do what’s wrong. How many times do we choose God out of loving obedience, yet our emotions and desires pull us toward sin? What would demonstrate greater love to God, that our desire is for Him and that we don’t desire evil at all, or that we have a strong pull towards sin yet out of love we still choose God? It seems to me the latter would be the most noble. Accidental goodness is not better than hard-fought righteousness.
There’s no honor, no nobility, in resisting temptation if we aren’t desiring to do what’s wrong.
That’s what makes it a Temptation in the first place. And if Temptation comes from desire, desire itself cannot be sin. Because we know from Matthew chapter 4 that Christ was tempted. Therefore, Christ was tempted – that means that Christ experienced desire. Do you think after not eating for 40 days that He desired to turn stones into bread and eat? Certainly. Was the desire itself a sin? If it was, we have no hope for salvation.
The discussion on desire and temptation is a linear path of logic that no one can deny. Therefore it is logically and morally incorrect to suggest that desire itself is a sin.
It’s not wrong to desire/want to do wrong. At times we have strange desires that pull us toward evil – but it is in our choices and our actions that we demonstrate that love to God.
There’s no nobility in doing what is right if there is no desire to do what’s wrong. It’s that war against nature that God demands – for he himself is a man of war [Exodus 15:3]. Therefore like Him, we should be people of war: at war with their own desires and temptations.
So when it comes to the alleged “secret desire to be seen” – it’s always going to be there because it will act as a temptation that must be resisted. Even the speaker himself will later acknowledge that it is human nature to want to be seen [1:04:17].
But what do we do with that desire? In other words, even the speaker himself acknowledges that it is the action following the desire that is the critical component of righteousness. We have the desire to be seen, and that’s true, but what do we do with it? What action do we take based on that desire? Do we give into it or do we fight? It’s in the fighting that we find righteousness – and as the speaker would suggest, and rightfully so, humility.
Again, I believe that this lesson was good overall. I just wanted to point out a few of the things that come out in these lessons.
