A recent commenter popped in to display his opinions and got it wrong across the board. Regular readers will be able to spot the errors:

You may want to read that several times. It’s like something you’d find over on Dalrock’s blog. Or maybe at the Millar Bible College.

First, the “I’m not voicing disagreement” statement is completely disingenuous. Of course he’s here to voice disagreement. But that’s the thing to say these days. Kind of like saying “I’m not telling you those pants make your ass look fat, but…. speaking of talking whales…”

Then he quotes a passage that has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Paul said that because of “immoralities” each husband should have his own wife and each wife should have her own husband. What are the immoralities that prompted that statement? They are the sexual sins listed in the Law that constitute sexual immorality. I covered this in depth in this post. Generally, sexual immorality is defined as this:

Incest, Adultery, Bestiality, Male Homosexuality, Idolatrous Sex and Having Intercourse With A Woman Who Is Menstruating.

A mere 2 chapters prior to this passage, the Apostle Paul took the entire church at Corinth to task because a man “had his father’s wife” which was an adulterous incest situation specifically forbidden in the Law 4 times (Leviticus 18:8 and 20:11; Deuteronomy 22:30 and 27:20. It’s a combination of covetousness, incest, adultery (his father was still alive) and not honoring his father. This is the sort of immorality the church of Corinth tolerated and the Apostle Paul has just called them out on it. Did anyone notice that “sex outside marriage” isn’t on that list of things that are sexual immorality? That’s because it is not a sin in and of itself. It could be, such as in cases of adultery, but sex outside marriage is not forbidden for men as such anywhere in the Bible. For women, sex outside of marriage is always adultery.

Paul says that because of all this Adultery, Incest, Bestiality and Male Homosexuality, each husband is to have his own wife (and not some other man’s wife, like the idiot who had his father’s wife) and each wife is to have her own husband (and not some other woman’s husband- which is adultery). All of this is easily understandable unless you’re a churchian. Look at what happens when a churchian reads it:

Immoral means sinful and the Apostle Paul told us what sin is (Romans 4:15 and 5:13). Sin is a violation of the Law and if there is no violation there is no sin imputed. That said, there is no prohibition, anywhere, that forbids a man from having sex with a woman he is eligible to marry. Which means, according to the Apostle Paul, sex outside of marriage is not immoral (wrong and sinful). So… did the Apostle Paul lie? Or is someone else lying?

It is permitted for you to claim such a thing is immoral for you as a matter of conscience because your faith is weak, because we know that which is not of faith is sin. To claim it’s wrong for anyone else is a violation of the law (Deut 4:2 and 12:32) and you, sir, are in sin. In addition it makes you a false teacher and is a case of you judging your neighbor who has committed no sin (forbidden and thus sinful). Wouldn’t it be better if you studied your Bible and grew in faith so you wouldn’t make statements like this again?

Obviously he has not read the prohibition in 1st Corinthians 6:15-16. Non-Christian men are not capable of joining the members of Christ with a whore because they are not in Christ, therefore the restriction applies only to Christian men. Further, this is one of those points at which had the Apostle Paul made this a general statement, he would have been guilty of adding to the Law. He did not, this is one of the special “house rules” that apply only to Christians.

This statement indicates he has no idea what Scripture says about divorce.

For those under the Law (non-Christians) the husband may divorce his wife for her adultery and if he does so they are unbound and she is free to remarry (Deuteronomy 24;1-4, Matthew 5:31-32, Matthew 19:4-9). If she has not committed sexual immorality the divorce is illegitimate and they are still married, which is why she would commit adultery if she joins herself to any other man. This subject is very difficult for Christians because of all the lies they have been told about it.

According to the instruction of the Risen Lord (1st Corinthians 7:10-11), Christian men are forbidden to divorce their wives (there is no “exception” for adultery), with the effect that for Servants of Christ, the marriage standard has been returned to the original (Genesis 2:24). Churchians don’t understand Genesis 2:24 because they don’t study, but I’ve written about this subject area over and over and over again to explain Genesis 2:24, along with all things associated with Biblical sexual morality. There is even a handy chart with all the Scriptures laid out to explain this.

Any Christian woman married to a Christian man is bound to her husband for as long as he lives because for two married Christians, there is no divorce. The only way out for those modern women who have an unintentional marriage is for her father to forbid it. The husband is forbidden to divorce his wife and no wife has the authority to divorce her husband anywhere in Scripture, for any reason, regardless of his behavior. You may want to check 1st Peter 3:1-6 to confirm that. The Christian wife is commanded not to leave her husband but if she does, she is commanded to remain single (chaste) or be reconciled to her husband (1st Corinthians 7:10-11).

A Christian woman in an unequally yoked marriage, if she is abandoned by her unbelieving husband, she is free and no longer bound (1st Corinthians 7:12-15). That might require the legal proceeding of a divorce by civil authorities today, but the actions of a court judge do not unbind her. She is already no longer bound because her unbelieving husband left her and she is free to (remarry) anyone she pleases as long as he is in the Lord (1st Corinthians 7:39) because she is no longer bound- as if he were dead.

Any man is free to take more than one wife if he wishes, so no woman can leave her husband and thus force him into celibacy. The reason there is no prohibition on a man having sex with any woman he is eligible to marry is because sex is the act by which a man marries a woman and a man may have more than one wife. To forbid such a thing is to forbid marriage. To say a man is “cheating” on his wife in doing so is to say a man can only have one wife. That is contrary to Scripture’s teaching as well as adding/subtracting from the Law, which is a sin.

That, of course, drives churchians into fits of feminist outrage because they do not understand that a man can only commit adultery by having sex with another man’s wife. Because sex with another man’s wife is the definition of adultery (Leviticus 18:20; 20:10). And God does not change, He said so Himself, repeatedly. Churchians have a great deal of difficulty with this, which is understandable, because as God explained, His ways are higher than our ways and His thoughts are higher than our thoughts. The problem with churchians is they aren’t tall enough for this ride.

Scripture contains no requirement for a public ceremony or witnesses or the permission of any third party in order for a man to marry a woman. Unless the man voluntarily agrees to such things they are not required and no matter what kind of wedding celebrations or third party approvals they might be required to perform by agreement, sex is still the act of marriage and the way a marriage is begun.

That is completely incorrect. The context of Matthew 19:10-12 is the command of God to be fruitful and multiply. Those who are born Eunuchs and those who are made eunuchs are not able to do so through no fault of their own and cannot marry, not being able to perform the act of marriage. The only allowable reason for disregarding the command to be fruitful (take a wife) was in order to further the kingdom of God.

Churchians have a problem with selective reading comprehension and they’re easily confused. Notice this:

Even in his selective reading, our intrepid churchian gets it wrong because he focuses on the simplistic story designed to sway the emotion (the way a preacher would) instead of the cold, hard text. And… he throws a lie in there too, just like the preachers are wont to do. David did not beg for his life, he begged for the life of his son. Notice what the text of 2nd Samuel 12:7-15 actually says (emphasis added):

Keep in mind that the original objection was a man having sex with a virgin outside marriage and all of this is very troubling to him because it leads to adultery! Which is a very serious crime! Ye-gads, look at that story about King David!

Never mind that God was specifically condoning David having multiple wives and God took credit for giving David multiple wives and said if it wasn’t enough He’d have given David even more wives. Churchians are blind to this sort of thing. They prefer sticking to stories like the one that Nathan told in the beginning, which was designed to put David in the proper frame of mind to hear about what David had done.

In the final analysis our boy Aardvark did not get a single point correct and he lied, repeatedly. And the smug self-assurance of the blind man who is unaware he is blind comes through with every point he tried to make.

While all that is bothersome, what is really disturbing is this:

The truth is “very troubling” because after looking at it, he understands the implications, which is where the entire push-back about “sex outside marriage” comes from. The concept of “sex outside marriage” is to deny that marriage is formed with the act of sex. If one calls it “sex before marriage” it’s easy to tag it as being “immoral” and therefore it can’t be wedding sex. Which allows the churchians to ignore the issue of all the adultery around them. That they are participating in… because they know they didn’t get their “wife’s” virginity.

The question is whether God will ignore it and the answer from Scripture is an unequivocal “No.” It is written: “Do not be deceived, God is not mocked; for whatever a man sows, this he will also reap.”

What do you think will happen when they scream that they didn’t know?

That’s right, they still get a beating, just not as bad as the one who intentionally disobeyed. But remember that part about teachers being held to a higher standard?

The longer y’all straddle the fence the worse it will be and all you’ll wind up with is a sore crotch. Jesus, speaking to His servants, said “Love one another.” I’m convinced that most of you churchians don’t actually know Him, but I’m pretty sure some of you do. So I’ll just leave you with this song:

In recent comments, commenter Pode said:

Pode is well aware of the need for a man who is masculine and dominant, but the blind and ignorant masses in the churches are not. In fact, the churches have ongoing programs designed to destroy masculinity and dominance in men.

Women in church are taught they should be looking for a “godly man” for a husband. That’s code for an approved product of feminist churchian doctrine. Why? Because they have no clue what a “godly man” actually is. The reason is because they don’t read their Bible. In the land of churchianity one will hear many tales of the so-called “Proverbs 31 Woman” but as the text actually says, “who can find her?“. One does not hear of the Bible’s ideal man from the pulpit, but such men exist. According to God, three men were held in high esteem, Noah, Daniel and Job. (Ezekiel 14:14, 20.)

Of these three men, for many reasons, the character of Job is best suited for study as the kind of Godly man women should be interested in.

Consider what God said to Satan: “Have you considered my servant Job? There is none like him in all the earth.” It shouldn’t be too much of a leap of faith to know that God had a good idea of what all the men on earth were like and He said Job was like no other.

Consider Job, from the description at Job 1:1-3

Now consider Job, in his own words, from Job 29:7-25:

It wasn’t that Job was just a man that God allowed Satan to harm, it’s that Job was spectacular. When God praised him to Satan, He said that there was none like him in all the earth. The darker side of this story is the way Job’s wife treated him when Satan got done with him (Job 2:9-10).

From the context of the story, it appears that even the youngest of the children was an adult. If we figure 2 years between children that’s 20 years and another 20 years for the youngest to reach adulthood, so 40 years. If we assume his wife started having children when she was 20, then at the time Job got run over by the Satan train his wife was at least 60. From the context of the story, we presume that Job’s wife was the mother of his 10 (dead) children.

The question is, what about the next 10 children? Is there any reason to believe this woman was their mother? In the final chapter we learn that God restored Job’s fortunes, giving him double what he had before. Job also had another ten children and he got to see his sons and grandsons, down to four generations.

After what his wife had done and given her age, does anyone really believe that she gave him another 10 children? It is far more reasonable to presume that Job took a second wife (a younger one) and she is the one who gave him the daughters who were the fairest in the land. The implied polygyny here is another reason why churchians don’t want to look at this story too closely.

Job lived for another 140 years after these events and while we don’t know how old Job was when these events happened, judging by his children he was at least 60. In addition, Job said “Oh, that I were as in months gone by… As I was in the prime of my days” (verses 2, 4) which indicates he thought he was no longer in his prime. Perhaps 70-90 years old? We do not know, but we do know that he fathered another 10 children and it is highly unlikely the wife who kicked him when he was down was the mother of those children.

There is no record of his wife dying, but there are two good reasons to believe he took a second wife. The first and most obvious is the way his wife betrayed him. The second is the fact he had 10 more children. There are consequences for kicking a man when he’s down because that’s the kind of thing a man does not forget after he gets back on his feet.

Obviously that is completely contrary to the narrative of today’s feminized cucks in the church. Their idea of “godly” men is a man who supplicates himself to women. A man who would instantly forgive and forget the kind of betrayal Job’s wife heaped upon him when he was hurting the worst.

The number one thing about the ideal man (and Job is the leading candidate for an example) is the implied accountability for his wife. The Godly Christian husband is commanded to love his wife as Christ loves His church. The best example of how this actually happens is in Revelation 3:19, in which Christ is speaking to His church:

In other words, the husband presents his wife as “having no spot or wrinkle or any such thing, but that she should be holy and blameless” by holding her accountable for her behavior. Just as Christ says He will hold accountable those whom He loves. A Godly man is a just man who does his duty, but what the feminist narrative cannot tolerate is a man who holds a woman accountable. This is the feminist perversion of the ideal husband.

Much like the word attractive, the appellation of “asshole” is a subjective one. One cannot appreciate the concept of what attractive is without the unattractive in comparison. In the same way, to appreciate assholes one must compare them to pricks within the context of what assholes and pricks do.

Calling someone an “asshole” is normally code for “he hurt my feelings”. This is normal because that’s one of the things assholes do on a regular basis, but it’s part of their charm. The reason assholes hurt people’s feelings is feelings are not relevant to his mission. Assholes are all about getting the job done.

Assholes have a mission and they live to accomplish the mission. The simplest way to explain it is when a dirty job has to be done, the asshole is the man you pick to get the job done. Anyone can be a garden variety asshole and that’s no compliment, but when a man is good it becomes a compliment. When it’s a dirty job and it has to be done, find a serious asshole and he’ll get it done. When the job is critical and seems to be impossible, that’s when you need a complete asshole. A perfect asshole makes the impossible job look easy and there is a good argument that the only perfect asshole who ever lived was Jesus Christ.

Pricks are an entirely different breed. Instead of being focused on the mission, pricks are focused on themselves and what they want. They specialize in avoiding responsibility while screwing people, look out only for themselves and don’t care what happens to anyone else except as it impacts them. Accomplishing the mission of the organization is for assholes, their only mission is to advance themselves. The more intelligent and talented they are the worse they are. Joseph Stalin was a compete prick.

By definition, while all men have the attributes of being both pricks and assholes, once they become a real prick or a real asshole, they are outliers because the vast majority of the population never makes it to that point.

Pricks and assholes are always at war. The natural habitat of pricks is a bureaucracy and they work to get a position of safety so that when the time is right they can stab assholes in the back. The assholes are generally working hard to accomplish their mission and never see the pricks sneaking up on them until it’s too late. When it’s over the asshole has been stabbed and the pricks took credit for whatever it was he was doing.

It should also be made clear that only men can be assholes or pricks, it’s not something that can be applied to women. This is because in the womb, a male baby gets a testosterone bath that destroys between 1/2 to 2/3 of the connectors between left and right brain. This is what gives men the ability to be logical, analytical and focus intensely on their mission to the exclusion of all else. Women can be a lot of things, but they can’t be either a prick or an asshole.

Military service is one of the few places where an asshole’s unique talents can be appreciated. When used in a positive light, describing a man as some form of asshole means he has the knowledge, talent, skill and experience that allowed him to master his job. He is good at what he does. The hallmark of an asshole is his ability to make decisions without being influenced by emotion. Cold, hard, reasoned logic that’s based on the best data available. When the question is not whether someone will die but rather how many will die, you want an asshole making the decisions.

When the ship has a hole below the waterline and the water is flooding in, the Captain must order the water-tight compartment doors closed. That means sentencing some people to death because they’re in areas that will be flooded, but the decision must be made to save the lives of everyone on board the ship… without consideration for who might be in one of those compartments that will flood.

The triage designator at a hospital receiving casualties after a major battle must be an expert surgeon and know his own capabilities as well as the capabilities of everyone on the staff. They must be able to diagnose and evaluate each patient based on what is presented within the context of what can be done with limited resources. Depending on what triage class an individual is placed in, that decision can be the difference between life and death for the individual, but doing the job correctly ensures the maximum number will survive.

If a commander’s right flank is being mauled, the center is stationary giving as good as it gets and the left flank is advancing, the question is where to put in his reserves. There is an emotional desire to reinforce the men who are being mauled but the key to winning the battle is to reinforce the men who are advancing. By throwing the reserves onto the left flank he can crack their line and roll them up, which will take pressure off the right flank. By ignoring the casualties the right flank is taking the battle can be won and the total casualties will be much lower.

I touched on this in the post about the Sin of Adam. Command has no friends. The throne is hard and there are no cushions on it. Decisions must be made, often quickly without adequate information. Such decisions cannot be made emotionally and must be made with the mission first and foremost in mind. This ability is the distinction that sets true assholes apart from other men.

A king who is nice guy will be a failure and his performance will damage his kingdom and get people hurt. He will make decisions based on emotions and how they impact the relationships with his friends. He will not have the respect he needs and eventually he will be held in contempt.

History gives us many examples of kings who were pricks and while quite often they were competent rulers, their kingdom usually suffered because of their lack of good character. Loyalty and fidelity begets loyalty and fidelity, concepts about which pricks are completely unaware. When pricks are in power there is always corruption… as long as the prick gets his cut of the action.

The wise and successful king is an asshole. His mission is the success of his kingdom and he makes his decisions accordingly- everything else comes second. When he wages war, he hoists the black flag and his men leave nothing but scorched earth. Everyone will think long and hard before attacking that kingdom or even mistreating its subjects. He will not tolerate corruption and allow his “friends” to become rich. He will ensure justice is done because in the end, there must be justice and he does not care who that upsets.

The native function of an asshole is to get rid of shit. If assholes are not doing their job, an organization will eventually get so full of shit that it dies, but when the assholes are doing their job the organization can stay healthy. Frequently this means that assholes are not popular or well-liked, but they are always respected.

To say someone is an asshole is not to say they are unkind or unloving. In fact, assholes are (as a rule) more kind and more loving than people who make decisions emotionally. When it comes to relationships with women, they tend to give the women that masculine dominance they need and they will not knuckle under and allow her to manipulate and control them. Assholes are generally very good at giving their people what they need, not necessarily what they want or (as is usual with women) think they want.

Ranked assholes understand loyalty and honesty. They keep their commitments. If there is a problem it’s generally one of calibration where they don’t have things in balance. Assholes are already used to dealing with reality so even if they have never been introduced to the Red Pill, they don’t have any problem accepting the data at face value.

As the socio-sexual ranks go, assholes are almost always either alphas or sigmas. Some were born either an alpha or sigma while others start out as one of the other ranks and become an alpha as they progress through their development as an asshole. Individuals rarely become a sigma because sigmas are almost always of the personality type INTJ. Sigma’s are born, not made.

Pricks are almost always gammas. A delta or beta might develop as a prick if he gives in to his gamma side and goes in that direction, but gamma is material from which pricks are made. It is the combination of fear, insecurity, envy and covetousness that drives pricks to be pricks. Gamma’s are not without ability and often do quite well socially, but they are failures in the areas they want to succeed. Envy of the success of others is the driving force of a prick’s life and as they become consumed with hatred their goal is to destroy.

The alpha label is often synonymous with asshole, but it’s a chicken-egg question of which came first. Did the asshole produce the alpha or did the alpha produce the asshole? My guess is that personality considerations aside, it was the asshole that produced the alpha.

Alphas are most often the ENTJ personality type and it’s the ENTJ’s who are the natural alphas. Sigma’s are almost exclusively INTJ’s and it’s the introvert aspect of their personality that keeps them from being alphas. They don’t have a desire to take charge, although they have all the personality tools necessary to do so. The difference between alphas and sigmas as assholes is that alphas will commonly be real assholes and sometimes serious assholes, but complete assholes are almost always sigmas.

In the end, being an asshole is a good thing but only if one is a rank asshole. Any man can be a garden-variety asshole and that’s no compliment, but when asshole is applied as a rank it’s a good thing. The 11th commandment is “Thou Shalt Not Get Caught” and there is also a 12th Commandment: