You Are Probably Alone at Church

Broadly speaking, men in churches go along with a woman-oriented religious practice and worldview for one of two reasons:

  1. They are Momma-boys. Either their mothers were (or are) the dominate people in their lives, or their mothers were (or are) missed in their lives and they try to recapture the experience.
  2. They attended formal education sometime after WWII. There these men learned that the most sure and peaceful path to doing what they want was to sit still, pretend to follow the lessons, and eventually–pleased with herself–the teacher will dismiss you from class.

The men in group one actually go out and buy Pink Christian books in an attempt to please their wives. These are the men who become house-husbands and SAHDs. And they cry a lot in comparison with other men.

There are a lot more men in group two. Their wives buy them the books which are thumbed through with a bit of Hmm-ing, and then put up on shelves in displays of fealty. These are the men who pretend to be house-husbands and SAHDs, but really they just nod at their wives while looking for a binge-watch.

These bastards are tricky not only to wives but also to you. It will seem, at times, as if they understand the perversion of women-led Christianity and that’s why they merely feign obedience to her desires. Nope. They actually don’t care all that much about anything outside their job and hobbies. It is comfortable for them to pretend to follow the nonsense lessons of servant leadership, send the wives out for GNOs, and make promises choreplay before turning on the Xbox while the kids eat chicken nuggets for dinner.

The Christian section of the Men’s Sphere often doesn’t like to discuss these guys because the sort of men who find the Men’s Sphere are often the sort of men who genuinely attempted to “lead” in housework and childcare, yet went unrewarded. But they do exist, and they are part of the problem in the same way as male employees who mouth corporate harassment and discrimination policies before they go back to surfing the web.

The Future is Now

I’m short on the time required for a thoughtful post, so a glimpse-ful one will have to suffice.

Drudge Report links to a Washington CBS article and video about a mother physically separating her son from rioters in Baltimore, and beating him. Here are some quick quotes from the article.

One Baltimore mother was caught on video dragging out her son who was taking part in the Baltimore riots.

The unnamed mother was shown on television smacking her son — who was dressed all in black — for taking part in the riots against police and businesses Monday afternoon and dragging him away.

[…]

Baltimore Mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake was asked why she waited hours to ask the governor to declare a state of emergency, while the governor himself hinted she should have come to him earlier.

[…]

U.S. Attorney General Loretta Lynch, in her first day on the job, said she would send Justice Department officials to the city in coming days.

[…]

Maj. Gen. Linda Singh, adjutant general of the Maryland National Guard, said up to 5,000 troops would be available for Baltimore’s streets.

[…]

I think the question has been answered.

What? Sorry; yes, I quite understand. The question was: Can we promote enough women to leadership roles so that fathers become superfluous, or so that women can finally wield the requisite power to bring order our “free” society? And the answer was: No.

Some additional thoughts.

Baltimore mayor Stephanie Rawlings-Blake initially presumed that the right response was to ignore the children running wild. Now she’s put them on a time-out curfew.

I described the mother as beating her son; which is true. Please note that I don’t have a problem with parents beating children who riot. In contrast: The media and civil authorities would be outraged if there were video of the young man’s father whooping his son’s ass up and down the street; punching him in the face, jerking him around by the hoodie, and pushing him back home. I imagine that cops would take time out fighting for their lives to arrest such a father.

Donkey Talk

King Solomon, ~300 B.C.

25 I turned my heart to know and to search out and to seek wisdom and the scheme of things, and to know the wickedness of folly and the foolishness that is madness. 26 And I find something more bitter than death: the woman whose heart is snares and nets, and whose hands are fetters. He who pleases God escapes her, but the sinner is taken by her.27 Behold, this is what I found, says the Preacher, while adding one thing to another to find the scheme of things— 28 which my soul has sought repeatedly, but I have not found. One man among a thousand I found, but a woman among all these I have not found. 29 See, this alone I found, that God made man upright, but they have sought out many schemes.

Mom, ~last month

You know, Cane: Women lie a lot; especially when they’re young. All the time. I really hate to say that, but… If they think it will get them something, or get them out of trouble, or, make them look better, yeah, just get their way…women will just lie to everyone and even themselves. Haha! Yeah…especially themselves…

This truth about women (mothers, wives, sisters, daughters…all of them) is the one thing that men dealing with women need to know. The temptation for them to lie is very powerful; in no small way because their nature is to desire more than it is to discern. I suspect this has always been true, but I also think it must be even more difficult to resist in our current culture than in some previous ones. The permeation of relativism in our culture means that their grasp of the truth (when spoken, written, heard, etc.) is more tenuous

Along with that: I cannot imagine that there have ever been more systems for a person to skip between; each more beguiling than the last in its explanation of how to cure what ails a woman. Buy this. Move here. Grow that. Eat this. Pray this. Do these… Men are susceptible to such systematic ruses also, but as women will (and do!) follow, men falling to such sorceries only adds to women’s burden.

Nor can we forget that the laws, traditions, and sentiments of our era force men into the service of women without a reciprocal service, or even gratitude.

So, if this is true, can a man trust a woman? He can, but that trust must be based on watching what she does. A submissive wife, or daughter (or son for that matter) is known by her obedience; not by her lip-service. Let me put St. Peter’s admonition to wives’ obedience under a different light: Her words, even grumblings, are meaningless if she is respectful and has pure conduct; which is submission. Therefore, husbands with obedient wives must not let their own sentimentality get in the way of work. There is plowing to be done. Enjoy (as in: “bring joy into”) it, for there is no plowing in the grave.

They Plow with Your Heifer

If anyone doubts that the choice to wear immodest clothing is made knowing they are immodest, then let me put Of Pants and Passions in the light of Sacred Cowgirls, and make my riddle plain.

Cowboy clothes are impractical for everything except being a cowboy, and even that allowance is suspect. A good pair of steel-toed boots or even Keens have more utility. Coveralls provide better hygiene. Nor is there is a need to have a pledge of allegiance and a prayer to open a rodeo. Neither the riders nor the animals gain any skill or rodeoness from them. These body coverings and ceremonious coverings are chosen regardless of their material impracticality because they love them. In the case of cowboy clothes, they love them so much that it is preferred for women to cross-dress and bedazzle their butts, rather than to fail to uphold cowboy culture.

Meanwhile, Christian culture–the aggregate choices of a Christian life– can go to Hell. Because they do not love them. There is a reason that Cowboy Churches seem more cowboy than church; why they fail to produce as many sound, faithful, loving Christians and instead produce shucks-y people who like the idea of country living, low taxes, and sassy, spangled-ass women.

If you are like me and have been seeing and doing things wrong for your whole life, things like this are hard to hear, All the talk of the “utility” of immodest workout clothes, sports uniforms, comfort clothes, etc. is an alluring sidetrack. It appears like a shortcut through the wilderness of moral choices, but it leads to sheol.

Your heart will tell you lies to make sin appear reasonable. Friends and even respected elders will make to you excuses for immodesty. They will gossip about you, talk down to you, call you the American Taliban, project sex-obsession upon you; anything to try to make you feel bad for choosing modesty before trivialities. That’s what uber-efficient work-outs, amateur sports, or a smidgen more comfort in the supermarket are: trivialities. Do not be deceived! You must choose what you love.

Another Example of Harmful Risk-Aversion

More on Mr. Doug Phillips soon, but a discussion at Dalrock’s prompted me to respond because I’ve written on it before.

My friend Empath wrote this:

[I] am not defending CTS’s behaviors. I’m not wanting them left alone, unchallenged. Maybe I want to know what the label is for the Christians who remain after the CTS’s offenders are stricken from the list. What are we? What group(s) do we share the most values with? Are there really so few of us special Christian snowflakes that we have a clique here in these parts and thats it, because we have sorted all of what SHOULD BE natural allies out and away? Worse, when we see the secular AMEN! chorus from soulless left, or the overtly libertine, whatever group that represents values diametrically opposite what ours should be….but they eloquently wax in agreement about that bloody CTS’s do we not get it that we too are held in derision by them, but like a ManBoobs type association with feminists, they tolerate us because it feels really cool to hear what to them is us running us down.

This is a problem of conservative-minded people. It may be intractable.

Similar problems are what drove Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle first to shut up, and then to start attacking whites in the media even though it was whites paying them.They meant to tell revealing and thoughtful jokes about black people to black people. When too many white people started laughing too loud…they got nervous. I’m sympathetic, but I think they should have continued. It would have been better to ban whites from the audience than for them to crawdad the way they did.

In hindsight: Chris Rock and Dave Chappelle traded their jokes on a conservative understanding of the world because they are (unknowingly) conservatives. So fundamental is their conservatism that as penance for causing whites to laugh at blacks they both took back-to-basics trips to Africa; that they might be cleansed.

On commented blogs, the problem can be exacerbated because while laughter is hard to measure, comments are easy. To my mind, Dalrock speaks as a challenger to his own group to get them to wake up; preaching truths his own hostile choir. He is not an outsider, but one of them. It remains that unless he is more ruthless in moderating comments then his message gets confused with the rabble’s. He starts to sound like Chris Rock telling black jokes at an impromptu meeting of Kinists. Yet if he does start moderating or banning people, then he will surely (if inadvertently) ban others who are like himself; preaching truths to a hostile choir.

What’s to be done? The only solution is for those convicted by Dalrock to get louder; to challenge those in their own little midsts. Sounds like the liberal response, doesn’t it? Fists in the air; rock the vote; we won’t be silenced; etc.

Let’s notice who is on the offensive; who is taking dog-tags off dead conservatives. Which brings us back to the point of why this is a problem of conservative minded people; because we just prefer to take our balls and go home.

Newsflash: The Adulteress is Dead

It has become a cliche that, if a Christian speaks of holding a woman to account for her adultery, then another Christian will chime in with the story of the adulteress who is brought before Jesus by the pharisees.[1]

but Jesus went to the Mount of Olives. Early in the morning he came again to the temple. All the people came to him, and he sat down and taught them. The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. 10 Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” 11 She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

And with a flourish of contextless Scripture, the conversation is settled along these lines: Anyone who ignores a woman’s adultery[2] is like Jesus. Anyone who has the bad taste to bring it up is a dirty pharisee. I’d like to share with you some context; some light shining forth from the dark spaces between the lines. But before I do that, I want to clear away one bit of false yet commonly believed context.

It is often bawled by the second Christian that there obviously was a man who was caught in adultery with the woman, yet he is not brought before Jesus. This, the second Christian will say, proves that the pharisees were misogynist pigs, and, quid pro quo, wrong no matter what.

It’s more likely that the truth is that the woman was brought because no one likes to see a woman punished. If Jesus had done so it would have lowered his estimation in the eyes of the masses. Jesus was known for healing, gentleness, and forgiveness. Emotionally, the rightness or wrongness of the law is almost always beside the point to people. The crowds would have disdained it viscerally. That’s why the pharisees thought it was such a good trap: If he kills her, they could say how generous they have always been to overlook such poor creatures as this adulteress; not like that brute Jesus. If he lets her go, then they can say Jesus is not serious about God’s commands.

That leads into the second point of context: The pharisees did not believe in God’s commandments. One thing you’ll notice about the Jewish religious leaders is that–with one notable exception–they never get their hands dirty. If they believed in God’s law, and if they believed Jesus was just some backwater hillbilly with the gift of gab, then they would have stoned that woman. They didn’t. To them it was just politics; control tactics for maintaining their power and prestige. Jesus means it when He calls the pharisees and sadducees  hypocrites. Even when they wanted to get kill Jesus they had the Romans do it.

You may be wondering who was that notable exception. It was Saul of Tarsus; who presided over the stoning of Stephen, the first Christian martyr, and many more persecutions of the first Christians. Saul was a true believer who was willing to stone people. So God chose Saul to be His missionary, changed his name to Paul, and then used Paul to change the world. Paul, like the Romans, was a man of action. And like Paul, Rome was quickly converted. Their salvation makes sense. It was Romans who performed the ultimate Passover sacrifice and painted a wooden post with the Lamb’s blood; albeit in ignorance.

The third point of context is that rebuke without condemnation–without punishment–is gentle and loving. It is no favor to the sinner to allow her to go on in sin. She needed to be told that she stood in danger of the penalty of death. We all do. When we respond to a non-threatening (i.e., no punishment to follow) statement of real sin by using Scripture as an excuse, then we are bearing false witness against our neighbor. The Christian who uses John 8:1-11 to quash any pronouncement of sin becomes a stumbling block to his neighbors; both witness and the sinner. That Christians is fundamentally misunderstanding the righteous nature of Jesus, of God. Jesus did not nullify His law; his judgment of adultery. He reserved it.

Which brings us to the last brushstrokes of context: His reservation of judgment came to an end and that adulteress is dead. Our Lord does not–cannot!–reserve His judgment forever, and no one is snatched from the hand of God. He is a holy and righteous God and that woman was–like everyone else and like all of us will be–put to death. She did not get off the hook for her sins, and He Who is Without Sin will cast the killing stone at sinners; which is all of us. That’s why we need to repent and be born again; so that after that death which satisfies our righteous God’s judgment we can be raised to new life with Christ. The second Christian is wrong to say that Jesus just lets her walk away forever.

[1] This is something I’ve intended to write for some time, yet kept forgetting.

[2] It’s an observation of mine that I’ve never heard this in reverse; I’ve never heard a male adulterer defended under the rubric of John 8. That’s a curious thing, as the sort of person most likely to use John 8 as a conversation-ending rebuttal is very often the same sort of person that clings to the idea of equality of the sexes.

Back in a Bit & Katy Perry Puts the Fun in Funeral

I’ll be gone a few days, and have set the comments to moderation. (Back now.)

In other news, Katy Perry tells it like it is. Therefore, there is no excuse for missing the message that feral women are celebrated, and celebrating as they sing along in their cars.

It’s strangely fitting that the interludes are reminiscent of old horror-core rap like Gravediggaz and some of Wu Tang Clan’s more gruesome tracks…which is saying a lot. Investigate at your own risk. Vile stuff.

Dark horses draw hearses. Of course, we have heard and known these things.

5 My son, attend unto my wisdom,
and bow thine ear to my understanding:
that thou mayest regard discretion,
and that thy lips may keep knowledge.

For the lips of a strange woman drop as an honeycomb,
and her mouth is smoother than oil:
but her end is bitter as wormwood,
sharp as a twoedged sword.
Her feet go down to death;
her steps take hold on hell.
Lest thou shouldest ponder the path of life,
her ways are moveable, that thou canst not know them.
Hear me now therefore, O ye children,
and depart not from the words of my mouth.
Remove thy way far from her,
and come not nigh the door of her house:
lest thou give thine honour unto others,
and thy years unto the cruel:
10 lest strangers be filled with thy wealth;
and thy labours be in the house of a stranger;
11 and thou mourn at the last,
when thy flesh and thy body are consumed,
12 and say, How have I hated instruction,
and my heart despised reproof;
13 and have not obeyed the voice of my teachers,
nor inclined mine ear to them that instructed me!
14 I was almost in all evil
in the midst of the congregation and assembly.

Baby, You’re Dead Inside

One last post on another area of our lives where we don’t even begin to plumb the wrongness. Then, for my disposition, I have to take a break from that subject.

I saw a post the other day lamenting a version of “Baby It’s Cold Outside” performed by Lady Gaga and Joseph Gordon Levitt. In the original (and most versions) the female is trying to make her excuse to leave a man’s house (The case could be made that she’s trying to leave a party, but the song is quiet and intimate. It doesn’t jive.), while the male voice tempts her to stay; mostly by saying, “Baby, it’s cold outside.” In this new version with LG and JGL they swap the roles and it is the female trying to tempt the man to stay. The case was made, at that blog, that this was a sign of how far we’d fallen as a society, and that the original arrangement is the better, conservative, choice.

Just to be sure we have this straight in our minds: A Christmas song about an unmarried man trying to talk an unmarried woman into staying at his residence alone and past the acceptable time is the “good and conservative” version of events? She says right in the song that her mother will be worried, her father will be pacing the floor, and even her brother is waiting at the door; sick with worry. Well, my good conservative friends: Fret not! At the end of the song: She stays!

What’s ironic is that the Lady Gaga version is much more likely to occur. That’s my experience. Not only that, when we see remonstrations in scripture to avoid fornication and adultery, it says things like this:

For at the window of my house
I looked through my casement,
and beheld among the simple ones,
I discerned among the youths, a young man void of understanding,
passing through the street near her corner;
and he went the way to her house,
in the twilight, in the evening,
in the black and dark night:
10 and, behold, there met him a woman
with the attire of an harlot, and subtil of heart.
11 (She is loud and stubborn;
her feet abide not in her house:
12 now is she without, now in the streets,
and lieth in wait at every corner.)
13 So she caught him, and kissed him,
and with an impudent face said unto him,
14 I have peace offerings with me;
this day have I payed my vows.
15 Therefore came I forth to meet thee,
diligently to seek thy face, and I have found thee.
16 I have decked my bed with coverings of tapestry,
with carved works, with fine linen of Egypt.
17 I have perfumed my bed with myrrh,
aloes, and cinnamon.
18 Come, let us take our fill of love until the morning:
let us solace ourselves with loves.
19 For the goodman is not at home,
he is gone a long journey:
20 he hath taken a bag of money with him,
and will come home at the day appointed.
21 With her much fair speech she caused him to yield,
with the flattering of her lips she forced him.
22 He goeth after her straightway,
as an ox goeth to the slaughter,
or as a fool to the correction of the stocks;
23 till a dart strike through his liver;
as a bird hasteth to the snare,
and knoweth not that it is for his life.

That’s in the Old Testament. In the New Testament, even when being warned about wayward men, we see this same paradigm of the man in the woman’s house.

3 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come. For men shall be lovers of their own selves, covetous, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy, without natural affection, trucebreakers, false accusers, incontinent, fierce, despisers of those that are good, traitors, heady, highminded, lovers of pleasures more than lovers of God; having a form of godliness, but denying the power thereof: from such turn away. For of this sort are they which creep into houses, and lead captive silly women laden with sins, led away with divers lusts, ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth. Now as Jannes and Jambres withstood Moses, so do these also resist the truth: men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith. But they shall proceed no further: for their folly shall be manifest unto all men, as theirs also was.

Whether she is the temptress, or he is the interloper, the most common way this goes down is at the woman’s residence.

I do have some questions, though: What are we hoping happens in the good old-fashioned version? Are we satisfied with a paltry dose of disobedience towards her father? It seems maybe some payoff is in order: They definitely need to neck, and I don’t think a bit of slap-n-tickle would go amiss in this cozy situation. It’s not as if they have to have actual sex–maybe we hope she just gives him a blowjob, and then returns to press her brother’s cheek, kiss her father with those lips, and tell him everything is fine. Sounds charming, doesn’t it!

The good old-fashioned version of “Baby, It’s Cold Outside” wrought Lady Gaga; brought down the feminist monster on our heads. Wake up!

14 Wherefore he saith, Awake thou that sleepest, and arise from the dead, and Christ shall give thee light. 15 See then that ye walk circumspectly, not as fools, but as wise, 16 redeeming the time, because the days are evil. 17 Wherefore be ye not unwise, but understanding what the will of the Lord is. 18 And be not drunk with wine, wherein is excess; but be filled with the Spirit; 19 speaking to yourselves in psalms and hymns and spiritual songs, singing and making melody in your heart to the Lord; 20 giving thanks always for all things unto God and the Father in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ; 21 submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God.

22 Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. 23 For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body. 24 Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing. 25 Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; 26 that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, 27 that he might present it to himself a glorious church, not having spot, or wrinkle, or any such thing; but that it should be holy and without blemish. 28 So ought men to love their wives as their own bodies. He that loveth his wife loveth himself. 29 For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church: 30 for we are members of his body, of his flesh, and of his bones. 31 For this cause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined unto his wife, and they two shall be one flesh. 32 This is a great mystery: but I speak concerning Christ and the church. 33 Nevertheless let every one of you in particular so love his wife even as himself; and the wife see that she reverence her husband.

What we praise and what we entertain in our minds–redeeming the time–has always been linked to the state of our marriages. We cannot conduct ourselves as the world does, and then hope everything is fine after our weddings.

Retched

I’ve spent the last several posts (here, here, here, here, and here) in what must appear for all the world like a long-winded attempt to flip the script; an attempt at a grown-ups version of “She did it, too!” Consequently, the number of minds that have been changed, or even influenced, appears to approach zero. Those who immediately agreed with me still do, and those who did not, do not.

I think you misheard me. Because this is what I said: Porn is a womanly bad thing. I don’t mean that in a man-up sort of way. Matt Walsh is just the latest boob to corner that particular market when he wrote: “Real men don’t look at pornography.” Indeed they do. That’s the problem.

The reason increased use of pornography among men is concerning is because pornography use is something sinful women do, and it’s concerning because porn use by men is the fruit of the labors of decades of the intentional feminization of men.

The feminization of men is something that was done to them; that is being done to us. If you ignore everything I’ve written over the past week, you can still chart the rise of pornography which profoundly corresponds to the deliberate and increasingly successful machinations to make men more womanly.

Do you see how sick that is, to encourage women–those who benefit most immediately from this grotesque facade–to judge and ridicule and divorce these men, and to do so for the crime of acting like those women?

Do you see why women cannot pity, but only despise men who look at porn; why the mirror causes retching?

Do you see how imperative grace and forgiveness is?

Do you see how necessary it is for women to (at the very least) shut their bile-flecked lips when the urge rises in them to bash men for pornography?

Do you see what a black, pharisaical heart lies beneath the breast that says (without irony!),

“Real men don’t look at pornography”?

If not: Just pass by on the other side of the road. When you get wherever you’re going, there will be plenty of Downton Abbey.

It’s Probably Nothing

The point of my last few posts appear to be lost on more a a few people. In consideration of my readers, I will stick with the example of Jesse Stone because I both enjoy the show, and I also think that it often has a deleterious effect on women’s psyches.

First: We all must agree that violence and sex are similar in that they can both have their place, but use outside of their respective places can cause great destruction. Defense of another or an innocent is almost always good, and outside of that it is usually evil. Likewise, sex in marriage is almost always good, but sex outside of marriage is nearly universally bad. So far, so good, right?

  • If the Jesse Stone character stopped solving murders, men and women would stop watching the show. It would have no purpose.
  • If he unrepentantly murdered a man every episode, and then continued on with his day (and the show in general), we would all stop watching Jesse Stone. We would recoil from the wrongness of it.
  • If he stopped shooting the bad guys men would stop watching the show, because men watch the show to vicariously right wrongs. Men want him to continue dispensing street justice when deserved. It would be a bummer if he quit.
  • If he stopped fornicating women would stop watching the show, because the draw of the show for women is reveling in such a man. Women want to vicariously sleep with Jesse Stone. What upsets women is that he doesn’t continue fornicating long enough to get married. (Catch that?)

If you don’t get understand these principles, then you don’t understand human nature, and you’re not educated enough to make good decisions about what you or others watch. Your eye is too dark, and so everything is darkness to you.

22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light. 23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

A darkness so great that men come to me for advice after 20 years of marriage. That’s 20 (more) years of allowing their wives and daughters to soak up any manner of pleasure without guidance, without confrontation.  As long as it had an appropriate rating, or doesn’t use the word “fuck” in it, then it made it past their dim eyes, and their wives dim eyes. The darkness deepened. Then they show up on the doorsteps of the Men’s Sphere; heartbroken by the world, divorced form their wives, and discarded by their children; asking, “What happened? What did I do to deserve this?” The answer is, “Probably nothing.”

Jesse Stone is lawful. Downton Abbey is lawful. The NFL is lawful. All these things can be consumed for nourishment and the waste eliminated by the body.

8 Now as touching things offered unto idols, we know that we all have knowledge. Knowledge puffeth up, but charity edifieth. And if any man think that he knoweth any thing, he knoweth nothing yet as he ought to know. But if any man love God, the same is known of him. As concerning therefore the eating of those things that are offered in sacrifice unto idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is none other God but one. For though there be that are called gods, whether in heaven or in earth, (as there be gods many, and lords many,) but to us there is but one God, the Father, of whom are all things, and we in him; and one Lord Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we by him.

Howbeit there is not in every man that knowledge: for some with conscience of the idol unto this hour eat it as a thing offered unto an idol; and their conscience being weak is defiled. But meat commendeth us not to God: for neither, if we eat, are we the better; neither, if we eat not, are we the worse. But take heed lest by any means this liberty of yours become a stumblingblock to them that are weak. 10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

A lot of us (including myself) allowed these things in because we were told they were okay; we were told we could trust Disney, and the rating system, and network television, and adult time slots. Implicitly, too, we were told we could trust the the rack behind the counter at the convenience store to contain the lust; that we could trust the neon XXX sign to corral the smut. We were told–even while we read and heard the Bible say that all are sinful and everyone’s heart is deceitful–that Mama is a good person; that girls are pretty because they’re good, and good because they’re pretty. And the truth is that, generally, men will admit that they are sinful; actually sinful; as in right now; as in not because of what they are even doing, but for what they want to do, but aren’t. Women won’t.

11 Now Abraham and Sarah were old and well stricken in age; and it ceased to be with Sarah after the manner of women. 12 Therefore Sarah laughed within herself, saying, After I am waxed old shall I have pleasure, my lord being old also? 13 And the Lord said unto Abraham, Wherefore did Sarah laugh, saying, Shall I of a surety bear a child, which am old? 14 Is any thing too hard for the Lord? At the time appointed I will return unto thee, according to the time of life, and Sarah shall have a son. 15 Then Sarah denied, saying, I laughed not; for she was afraid. And he said, Nay; but thou didst laugh.

Look again at 1 Corithians 8:10-13

10 For if any man see thee which hast knowledge sit at meat in the idol’s temple, shall not the conscience of him which is weak be emboldened to eat those things which are offered to idols; 11 and through thy knowledge shall the weak brother perish, for whom Christ died? 12 But when ye sin so against the brethren, and wound their weak conscience, ye sin against Christ. 13 Wherefore, if meat make my brother to offend, I will eat no flesh while the world standeth, lest I make my brother to offend.

And then take a look at the devastation of divorces around you; divorces whose causes mirror the lust, dissatisfaction, and thrill-seeking in those shows. Why argue with me? I didn’t accuse any of you.