Author

Stand for Something

I’ve begun to notice a certain genre of Christian in my local Church who avoid taking a stand for anything. Instead of clearly separating right and wrong, they are ambiguous. They allow certain behaviors to slide under the table. They ignore the stupidity of others to preserve relationships. they get their feelings hurt if they have to correct anyone.

These men care more about preserving relationships than about behaving morally. They would rather let a person wander off a cliff than correct him. Allowing someone to fall off a ledge because you do not want to correct them is not love, it is hate. It is easy to behave that way. It is easy to take the middle ground and do nothing for those around you. Any man can do that.

What is difficult is taking on the burden of correcting others. It is difficult to be the “bad guy” who rebukes the sinner in the presence of all (1 Timothy 5:20).

There is no nobility in indifference. There is nothing honorable about not choosing sides. Those who refuse to take sides are simply trying to avoid offending others. It would be better for you to offend others than be a weak, shell of a man who stands for nothing.

What you must do is decide to stand for what is right. Whether it is religious, political, or otherwise, you need to take sides. We as humans are built to go to war and fight. We are designed for “Us against them” interactions. Humans thrive in tribalism, though that word has been corrupted by modernity. Men need something to fight against, and you can start by fighting against stupid ideas. You can start with attacking those who decide to remain indifferent. Attack those who stand for nothing. This is the way of the warrior.

Men stand and fight. Those who stand idly by are worthless.

The Solution-Oriented Mind

One of the more recent things I have discovered as one of the differences between men and women is the following:

Women are relationship and problem-focused. They have people-oriented minds.
Men are progress and solution-focused. They have solution-oriented minds

I believe this single fact can explain why there are more male inventors than there are female inventors. It has nothing to do with a difference in intelligence and everything to do with the difference in the focus of the genders.

Women focus on problems and need to talk about them. This is why women get together and grow their interpersonal relationships by commiserating. They feel better by expressing their emotions and sharing in one another’s problems.

However, men focus on solutions to problems.

If men get together and actually talk to one another, the conversation typically revolves around solving problems. While the discussion could center around sports or some other pastime, generally men will be busy suggesting possible solutions for every problem in the world, from politics to home repairs.

Now this difference in men and women can actually be complementary if both sexes do not take their natures to the extreme. By that I mean if a woman takes her problem-oriented mind to the extreme, she will chronically complain and nag. And if a man hyper-focuses only on the solutions he generates, he becomes overconfident and oblivious to the holes in his own solutions. But if both sexes appropriately complement each other, they can generate powerful solutions to any problem.

This is accomplished by a man first creating the rough draft of a solution to any problem, followed by a rational critique of the solution by a problem-focused woman to which he responds by fixing the problems that she points out.

Unfortunately, this does not happen often. Women typically end up nagging and men end up as isolationists because neither had the self-awareness to correct their extreme natures.

The new issue, however, is the sad reality that men themselves have lost their solution-oriented mindset. Men have become like women and simply complain about problems instead of doing anything about them. This may come as a shock, but improvements cannot happen if all parties merely sit around and complain about the situation. Someone must have a solution-oriented mind. Someone has to take some action, and traditionally that has been the men. But in the 21st-century much of religion has become feminine centric, and every scrap of traditional masculinity is ridiculed or “educated” out of boys by the time they are old enough to be men.

At the root level, when men stop focusing on solutions and start focusing on problems, they become more effeminate. This is because it is the woman’s job to focus on the problems and it is the men’s job to focus on the solutions.

A man has the solution-oriented mind.

I have noticed this with modern Conservatives and Republicans in politics and with religious Conservatives as well. While political Liberals and Democrats and religious Liberals have always been problem-focused and effeminate in their positions, this is new territory for Conservatives. I believe this is why Conservative, Republican men are beginning to mirror the feminine traits common in Democrat or Liberal political parties. It is due to the simple fact that they complain about problems without providing solutions. The same happens with religious parties.

These are not value statements; I am not trying to argue a moral point regarding politics in this essay. These are simply facts and observations I have noticed and common occurrences that you have likely noticed as well. Everyone is more than welcome to their own opinion.

Back to the focal point. Men in the church have resigned themselves to complaining about problems instead of actually solving them.

You can pull up a video of any congressional speech made by a Republican and watch this very phenomenon play out (with the possible exception of Dan Crenshaw, one of the few masculine men left in congress). Or watch a video of any modernist sermon today and you will see men complaining about the state of the world without providing actionable steps for improvement.

Sure, these men may make a few comments about “trusting God” or “Grace” or something. But rarely if ever are men given actionable steps that they themselves can start taking to improve their minds and become solution-oriented.

We have plenty of people complaining about problems and the state of the world and we have very few men doing anything about those problems.

We have plenty of people in the church complaining about this issue or that situation and no one doing anything to provide solutions or change the situation. Even the more Conservative men in the church do nothing but complain and offer no solutions. This is because men have been specially bred to worship women instead of God. Feminism is built into their pedigree. Their entire focus has been reoriented from making God the focus of their lives to making women the focus of their lives and checking all the correct behavioral boxes so they can win women’s approval and intimacy. But that is an essay all by itself. Let’s move on to some applications.

Affirmation: I create solutions and never complain about problems.

Application: The Problem: Men have become effeminate by being problem-focused.

A Solution: Men must reorient their minds so that they generate solutions. They must become Solution-Oriented.

Men should be producing solutions faster than everyone else can generate problems. Men were not placed on earth to be masters of empathy, they are here to build and renovate homes, civilizations, and societies.

Key to Masculinity: Stop complaining and start solving. You need to allocate maximal mental resources to solutions and minimal mental resources to problems. It is fine to simply state a problem, but be sure you have some solutions to go along with those complaints. Every complaint you have must be followed by a solution if not four solutions to choose from. If you do not provide a solution to the problems you state, you are effeminate.

“90 % of mental resources should be focused on solutions and only 10% on problems” ~ Tony Robbins.

If you are around males who spend time complaining, question them about possible solutions to the problems they complain about. If they complain about politics, ask them what action they would have the politician take. They should have a ready answer since they obviously have so much knowledge about managing hundreds of millions of human beings in the world of political war. Or if they are complaining about church protocol, ask them for four possible solutions. If they cannot answer the question, press them on the fact that they have no solutions to problems and are nothing more than mere complainers. They will hopefully become embarrassed and consider their position more rationally before they vomit their partially digested criticisms onto whoever has the misfortune of being nearby.

Plant the seed in your mind that you are a man who finds, creates, and executes solutions to problems instead of just complaining about them.

Be able to discuss those solutions in a calm, rational, stoic manner. No one listens to the guy who yells at the leader, “You should do X, Y, and Z you moron”. State your position eloquently and with a rational mind, giving respect to those in the positions of authority who are able to execute those actions. By doing this you protect their ego.

You can also leverage their ego by expressing how wise it would make them look if they implemented your solution, and they do not even have to give you any credit. If they implemented it, you not only solved the problem but strengthened a trade embargo. This is life, and life is a manipulation.

Conduct Yourselves Like Men.

Attrition Warfare = Instant Gratification

What is the typical response to getting punched in the face? Generally, it is to hit back. The natural reaction or reflex is to strike back at a person who hits you. While this is useful in a physical fight, it may be less useful in psychological warfare.

While I enjoy attrition warfare when it is used to make a clear point or display force, it is less useful if your goal is the full-scale destruction of an opponent. Perhaps attrition warfare can still be a piece of your combat strategy, but your overall strategy must include more aspects of total war than just the fighting.

When I say “Attrition Warfare“, the image I want you to have in your mind is lines of soldiers crashing into one another, or firing rifles into each other’s ranks. These men continue to fire or fight until one side runs out of men.

Attrition warfare = instant gratification

As epic as that style of warfare can be, it is very costly, even to the victorious side. This is why it is much more profitable to use maneuver warfare if your goal is to totally annihilate your enemy.

I find that we commonly tend to use attrition warfare in many of our social interactions. If people start a verbal joust with us, we respond by hitting right back. But practically speaking, would it not be better to hamstring an opponent’s horse rather than actually engage in a jousting match with him? That would be an example of maneuver warfare. It requires more thinking and planning, but it can do infinitely more damage at almost no cost to you.

What we need to become aware of as men is the tendency we have to rise up and charge into battle. I often talk about the warlike nature of man and its importance. While that nature is undoubtedly important, it must be combined with rational thought and planning. You will be one-hundred times more efficient at warfare if you combine that warlike spirit with the pin-point precision of grand strategy.

It is incredibly satisfying to engage in this attrition warfare, to punch the enemy right back. This is why I generated the title of this post and hope you will remember it:

Attrition Warfare = Instant Gratification

Instead of delaying gratification by choosing the must more effective yet less satisfying maneuver warfare, we prefer to punch a person right back. After all, it feels great to punch back, especially in psychological warfare. But we must count the cost of that type of war. Others may see us act foolishly and we damage the possibility of trade opportunities. Relationships can be damaged. there is collateral damage to attrition warfare.

If you are engaged in psychological warfare and they punch you in the face, you should not be thinking about how to hit them back, but about how to burn down their house. Think about how you can draw them further into your field so you can crush them. Allow them to think that they are gaining the upper hand or that you are weak. This will encourage them to attack and they will begin to act too quickly.

Overly-ambitious action will lead to mistakes. Mistakes allow you to counterattack from the flank doing much more damage to them than they did to you. If you want to crush your enemy, maneuver around them, draw them into the open field, and then hit them from all sides. Incorporate this philosophy into your thinking.

Go On The Offensive

Christian people simply do not like to go on the offensive anymore. It is very common for Christian people to latch onto Bible passages that concentrate on the defensive portion of the faith. They love verses like 1 Peter 3:15 which tells us to always be ready to give a defense for the hope that is within us. Softer Christians will latch onto the word “defense” and never progress beyond it.

Unfortunately, they cherry-pick these defense-based verses but ignore the additional verses that authorize an offensive form of spiritual warfare. Those are the verses I want you to concentrate on because if you have grown up in the church, you are already well acquainted with defensive warfare.

For far too long the religious world has trained men to be passive pacifists and shy away from any form of aggression or violence.

They do this even though this same aggression is what builds civilization and keeps them safe. Many soft Christian men are anti-violence until they need to be rescued by the police or protected by the military. They preach peace until they need someone man enough to apply violence to an assailant. They have educated out of themselves the need to be masculine men who can defend themselves and their families.

Though those are examples of physical violence, the same pacifist mentality has spread into the intellectual sphere of these Christian men. Now they are unwilling to engage in spiritual “violence” even though it is authorized by the Bible, which we will cover shortly. They are unwilling to attack overtly false ideas or teachers. They refuse to address their fellow man who is wallowing in immorality.

Worst of all, they use “mercy” or “grace” to justify cowardice.

Go on the offensive. Pull Down Strongholds.

These men do not shy away from the offensive because they are virtuous, they do so because they are cowardly. They do not want to be the bad guy or hurt anyone’s feelings, so they simply let the immorality exist. They allow their brother to live immorally because they are too afraid of angering them. This is not kindness, it is hatred. A man who sidesteps his responsibility because he is unwilling to endure discomfort and then justifies it by twisting the Scripture is no man.

Let’s examine some of the passages that authorize us to engage in offensive warfare, and then we will supplement these with commands for general warfare:

Offensive Warfare

I. 2 Corinthians 10:3-5 ~ “For though we walk in the flesh, we do not war according to the flesh. For the weapons of our warfare are not carnal but mighty in God for pulling down strongholds, casting down arguments and every high thing that exalts itself against the knowledge of God, bringing every thought into captivity to the obedience of Christ”.

This is perhaps the single greatest authorization of offensive spiritual warfare in scripture. Here we are given the signal to attack false arguments and pull them down. If you are an ancient general pulling down a stronghold, it means you laid siege to it and destroyed it, which requires you to attack. No man ever pulled down a stronghold from a defensive position.

2 Corinthians 10:3-5 is the biblical authorization to go on the offensive. Attack and destroy false arguments, there is no need to sit passively and ideally by as war breaks out around you.

II. Ephesians 6:10-17 ~ “Finally, my brethren, be strong in the Lord and in the power of His might. Put on the whole armor of God, that you may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil. For we do not wrestle against flesh and blood, but against principalities, against powers, against the rulers of the darkness of this age, against spiritual hosts of wickedness in the heavenly places.

Therefore take up the whole armor of God, that you may be able to withstand in the evil day, and having done all, to stand. Stand therefore, having girded your waist with truth, having put on the breastplate of righteousness, and having shod your feet with the preparation of the gospel of peace; above all, taking the shield of faith with which you will be able to quench all the fiery darts of the wicked one. And take the helmet of salvation, and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God.”

While the specific context speaks concerning spiritual warfare and destroying temptation, there is no doubt that we also wrestle against those individuals who are vessels for the enemy. The bible teaches that the adversary corrupts the hearts and minds of men, therefore these men should be attacked (Acts 5:3, Luke 22:3-6).

The second half of this passage outlines our tools of war. I think it is beneficial to think of the shield of faith as both offensive and defensive. If you have read anything about how the Spartans used their shields in combat, you know that a shield can go from being a protection device to an offensive weapon in an instant. Any man who was ever hit in the face with 20 pounds of bronze-coated wood can attest to that fact. So also faith can be used to defend yourself from temptation or immoral argument or to attack enemies.

Then you have the sword of the Spirit, which is primarily an offensive weapon. You use the Word of God to go on the offensive to attack and destroy the enemy. You can destroy temptation with scripture (Matthew 4) or you can attack faulty ideas and false teaching (2 Peter 2:18-22). Everyone thinks of a sword as an offensive tool used for an offensive assault, so use it as such.

Unfortunately, we may have to use the Sword to oppose another man’s incorrect use of the Sword. The Bible does not contradict itself, every alleged contradiction can be explained if men are willing to have an honest, non-emotional discussion about it. But flawed human men will attempt to wrongly use the sword to justify their behaviors or condemn the behaviors of others (1 Timothy 4), they twist the Bible to their destruction (2 Peter 3:16). You will have to use the bible to attack other incorrect interpretations of the Bible where you see them.

General Warfare

I. 1 Timothy 1:18 – “This charge I entrust to you, Timothy, my child, in accordance with the prophecies previously made about you, that by them you may wage the good warfare.”

This is an authorization for general warfare, which I argue encompasses both offensive and defensive positions. Not only is faith a war, but it is a total war. It is not limited to violence on the battlefield, it also includes economic warfare, propaganda generation, psychological maneuvers, and discreet, pinpoint assassinations.

If you are going to war, do not think of it only in terms of the battlefield.

You must also consider all these other avenues in which men wage war. You will find many times that a man is using deception or propaganda-style war instead of attrition war. Men may couch their personal or political agendas in morality, and they may do so from the pulpit in the name of God. They can cloak their position in just enough morality that it becomes difficult to attack their position without attacking the morality they have propped up as a shield.

You must be very clear about this, if you have an enemy who is intelligent enough to engage in guerrilla warfare, you do not need to engage in attrition warfare. Most well-meaning Christians go wrong here. They respond to an intelligent enemy with emotion. They allow the enemy to frustrate them and this dilutes their ability to focus and make good battlefield decisions. What you must do is have the presence of mind to elevate yourself above the battlefield, see every position, and consider propaganda and economic attacks.

The Usefulness of Defensive Warfare

I am not suggesting that we get rid of all defensive warfare. On the contrary, I am suggesting that we add the principles of offensive warfare to an already well-established position of defensive warfare. Essentially every Christian man knows to defend the faith and be ready to answer those who have questions about our hope, but very few men understand and appreciate the fact that we are also to engage in offensive attacks on our enemies.

It is easy to be a defender, it is difficult and dangerous to be an attacker. To defend, you simply need to know the scripture. To attack, you not only must know but must also understand the scripture.

Application

Step one is to rid yourself of the guilt complex that is commonly associated with an attempt to engage in offensive warfare.

Because of your pacifist upbringing, you may feel discomfort when engaging in offensive warfare. It simply does not “feel right” to your intuition, but let me assure you that it is not only appropriate but necessary. It is your responsibility to help your brothers who are living immorally or have integrated some wrong philosophies, and it is their obligation to help you as well should you fall into some intellectual trap.

Step two: move beyond the basics of biblical knowledge.

What most people do is read the Bible, swallow a few lines they like without ever thinking about it. They accept the surface level meaning of what they read without going any deeper or trying to understand the target audience and societal structures of the day. This is an advantage for you in your warfare against them but is also a weakness of human nature that you will have to learn to avoid in your own study. The surface-level understanding is just our attempt to take the path of least resistance.

Deepen your understanding by concentrating longer on passages and reading supplemental materials like commentaries. Never simply swallow an idea, no matter how respected the source; always think about it for yourself first.

“It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain an idea without accepting it”
Aristotle

Step three, adopt the Socratic Method. Socrates was an ancient philosopher who confused and confounded the people he talked to simply by asking questions about their positions. It would not take many questions before his opponents were angry and were shown that they did not know that much about their own position. Many centuries later, Benjamin Franklin would adopt this same practice and go on to write about it in his autobiography. He had a reputation in his friend group of being the one who confounded the opinions of others simply by asking questions. Questions reveal gaps in knowledge, so use them as weapons of war.

Principle of War: You only have to ask most people“why” about three times before their position collapses.

To use the Socratic method, you simply have to question your opponent. By asking questions, you are on the offense and you force your opponent to take a defensive position. When an opponent takes a defensive position, it is very difficult for them to maneuver into an offensive one later. Being attacked puts men on edge, it pushes them into fight-or-flight mode, especially if they have weak positions.

Whenever they make a statement, ask them what they mean or question small portions of their statements. Force them to define terms so there is no uncertainty about the words they are using. Look for holes in their arguments that you can exploit with a carefully placed question. This has the added benefit of allowing them to destroy themselves because you are not attacking their position with direct statements. Their own words will be their undoing.

Be careful with the Socratic method as well. At the end of his life, Socrates was made to choose between death or exile. He chose death by hemlock poison.

Attrition Warfare

It is rarely appropriate to attack your opponent directly. You must almost always use guerrilla war tactics and intelligent maneuvering rather than all-out frontal assaults. Prevent yourself from being the “bad guy” by forcing your enemy to destroy his position. Or modify the way you attack the enemy so that they cannot be mad at you for defeating them, but may even be grateful for the correction.

One of the only times a full-scale direct attack is necessary is when you are dealing with an individual who is unwilling to change and will not listen to reason no matter how clearly and rationally it is presented. In this instance, it is your responsibility to bludgeon this individual as much as possible in the presence of as many witnesses as possible. Do not attack directly if no one can witness it, you will only damage your position. The point of the frontal assault is for the benefit of those watching, not for the one being eviscerated. You also need witnesses who can defend you if you are accused of being “unloving”.

But the real benefit of witnesses is so they can understand a few principles:

You are a force to be reckoned with.
To assist them in understanding the ridiculousness of your adversary’s position.
As an undeniable display of force – you are not afraid to go to war if necessary.
You are comfortable engaging in offensive warfare and are not limited by pacifist doctrine.

Fourth, have the character to stand resolute in your positions. It may make you less popular to be the one who is assaulting faulty positions, but it is a biblical requirement.

Fifth, choose your battles. Not every argument is worth having. Offensive warfare causes the attacked party to feel embarrassment and shame. Many people have fragile egos that cannot handle this type of war and will not improve if attacked directly. Again you must consider guerilla war tactics or quiet political maneuvers. Count the cost of warfare, it is expensive so consider whether it is worth it to engage in. If you are the type of person who is content being the “bad guy” and not having deep personal relationships with others, then offensive war will not cause you any real problems.

Also, all these tactics assume that you are holding the correct position.

It could be that your position is the one that is incorrect and you need someone to correct your thinking. If you are ever shown that your position is faulty, you need to have the humility to accept it with grace.

Never be mad to be corrected, because being corrected is the fastest way to go from being wrong to being right again. Have enough open-mindedness to correct your position, but be resolute enough to hold positions you know are correct.

Fight to the Death.

Conduct Yourselves Like Men.

The Sexual Market Value of Joseph

It is fairly simple to understand how a woman’s sexual market value is determined. All you need to know is if she is attractive or not. Sexually, a woman’s value is based on how good she looks. When men look for a sexual partner, this is all they consider, from a secular point of view. Even religious men first determine if a woman is attractive and then consider her character when they are looking for someone to date or marry. A man will not even talk to a woman if she is not attractive, despite what the “beauty is on the inside” proponents have to suggest. Unfortunately for them, you cannot have sex with inner beauty, so it is not the first consideration for men looking for women. What we will learn momentarily will help us understand how high the sexual market value of Joseph was.

For men, on the other hand, there are many more components that go into determining their sexual market value.

Looks are only a component, and though they are important, they must be supplemented with additional characteristics for a man to be sexually marketable. Most notably, looks must be supplemented with traditionally masculine features and behaviors along with a man’s ability to game a woman, and finally topped off by his status or affluence. At the end of the day, women have more criteria for what makes a man a desirable sexual partner, both short and long-term.

Also please note, when I say “sexual partner” I do not mean “husband material”. The religious world does its best to convince young men that behaviors such as being a good provider, taking care of a woman’s emotions, and being a good father are what make men sexually attractive. This is not true. While those behaviors make men good long-term marriage partners, they are not good for generating genuine sexual attraction in a woman. That is best done by a combination of masculine behavior plus game, masculine features (muscle mass, lower-pitched voice, etc.).

Women have different criteria for who they want to have sex with versus who they want to marry.

The church has tried to educate and condition women to desire those long-term provider characteristics (good provider/good father etc.), but conditioning cannot undo a woman’s basic biological need to breed with the man who has the best genetics. She will desire to marry the long-term provider, but she will desire to have sex with the most masculine man. This is also why many Christian wives will rarely if ever feel a genuine sexual desire for their husbands.

That is a brief glimpse into the female sexual selection process and there is much more to cover at a later time, but those few paragraphs should give you enough information to make the story of Joseph much more compelling.

What we have in Genesis 39 is a man named Joseph who checks all the boxes for a good short-term sexual partner for a woman.

The sexual market value of Joseph is quite high. Let’s have a look at these:

I. He is Physically Attractive – Genesis 39:6

The Bible says Joseph is handsome in both form and appearance. Meaning he had an attractive body and face. These are two basic characteristics that form the foundation of a man’s sexual market value. But that is not all, we also learn that:

II. Joseph is Successful and Becomes an Overseer of Potiphar’s House – Genesis 39:3-4

Arguably, even more important than a man’s looks are his status and ambition. Not only is a man’s success in his career reflective of his ability to be an efficient long-term provider, but it also reflects mastery and ambition, each of which women usually find masculine and attractive. Joseph climbed the ranks in Potiphar’s house until he was in charge of everything. Potiphar’s mind was free to focus on business and the kingdom of Egypt, and he must have enjoyed that mental rest.

III. Joseph becomes “Forbidden Fruit” – Genesis 39:8-9

Women want what they cannot have. So when Joseph refuses Potiphar’s wife, that only makes him that much more desirable to her. Now she has to have him because he is not only attractive and successful but also a challenge to be conquered.

Potiphar’s wife likely was not interested in one single sexual encounter, I argue that she wanted a long-term affair.

I base this on the fact that the Bible says “He did not heed her to lie with her or to be with her”. Why separate “lying with” and “being with” unless they describe two separate events. Potiphar’s wife wanted sexual access to Jospeh over the long term (Genesis 39:10).

Men like Joseph are what women want:

1. Successful
2. Ambitious
3. Attractive (Fit)

Consider these points the next time you hear a lesson on the story of Joseph. Go to your preacher and ask him about the sexual market value of Joseph and see what he says. Most men have no idea the temptation Joseph faced when dealing with Potiphar’s wife because they themselves are not sexually marketable enough to be valued by women and subsequently be tempted by them. Women like high-value men. Most men in the church are too busy using their virtue to justify their poverty to have time to train their bodies or build their wealth.

Consider how you can make yourself more like Jospeh if you want to be more attractive to your wife. Be masculine and work hard and put yourself first.

Page 46 of 84

« Previous 1 … 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 … 84 Next »