Is the Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Female Imperative and the Red Pill concept of hypergamy in women. We showed that aspect of the Feminine Imperative which prompts women to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.    However just as man’s nature has been corrupted, so too woman’s nature as originally designed by God has been corrupted.  Hypergamy is a corruption of the feminine nature God designed.  This corruption causes women to lack true contentment with the men they are with. Hypergamy is always looking for the next best guy.

We talked about men doing careful vetting and looking for women who will recognize their own sinful natures, including their sinful hypergamous natures and are willing to fight it.  True faith, both on the part of a man and the woman he marries, gives a couple a better fighting chance of having a truly lifelong marriage together.

As part of our discussion of the Feminine Imperative, I discussed the Alpha Male Mindset.  I wanted to come back in this fifth part of this series on Red Pill to zero on this on concept to determine if any part of it is Biblical.

As a reminder of what we spoke about concerning the Alpha Male Mindset I want to restate what Tomassi said in his article “Mental Point of Origin” :

“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…

Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”

So, did you catch what Tomassi said in the beginning of these statements above? The time in his life when he got the most sex was when he made himself and his own desires his mental point of origin and he did not care what the women around him thought of his life choices.  They could come or go and it did not matter to him.  And he had women throwing themselves at him when had this mindset.

Is there some truth to this? Are women attracted to men who do not live to please them but rather to please themselves? Yes, many women are attracted to this.  Others are not.  Will a man probably “get laid” more if he has this mindset of not needing to please women and living only for what pleases him? Most likely yes.

And if the entire point of our male existence was to have sex with as many women as possible, i.e. the Red Pill male imperative, then Tomassi would have a point.  But from a Christian and Biblical perspective, getting more sex is not the only reason for our existence as men.  God created us for a greater purpose than this which we will discuss shortly.

But before we get to that purpose, we first need to discuss whether a woman should be a man’s mental point of origin or not.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill That A Woman Should Not Be A Man’s Mental Point of Origin?

Man’s first sin was in listening to his wife, seeking to please her over pleasing God or in Red Pill vernacular, making his wife his mental point of origin.  In the book of Genesis, we read the following:

“And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life”

Genesis 3:17 (KJV)

Job illustrates for us what Adam should have done when instead of listening to his wife’s sinful advice, he rebukes her instead:

“9 Then said his wife unto him, Dost thou still retain thine integrity? curse God, and die. 10 But he said unto her, Thou speakest as one of the foolish women speaketh. What? shall we receive good at the hand of God, and shall we not receive evil? In all this did not Job sin with his lips.”

Job 2:9-10 (KJV)

A man who lives his life to please his wife is by very definition controlled by his wife.  And God says the man who pleases him will never allow himself to be controlled by a woman:

“And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her.”

Ecclesiastes 7:26 (KJV)

So yes, the Bible would agree 100% with Red Pill that men should never make women their mental point of origin.

Does the Bible Agree with Red Pill that Men Should Make Themselves Their Mental Point of Origin?

The Bible teaches us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.  In other words, as Christians, we should not live for ourselves, but rather we should live for Christ.

Christ, not you, should be your mental point of origin.

The Bible tells us in 2 Corinthians 10:5 that we should be “Casting down imaginations, and every high thing that exalteth itself against the knowledge of God, and bringing into captivity every thought to the obedience of Christ”.

With every decision we as men make, we should not be asking whether this would please the woman we are with, but rather we should be asking “Would this decision be pleasing to Christ?”

Christ Made His Mission His Mental Point of Origin and So Should We as Men

But it is one thing to say Christ should be our mental point of origin and an entirely different thing to understand what that actually means.  Many Christian teachers today teach that living for Christ means living to please others.  They teach that Christians should never seek what pleases themselves, but only do what pleases others.

They appeal to Biblical passages like the one below to bolster their position:

“25 But Jesus called them unto him, and said, Ye know that the princes of the Gentiles exercise dominion over them, and they that are great exercise authority upon them. 26 But it shall not be so among you: but whosoever will be great among you, let him be your minister; 27 And whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant

Matthew 20:25-27 (KJV)

The sad reality is that a great number of Christian teachers have used the statement above from Jesus Christ to cancel out what the rest of the Scriptures say and to create an entire generation of Christian beta men who live to please women and they think by doing so they are pleasing Christ.  Such a concept is a complete bastardization of the Biblical concept of servant leadership that Christ was trying to teach us.

The passage below gives us a greater understanding of what Christ was saying in the Gospels:

“3 Let nothing be done through strife or vainglory; but in lowliness of mind let each esteem other better than themselves.  4 Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others. 5 Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

6 Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God: 7 But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men: 8 And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.

9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name: 10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth”

Philippians 2:3-10 (KJV)

Now let’s zoom in on two key statements in the passage above.  The first one is found in verse 4:

“Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.”

The statement above gives us the clearest Biblical definition of selfishness in the Bible.   Selfishness is not when a man seeks to meet his own needs or desires, but rather it is when a man ONLY seeks to meet his own needs or desires and never considers the needs and desires of those around him.

The next key statement we are going to look at from the passage above is found in verse 8:

“And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.”

The focus of Christ’s life was the mission he came into the world to complete.  His mission was to die on the cross for the sins of mankind.  In John 3:17 we read “For God sent not his Son into the world to condemn the world; but that the world through him might be saved” and in 2 Corinthians 5:19 we read “that God was in Christ, reconciling the world unto himself, not imputing their trespasses unto them”.

Christ knew why he was born into this world.  His mission was the continuous focal point of his life while he walked this earth.  We as Christian men need to follow his example by making our mission the focal point of our lives.  In other words, making our mission from God our mental point of origin is making Christ our mental point of origin.

What is Our Mission from God as Men?

The Bible says in 1 Corinthians 11:7 “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Our mission in life as men is to image God and thereby bring him glory.  Imaging God means us as men living out his attributes.

Man images God in is daily work by being the best in his business that he can be.   In John 5:17 we read “But Jesus answered them, My Father worketh hitherto, and I work” and in Psalm 104:23 the Bible states “Man goeth forth unto his work and to his labour until the evening”.

The Bible encourages men to be diligent in their business and to make it the best it can be in Proverbs 22:29 when it states “Seest thou a man diligent in his business? he shall stand before kings; he shall not stand before mean men”.  And in Proverbs 12:24 the Bible states “The hand of the diligent shall bear rule: but the slothful shall be under tribute”.

But a man cannot fully image God and thereby fulfill his purpose for being created without also being a husband and father.  In Ephesians 5:23 we read “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” and in Ephesians 5:25-26 the Bible states “Husbands, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it; That he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word”.

Men image God in the lives of their wives by leading them and washing them with the Word of God.  They also image God in the lives of their wives by providing for and protecting their wives as they would their own bodies as Ephesians 5:29 states.

Men image God in the lives of their children by providing for them (Matthew 7:9-11) as well as teaching and discipling them (Hebrews 12:6-10).

Where Does a Man’s Desire for Sex Fit into His Life’s Mission?

As we have previously shown in this series, Red Pill teaches that the male imperative, or man’s mission, is to sow his seed as often as possible with as many women as possible.  In other words, have sex as often as possible.   So, the question is, does having sex play any part in the mission God has given to us as men? The answer is yes.

While sex certainly is not the entirety of our mission from God, it does play a vital role in that mission. In Genesis 1:28 it is implied that God wanted men to have sex as part of his command to “Be fruitful, and multiply”.

But the sad truth is many church theologians over the last two thousand years have taught a falsehood regarding sexual relations between a man and woman that its primary purpose is for the continuation of the human species.  In more recent years Red Pill has essentially taken the same position from a naturalistic and evolutionary perspective.

The Bible however, stands apart from both Red Pill and historic church teachings regarding the primary purpose of sex.  The Bible does not say the primary purpose which God made sex was reproduction neither does it tell men only to have sex with their wives to have children.

But rather in Proverbs 5:19 it tells a man to let his wife’s “breasts satisfy” him “at all times” and to be “ravished” or “intoxicated” with her.   God has created a sexual thirst in man for woman that is so strong that he compares it to the human need for water in Proverbs 5:15 and he calls a man’s wife his “well” from which he encouraged to liberally drink.   In Romans 1:27 sex is called “the natural use of the woman”.  And while the Scriptures command men not to deny their wives sexually, the Bible never refers to sex as “the natural use of the man”.

All of this Biblical language encouraging men to satisfy themselves with and use their wife’s body for their sexual pleasure makes sense in light of 1 Corinthians 11:9 which states “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.

According to the Bible, everything about a woman, both psychologically and physiologically, was created for man.  That means a woman’s psychological desire for sex, her breasts, her nipples, her vagina, her clitoris, all her erogenous zones and her ability to experience sexual pleasure from all these areas was created for man.  Does that mean we are saying God only created woman for man’s sexual pleasure or that he only created sex for sexual pleasure? Of course not.  But it was a primary reason and now we will explain why.

Why would God create make sex so extremely pleasurable and make man’s desire for it so strong? The reason is so that man could image God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.  In what is widely considered a prophecy of Christ and his Church Psalms 45:11 states “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

When we remember that man’s primary purpose is to image God and we see that God as a husband to his bride desires her beauty and desires to take pleasure in her we now understand why God designed man designed man to receive sexual pleasure from the beauty and body of a woman.   This is why we can rightly say that seeking out sexual relations with a woman is part of God’s mission for man.

Conclusion

Red Pill is absolutely right that a woman should never be a man’s mental point of origin.  But Red Pill is absolutely wrong that a man should make himself his mental point of origin.  Instead as Christian men we must make Christ our mental point of origin.  What would Christ have us do in a given situation? What would Christ have us do with our lives? These are questions we should be asking ourselves on a daily basis.

Making Christ our mental point of origin is synonymous with making the mission God has given us as men our mental point of origin.   And the mission of man, the purpose for which he was created, is to image God with his life.

Unless a man has the gift of celibacy so that he “may attend upon the Lord without distraction” (1 Corinthians 7:35) then a man is called to image God in his life not only by working and making his mark on the world but also in being a husband and a father.  Man’s strong sexual desire for woman images God’s desire for the beauty of his people and to take pleasure in his people.

When a man applies this truth to both his daily decisions and long-term decisions, he will inevitably at times hurt the feelings of or disappoint those around him whether it be his parents, his church friends, his girlfriend,  his work friends, his boss at work and sometimes even his wife and children.  Ultimately though a Christian man whose life is centered on his mission from God is only concerned with not disappointing one person and that person is God.

And one final note on selfishness.   Earlier we showed that the Bible defines selfishness in Philippians 2:4 when it states “Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others”.  A man needs to remember it is NOT selfish of him to look his own needs or even desires, but rather it is selfish of him to look to his own needs and desire and never consider the needs and desires around him.

It is not selfish for a man to devote the majority of his waking life to his career and or ministry.  God created men to make their mark on the world in this way.  It is also not selfish for a man to desire sexual relations with his wife more often than she desires sexual relations with him and it is not selfish of him to have sexual relations with his wife when she is not in the mood.  When a man has sex with his wife when he so desires, he is fulfilling God’s command for him to satisfy himself “at all times” with his wife’s body.

Now if his wife has a legitimate medical condition a man should protect his wife’s body as he would his own and therefore forgo relations during that time.  A prime example would be just after a woman has a had a child or after she has had surgery.  But whether it be in the arena of his career, when to have sexual relations, financial decisions or discipline of the children if a man centers these decisions around his wife’s feelings, he is failing the mission that God has given him.

Does this mean it is wrong to ever consider a woman’s feelings? Of course not.  As long as man is not centering his life on what the reaction his wife might have and always trying to please her a man can find ways to be kind, compassionate and generous with his wife and at the same time not compromise his primary mission to image God with his life.

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Female Imperative Biblical?

In the last part of this series, “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we discussed the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative and how it is Biblical in presenting sex as driving need for men and that men being polygynous in their sexual natures matches with God’s design of the masculine nature.  We showed however that Red Pill, because of its naturalistic world view, fails to see that sex is only part of a much larger masculine imperative that God intended for man when he designed him.

In this fourth part of our series, we will discuss the Red Pill concept of the Feminine Imperative and answer the question of whether any part of it is Biblical or not.

In order to discuss the Feminine Imperative we must first discuss the Red Pill paradigm of Alpha and Beta males which is at the core of the Feminine Imperative.  “Alpha Fucks/Beta Bucks” is common way that the manosphere refers to two classes of men. There is also a well known “80/20 Rule” in relation to Alpha and Beta males meaning that 80 percent of males are Beta and 20 percent are Alpha.   Tomassi states in “Transactional vs Validational Sex”  that “Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need”.

In his article entitled “Alpha”, Tomassi defines Alpha when he writes [ https://therationalmale.com/2011/10/20/alpha/  ] – “Alpha is mindset, not a demographic. Alpha is as Alpha does, it isn’t what we say it is”.  And in “The New Polyandry” [ https://therationalmale.com/2018/12/10/the-new-polyandry/ ]  he writes  “‘Broke men don’t get women‘,…unless they’re hot broke men”.

The point is a man being Alpha has nothing to do with how much money he has, but rather it is primarily based upon his mindset and then only secondarily upon his looks.  Together this is what makes a man “hot” to a woman.

The Red Pill Alpha Male Mindset

Tomassi defines the Alpha Mindset in his article “Mental Point of Origin”:

“Personally, I was at my most Alpha when I didn’t realize I was. That’s not Zen, it’s just doing what came natural for me at a point in my life when I had next to nothing materially, only a marginal amount of social proof, but a strong desire to enjoy women for the sake of just enjoying them in spite of it.

I’ve mentioned before, the most memorable sex I’ve had has been when I was flat broke (mostly). It didn’t matter that I lived in a 2 room studio in North Hollywood or had beer and mac & cheese in the fridge – I got laid and I had women come to me for it…

It didn’t take my doing anything for a woman to get laid or hold her interest. All I did was make myself my mental point of origin. It’s when I started putting women as a goal, making them into more than just a source of enjoyment, that I transferred that mental point of origin to her and I became the necessitous one.

A lot of guys will call that being ‘needy’, and I suppose it is, but it’s a neediness that results from putting a woman (or another person) as your first thought – your mental point of origin…

And in then in this same article Tomassi asks a few questions that help men to see if they are their own “mental point of origin”, i.e. living in an Alpha mindset.

“Are you your mental point of origin?

Is your first inclination to consider how something in your relationships will affect you or your girlfriend/wife/family/boss?

When men fall into relationships with authoritarian, feminine-primary women, their first thought about any particulars of their actions is how his woman will respond to it, not his own involvement or his motivations for it. Are you a peacekeeper?

Do you worry that putting yourself as your own first priority will turn a woman off or do you think it will engage her more fully?”

So, according to Red Pill, If you as a man make your life decisions regarding your career, your hobbies, your relationships or other decisions without seeking to please others whether they be men or women then you have an Alpha mindset. In my next article in this series I will be discussing whether any part of the Red Pill Alpha mindset is Biblical.

The Red Pill Beta Male Mindset

The beta male mindset according to Red Pill is the polar opposite of the alpha male mindset.  Unlike the alpha male who needs no approval for his life decisions, beta males crave the approval of others, especially the women around them.

Specifically, when it comes to women, beta males put women on a pedestal and adopt the “Happy Wife/Happy Life” mentality.   Tomassi describes the beta mindset or “beta game” in his article “Our Sister’s Keeper”:

“for about 25 years or so, popular culture strongly pointed men towards a sexual strategy that could be defined as Beta Game. Play nice, respect a woman by default, be supportive of her self-image and ambitions to the sacrifice of your own, don’t judge her and do your utmost to identify with the feminine, was the call to action that, deductively, should make a man more attractive to a woman.”

Why Do Women Marry Beta Men?

So, if women are primarily aroused by the alpha male mindset then why do we see women so often marrying Beta men? The answer to this is found in Tomassi’s article entitled “Transactional vs Validational Sex”:

“As most of my readers know, Hypergamy – women’s dualistic sexual strategy (and really life strategy) – is much more than a tendency of a woman to ‘marry up’. In Hormonal the ideas of Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks really solidify with the research.

However, as useful as it is as a catchy euphemism Alpha Fucks and Beta Bucks could better be described as Alpha Seed and Beta Need. In a woman’s peak ovulatory phase of her menstrual cycle she enters an estrus state and becomes subject to behaviors that can only be defined as a pretext of seeking Alpha seed…

While women are subject to an estrus state they still require the second half of Hypergamy – the Beta need for security, provisioning, protection, comfort and at least the sharing of parental investment responsibilities for any offspring…

It may be true that women have never been better provided for in history as far as money and opportunities go, but women still look for emotional security, protection, dominance and comfort in men as part of their innate mental firmware.”

What Tomassi is saying is that women have duel and competing concerns when it comes to choosing a man.  The have the Alpha arousal side but they also have the Beta needs side for security, provisioning, protection and comfort.   Optimally women would like to have both sides of this equation met but few women can find a man that meets both the Alpha arousal and Beta provisioning desires that they have.   So long story short, many women compromise on the Beta provisioning side because of the “80/20 Rule” that only 20 percent of men are Alphas and 80 percent of men are Betas.

In “The New Polyandry”, Tomassi writes:

“Monogamy is a social norm, if not an evolutionary norm. A lot has been written about how monogamy in its present incarnation – one man, one woman – is really the result of a post-agrarian social order that optimized the sexual strategy of Beta men. In essence socially-enforced monogamy serves the largest population of Beta males.

However, the tradeoff for women was long term provisioning, protection (in as far as the man was capable) and parental investment – all thing conducive to sustainable futures for women and their children. All that was expected of women was a compromise on the Alpha arousal side of Hypergamy. And naturally, Alpha men and most women found ways to circumvent this socio-sexual adaptation that benefitted women in spite of Beta men.

Monogamy serves Beta men. Alpha men still get sex, broke or not.”

And again in “Transactional vs Validational Sex” he writes about how the vast majority of women married to men whom they consider Beta husbands have sex with their husbands simply as a reward to control their behavior:

“For most men (i.e the 80% Beta men) transactional sex is where the rubber meets the road. In fact, I’d argue that for most Beta men transactional sex is the only definition of sex they ever really know…

Marriage today is almost entirely predicated on the transactional sex side of Hypergamy. I’m not saying it has to be, nor am I saying it always is, but I’m fairly comfortable in speculating that for most married women sex is reward she uses in the operant conditioning of her husband

one thing we’ve all seen a lot of from young and old Blue Pill Beta men is this logical tendency for them to want to ‘sacrifice their way to happiness with their wives’. It’s as if the more they sacrifice the more they pay for that intimacy they seek, but what they never get is that this only buries their sex lives that much more.”

So why do so many women marry Beta men according to Red Pill? Because there are far fewer Alpha men, polygamy is not accepted by society, and a Beta male that can be a provider,  a protector and a father to their children is better than having no man at all.  And being married to a Beta male that they are not aroused by has one added benefit they would not have being married to an Alpha male. They can control the Beta man using sex as a reward.

In other words, according the Red Pill, the vast majority of women are settling for less than the man they would like to marry.

Hypergamy and the Feminine Imperative

According to Red Pill, a man’s sexual strategy is “quantity over quality” .  This means a man is driven to have sex as often as possible and ideally with as many women as possible, thus men are far less picky about how sex occurs and who it occurs with.

Women on the other hand have an opposite “quality over quantity” sexual strategy.  They are more concerned with the quality of the man in addition to his ability to provide for her, protect her and be a father to her offspring.

Women instinctively and naturally desire the Alpha “seed”, they desire sex with men who not only exhibit, but truly live the Alpha mindset.   And if a man has the Alpha mindset along with the Beta provisioning and security a woman’s desires this makes for a “a good Hypergamous pairing” and Tomassi states “A woman in a good Hypergamous pairing accepts – desires – his authority, but also his genes. She doesn’t just want children, she wants his children”.

It is this dualistic sexual strategy in women’s “mental firmware”, the desire for Alpha seed but also the Beta needs for provisioning and security forms the core of the Feminine Imperative.  Hypergamy is what prompts women to meet their dualistic sexual strategy by an means necessary.

Feminine Hypergamy is the reason you might see a 25-year-old woman marry a wealthy 50-year-old man.  It is also the reason that the same 50-year-old man might come home to find his wife in bed with their pool boy.

Tomassi writes the following about hypergamy in “Relational Equity” :

“That post was born out of all the efforts I’ve repeatedly read men relate to me when they say how unbelievable their breakups were. As if all of the investment, emotional, physical, financial, familial, etc. would be rationally appreciated as a buffer against hypergamy. The reason for their shock and disbelief is that their mental state originates in the assumption that women are perfectly rational agents and should take all of their efforts, all of their personal strengths, all of the involvement in their women’s lives into account before trading up to a better prospective male. There is a prevailing belief that all of their merits, if sufficient, should be proof against her hypergamous considerations.

For men, this is a logically sound idea. All of that investment adds up to their concept of relationship equity. So it’s particularly jarring for men to consider that all of that equity becomes effectively worthless to a woman presented with a sufficiently better prospect as per the dictates of her hypergamy.

That isn’t to say that women don’t take that equity into account when determining whether to trade up or in their choice of men if they’re single, but their operative point of origin is ALWAYS hypergamy. Women obviously can control their hypergamic impulses in favor of fidelity, just as men can and do keep their sexual appetites in check, but always know that it isn’t relationship equity she’s rationally considering in that moment of decision.”

And in “Christian Dread”  Tomassi writes:

Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy. I understand that in the past religion was used as a control on Hypergamy, especially in respect to men’s burden of performance and the necessity of their provisioning to women.”

Is the Feminine Imperative Biblical?

The Bible teaches us that God made men and women to bring him glory in different ways.   In 1 Corinthians 11:7 we read “For a man indeed ought not to cover his head, forasmuch as he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man”.  Man was created with the primary purpose of imaging or displaying God’s attributes.  God is a leader, a worker, a husband and a father among many other things.  And in order for man to image God as a husband and father God created woman and by extension marriage.

The Bible states in Ephesians 5:24 “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing and in Ephesians 5:29 we read “For no man ever yet hated his own flesh; but nourisheth and cherisheth it, even as the Lord the church”.  This teaches us that God wanted women to submit to the authority of their husbands and to be provided for and protected by their husbands.

So, we can rightly say that the part of a woman’s “mental firmware” or “hardwiring” that seeks a confident man to lead her, provide for her and protect her is by the very design of God and it is in fact Biblical.

But just as sin corrupted man’s God given masculine nature in many ways so too woman’s feminine nature has been corrupted by sin as well.

Sin corrupts and twists a woman’s God given desire for male leadership, provision and protection and makes her discontent with her husband always wanting more.   This discontentment destroys a woman’s love and devotion to her husband and it is this discontentment that is the root cause of women having affairs and/or divorcing their husbands looking for the next best guy.

In the 7th commandment found in Exodus 20:14 we read “Thou shalt not commit adultery” and in Romans 7:2-3 we read “For the woman which hath an husband is bound by the law to her husband so long as he liveth… So then if, while her husband liveth, she be married to another man, she shall be called an adulteress”.   These are direct condemnations of the end result of Feminine Hypergamy.

Contrary to Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” the Bible teaches us that true faith in Christ can absolutely be an insulation against Hypergamy (women being sinfully discontent with their husbands) and the other sins of this world:

“I can do all things through Christ which strengtheneth me.”

Philippians 4:13 (KJV)

“For whatsoever is born of God overcometh the world: and this is the victory that overcometh the world, even our faith.”

1 John 5:4 (KJV)

The topics of the sanctity of marriage and exhortations to contentment are mentioned side by side in the book of Hebrews:

“4 Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge. 5 Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:4-5 (KJV)

When women are covetous of other’s women’s husband’s or they simply allow themselves to grow discontented with their husbands for various reasons this threatens the sanctity of their marriage covenant.

Tomassi’s assertion that “Religion is no insulation against Hypergamy” is also wrong not just from a Biblical perspective, but even from a divorce rate perspective.

Focus on the Family did a closer look at the common claim that divorce rates are as high for those in the church as those outside the church in an article entitled “Divorce Rate in the Church – As High as the World?” .  In that article they state some interesting studies which show committed Christians that regularly attend church have lower divorce rates than the average population:

“Professor Bradley Wright, a sociologist at the University of Connecticut, explains from his analysis of people who identify as Christians but rarely attend church, that 60 percent of these have been divorced. Of those who attend church regularly, 38 percent have been divorced.Bradley R.E. Wright, Christians Are Hate-Filled Hypocrites … and Other Lies You’ve Been Told, (Minneapolis, MN: Bethany House, 2010), p. 133

Bradford Wilcox, a leading sociologist at the University of Virginia and director of the National Marriage Project, finds from his own analysis that “active conservative Protestants” who regularly attend church have are 35 percent less likely to divorce compared to those who have no affiliation. Nominally attending conservative Protestants are 20 percent more likely to divorce, compared to secular Americans.W. Bradford Wilcox and Elizabeth Williamson, “The Cultural Contradictions of Mainline Family Ideology and Practice,” in American Religions and the Family, edited by Don S. Browning and David A. Clairmont (New York: Columbia University Press, 2007) p. 50

Professor Scott Stanley from the University of Denver, working with an absolute all-star team of leading sociologists on the Oklahoma Marriage Study, explains that couples with a vibrant religious faith had more and higher levels of the qualities couples need to avoid divorce.

Whether young or old, male or female, low-income or not, those who said that they were more religious reported higher average levels of commitment to their partners, higher levels of marital satisfaction, less thinking and talking about divorce and lower levels of negative interaction. These patterns held true when controlling for such important variables as income, education, and age at first marriage.

The divorce rates of Christian believers are not identical to the general population – not even close. Being a committed, faithful believer makes a measurable difference in marriage.

Saying you believe something or merely belonging to a church, unsurprisingly, does little for marriage. But the more you are involved in the actual practice of your faith in real ways – through submitting yourself to a serious body of believers, learning regularly from scripture, being in communion with God though prayer individually and with your spouse and children, and having friends and family around us who challenge us to take our marriage’s seriously – the greater difference this makes in strengthening both the quality and longevity of our marriages. Faith does matter and the leading sociologists of family and religion tell us so.”

True Faith in Christ, contentment with one’s marriage and keeping one’s family in church on a regular basis are in fact great insulators against Hypergamy.

Does that mean its guaranteed? Of course not.  But it gives a marriage a far better chance of success.

Conclusion

The Feminine Imperative to seek the best quality man with which to mate and also to have a father for that offspring providing and giving security to a woman and her offspring is by the design of God.

But Red Pill because it is a naturalistic philosophy sees the hypergamous aspect of the Feminine Imperative, her always looking for the next best guy, as simply a part of evolution’s plan to give women the best quality children with the best provision and protection possible.

But as Bible believing Christians, we know that that the hypergamous part of the feminine nature, always looking for the next best guy and never truly being content with the man she is with, is actually a corruption of the feminine nature by sin.

God condemned feminine hypergamy in the 7th commandment and saw it as such a threat to society that he allowed the death penalty for it in the following passage:

“If a man be found lying with a woman married to an husband, then they shall both of them die, both the man that lay with the woman, and the woman: so shalt thou put away evil from Israel.”

Deuteronomy 22:22 (KJV)

Even short of the death penalty, women had a strong motivator to keep their hypergamous natures in check and keep would-be Alpha seeders at bay.  If their husband divorced them and sent them away, they would lose their children to him and leave with nothing but the clothes on their back, no split assets, no alimony and no child support.

The sad truth is that because of changes brought on by feminism since the mid-19th century, all of these controls and checks against feminine hypergamy have been removed.  Our society has actually been restructured to support feminine hypergamy.

Womens’ discontentment with men which is at the heart of feminine hypergamy is encouraged by our society.  And our society actually rewards adulterous women with child custody, alimony, child support and split assets in the event of divorce.

A society which has no controls for keeping feminine hypergamy in check will eventually collapse.  Why? Because without controls on feminine hypergamy marriage and the family unit have no security or stability.  And when marriage and the family unit collapse society will follow.

We are already seeing the beginnings of this collapse of Western civilization with the growth of the Manosphere, Red Pill and the MGTOW movement.  Many men in Western nations no longer see marriage as a blessing, but as threat to their lives and their emotional and financial wellbeing.

But what I have said many times on this blog I will say again now.

Guys I get it.  Before the mid-19th century men had about a 97% chance that their marriage would be secure and truly be “until death do us part”.  And even in the event of divorce, men did not loose their children or become financially destitute as a result like they do today.

If you are a non-Christian or fair-weather Christian who is not committed to your faith or one that does not regularly attend church you have roughly a 50 percent chance of divorce.  If you are committed to your Christian faith, regularly attend church and find a woman of like mindset and background you can reduce that chance to less than 40 percent.  But even in the best-case scenario, you still have about a 40 percent chance of being emotionally and financially devastated in the event of a divorce.

But let’s flip that around.   That means you have a 50 to 60 percent of chance of staying married to the same woman, raising your children with her and spending your sunset years together.

Let me put that chance of success in perspective.  Do you realize that only 30 percent of small businesses make it past 10 years before failing? That means you have twice the chance of your marriage succeeding as you would a small business if you started one.

Men your created purpose was not just to survive and avoid any potential harm to your emotional, physical and financial wellbeing.  God created you as men to image him and thereby bring him glory.  And you cannot fulfill that purpose without being a husband and father.  God’s rule for both men and women as found in Genesis 1:28 is to “Be fruitful, and multiply” which means men and women are to seek marriage, and after being married have sex and have children.  God’s exception to this rule is celibacy for undivided service to him for those few whom he gives this special gift to.  God says in 1 Corinthians 7:9 that “it is better to marry than to burn”.

Risk is part of life gentlemen.  And God created us as men to be risk takers, it is part of our built-in masculine nature.  But just as when a man starts a small business, he must do careful planning and vetting, so too a man should do careful planning and then vetting of any woman he looks at as a potential future wife.

And a final word to the Christian women reading this. While both men and women can struggle with the sin of discontentment this sin seems to affect women far more often than it does men in marriage.  It is not hard for most men to be content in their marriages to their wives despite things they wish were better.  But for women it is the exact opposite.  The vast majority of women struggle with the sin of discontentment with their husbands.   And this is why once the societal controls on hypergamy were removed we saw divorce sky rocket with women now filing for 70 percent of divorces.

Christian women – keep your feminine hypergamy in check by daily asking the Lord to give you a spirit of contentment with your husband.

“Let your conversation be without covetousness; and be content with such things as ye have: for he hath said, I will never leave thee, nor forsake thee.”

Hebrews 13:5 (KJV)

Sexism Is a Virtue Because the Bible is a Sexist Book

“So the Bible is a sexist book, and that fact alone should make Christians want to acknowledge that sexism has to be a virtue. And because the Bible has been assiduously ignored when it comes to these matters for lo, these many years, this should make us realize that it is also a lost virtue. Therefore it must be renewed, or restored, or recovered, or perhaps even reupholstered. But how?”

The statement above was made by Douglas Wilson on his “Blog and Mablog” site in an article he entitled “Restoring Sexism: The Lost Virtue”.

That is a bold assertion to state that “the Bible is a sexist book”.  So it is in fact true that the Bible is a sexist book?

Well first we need to define what sexism is.  According to Webster’s Online dictionary the definition of sexism is as follows:

“1 : prejudice or discrimination based on sex especially : discrimination against women

2 : behavior, conditions, or attitudes that foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex

So, the questions are does the Bible treat people different based on their sex and does it foster stereotypes of social roles based on sex?

The answer is a resounding YES.

In Ephesians 5:24 the Bible states “Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing” and in Titus 2:5 the Bible commands women to be “keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands”. It also states that women are not “…to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence” in 1 Timothy 2:12 and in 1 Corinthians 14:35 it states “And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home…” .

If those are not sexist statements right of out of the Bible, I don’t know what is. But we as Christians need to stop allowing humanists to frighten us into hiding with their labels.

And this is where Doug Wilson is taking a stand and I agree with him on this.  I have previously written an article on this same subject about two years ago entitled “Why Christians Should Be Proud Sexists”.  Some of my readers took offense at my attempt to redeem the term “sexist” as a badge of honor rather than a term of derision.   Others took offense at my use of the word “proud” quoting passages like James 4:6 where the Bible states “God resisteth the proud, but giveth grace unto the humble”.

I explained however, that my statement about us as Christians being proud was not a pride in ourselves, but rather a pride in God and in his Word.  It is pride that means to be “unashamed” as the Apostle Peter stated “Yet if any man suffer as a Christian, let him not be ashamed; but let him glorify God on this behalf”.

So, should we as Christians be ashamed of the fact that our Bible and our God who gave us our Bible treats people differently based on sex and fosters “stereotypes of social roles based on sex”? The answer for any Bible believing Christian should be “No I am not ashamed of God or his Word or his design of men and women”.

Let me give some other great statements by Doug Wilson in this article on this subject of sexism:

Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all. They are rather little wisps of aspirational fog floating off the sewage lagoon of late-stage secularism, and so we have no reason to feel bad about committing any such “sins.” If they are not gods at all, then sins against their commandments are not sins at all.

The living God has given us His Word, and nowhere in that Word does it say that sexism is a sin against Him. That means it is not a sin at all. In fact, various things that our culture defines as sexist are enshrined as virtues in Scripture, and this means that Christians should stop their furtive glancing from side to side, and simply acknowledge that it is high time for us to recover the lost virtue of sexism.

But what would such a recovery look like? How might we recover our sexist heritage? How shall we know when we have recovered it? The heart and soul of a restored sexism is to recognize that God created men and women with different natures, and has commanded us to recognize those natures as different, and to treat men and women differently simply because they are men and women respectively.”

Amen and Amen Mr. Wilson.   Mr. Wilson is absolutely right that “Sexism is certainly a sin against the gods of egalitarianism, but those gods are not gods at all“.  And we as Christian need to stop reverencing these false gods that our culture worships.  I have said many times that Western Civilization does indeed have a religion and that religion is Humanism.  And Humanism like some pagan religions of old is polytheistic in that it has many gods.  Some of those false gods are equality, education and the environment.  If you are not willing to bow down to these gods, and if you speak anything against egalitarianism, higher education or environmentalism you are speaking blasphemy in many parts of the Western world today.

The sad part is that many Christians today believe they can worship the false gods of equality, education and environment and place their faith in humanity while at the same time claiming they worship and place their faith in the God of the Bible.

But our God is a jealous God and he will not tolerate the worship of other gods.  In Exodus 34: 14 God says For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God”.

In the end we all have a choice.  It is the choice that Joshua gave to Israel and it is the same choice we must give to America and the Western world today.

“And if it seem evil unto you to serve the Lord, choose you this day whom ye will serve; whether the gods which your fathers served that were on the other side of the flood, or the gods of the Amorites, in whose land ye dwell: but as for me and my house, we will serve the Lord.”

Joshua 24:15 (KJV)

Is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative Biblical?

In the first two parts of this series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”, we established the fact that some observations in Red Pill do indeed match with Biblical teachings on gender roles.  We also showed that Red Pill is not just objective intersexual behavioral theory even though its most vocal advocates would like to think it is.  While Red Pill is built on observations of nature, specifically human biology and behavior, it also interweaves these findings with its own philosophy and its own moral judgements as to how we should act based on these observations.

Now that we have looked at Red Pill from a very high level we will dive into more of the specific concepts in Red Pill starting with the Red Pill concept of the Male Imperative.

What is the Red Pill Concept of the Male Imperative?

Rollo Tomassi wrote an article for his Red Pill blog, TheRationalMale.com, entitled “The New Paternity”.  In that article he states that “Men’s biological, masculine, imperative is to spread the seed – unlimited access to unlimited sexuality”.  In “Pseudo-Virginity” he writes that men have “polygynous sexual strategy”.

Tomassi writes in “Women & Sex” , “One of the single most annoying tropes I read / hear from men (more so than women) is the “Women are just as / more sexual than men” canard… Patently false. A healthy male produces between 12 to 17 times the amount of testosterone a woman does. It is a biological impossibility for a woman to want sex as much as, or as often as men. Trust me, when a woman says, “I don’t understand why sex is so important to guys” she’s speaking the literal truth”.

And in “The Truth About Standards”,  Tomassi states “Men are so motivated by sexual experience that it supersedes the need for food. Research shows brain cells specific to men fire up when mates are present and override the need to eat. Take this as you will, but it does reinforce the idea that for men, sex is in fact a biological need”.

So, to summarize what Tomassi has stated, Red Pill teaches that the Male Imperative is for a man to spread his seed to as many women as possible and as a direct result of this men are polygynous in their sexual strategy.  And a man’s sex drive is more than 10 times what a woman’s sex drive is and it is a biological need.

Is the Male Imperative Biblical?

Some people wrongly think a need is only something you will die from if you do not meet it but this is untrue.  There are many human needs that left unmet will not kill us, but they will indeed cause greater    or lesser psychological damage depending on the person.  Some men, if their sexual needs are not met, will lash out and commit rape or other wrong actions.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that sex is indeed a need unless a man or woman have the gift of celibacy as seen in the Scripture passage below:

“7 For I would that all men were even as I myself. But every man hath his proper gift of God, one after this manner, and another after that. 8 I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, it is good for them if they abide even as I. 9 But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn.”

1 Corinthians 7:7-9 (KJV)

In the follow passage speaking to the needs of women, God compares a woman’s need for sex to that of her need for food and clothing:

“10 If he take him another wife; her food, her raiment, and her duty of marriage, shall he not diminish. 11 And if he do not these three unto her, then shall she go out free without money.”

Exodus 21:10-11 (KJV)

Would a woman physically die from not having food? Certainly.  Would a woman die from not having clothing and being constantly exposed to the elements? Probably.  Would a woman physically die from not having sex with her husband? Not at all.  But yet it is still shown as a need for a woman to have sex with her husband.  Why? Because while she may not physically die from not having sex with him, her intimacy with her husband would certainly die and this could in fact end the marriage as God allowed.

But then God goes even further when speaking of a man’s need for sexual relations with his wife in the following passage:

“15 Drink waters out of thine own cistern, and running waters out of thine own well… 18 Let thy fountain be blessed: and rejoice with the wife of thy youth. 19 Let her be as the loving hind and pleasant roe; let her breasts satisfy thee at all times; and be thou ravished always with her love.”

Proverbs 5:15 & 18-19 (KJV)

God built a much greater need for sex in the masculine nature than in feminine nature.  Rather than comparing a man’s need for sex to the human need for food like the Bible does for a woman, instead the Bible compares a man’s need to for sex to the human need for water.

With a constant supply of water, a human being can go 60 days to 70 days with no food.  However, the average human being can only go four to seven days without water.  The human body is made up of 60 percent water.  Our cells, our joints and every organ in our body needs water to operate.

Just as water is a fundamental driving force in the human body, so too sex is a fundamental driving force in the masculine human nature.

Tomassi is absolutely correct that while women need sex too, a woman can never truly grasp the substantially greater physical and psychological need for sex in men.

The Bible also agrees with Red Pill that men have a polygynous sexual nature and the drive to “spread the seed” to as many different women as possible.  And this polygynous sexual desire in men is not a corruption of the masculine nature by sin as many Christian teachers and preachers have falsely claimed over the centuries.

The Bible shows that God blessed and rewarded Leah for giving her servant girl to her husband as another wife.  God allows for polygamy and sets rules for its practice in Exodus 21:10-11, Deuteronomy 21:15-17 and Deuteronomy 25:5-7.  God warns kings against multiplying wives or hording wives in Deuteronomy 17:17 but tells King David in II Samuel 12:8 that he gave him the wives of his master (King Saul) and would have given him many more wives.  In Ezekiel 23:1-5 God pictures himself as polygamist husband to two women – the northern kingdom of Israel and the southern kingdom of Judah.  And in the New Testament in Romans 10:19 God says he is taking on a new bride the form of the New Testament church to make his first wife, the nation of Israel, jealous so that she might return to him one day.

So, as we can see from an abundance of the Scriptures, polygamy is not sinful corruption of the masculine nature but it is in fact by God’s design.

For more on subject of polygamy and answers to objections some Christians may still have to it, see my series “Why Polygamy Is Not Unbiblical” .

What the Bible says About Man’s Sexual Nature that Red Pill Does Not

A fundamental flaw of Red Pill, one which we will continually remind the reader of, is that it takes an evolutionary approach to analyzing human biology and behavior. Red Pill’s natural science approach to analyzing human behavior and biology as it currently exists can reveal interesting facts about human beings.  But once they get into evolutionary science, which is a forensic science, they are just guessing in the wind.

This is where the Bible offers something Red Pill cannot.  Red Pill using scientific analysis of human biology and behavior can often (but not always) tell us the “What” of human behavior and biology but it can never provide us with the “Why”.  Only the Bible can do this.

The Bible reveals to us that the male sexual nature is about much more than reproduction.  In fact, while the Bible commands us to “Be fruitful, and multiply” it never tells us that God made sex primarily for reproduction.

The Bible tells us in 1 Corinthians 11:7 of the male human being that “he is the image and glory of God: but the woman is the glory of the man” and then in verse 9 of that same chapter it says “Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man”.   God created man to image him, to display or live out his attributes with his life.  And this is why God made woman.   Man needed someone upon which to play out the image of God in him.  He needed someone to love, lead, provide for and protect as God exhibits these attributes.

Another attribute of God’s nature is that he longs to be one with his people.  Man’s desire for sexual union with woman helps him to live out this aspect of God’s nature.

But there is still one more aspect of God’s nature that many Christians throughout the centuries have ignored or just plain denied due to their ascetism.  And that aspect of God’s nature is that he actually seeks out and enjoys pleasure.

The 8th century theologian John of Damascus wrote “But God, Who knoweth all things before they have existence, knowing in His foreknowledge that they would fall into transgression in the future and be condemned to death, anticipated this and made “male and female,” and bade them “be fruitful and multiply.”  What he was saying is that God only created the male and female sex organs knowing that sin would enter the picture and they would need some way to reproduce.  In other words, sex in human beings, and by extension sexual pleasure, was a result of sin in human beings and never God’s perfect intention.

Such a position is of course not supported by the Scriptures.  If sex in human beings was only an allowance by God for reproduction because of sin, then God would never have commanded men to satisfy themselves sexually with their wives’ bodies in Proverbs 5:18-19 nor would he have given us the entire book of the Song of Solomon which is dedicated to sexual love in marriage.

The Bible tells us God’s desire for the beauty of his people when it states in Psalm 45:11 “So shall the king greatly desire thy beauty: for he is thy Lord; and worship thou him”.  And in Psalm 149:4 we read “For the Lord taketh pleasure in his people: he will beautify the meek with salvation”.

So, man’s sexual desire toward woman does not just display God’s desire for oneness with his people, but it also fully displays God’s desire for the beauty of his people and his desire to take pleasure in his people.

The Corruption of Man’s God Given Polygynous Sexual Nature

We have just shown from the Bible how a man’s desire to take pleasure in the beauty of and bodies of women is a reflection of God’s nature within him.  However sin corrupted the masculine nature as God originally designed it.  And one of the ways sin corrupts man’s God given polygynous sexual nature is by tempting men to become whoremongers and adulterers.

And this is why the Bible warns that God will punish men if they act on this corruption of their sexual natures when it states in Hebrews 13:4 “Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled: but whoremongers and adulterers God will judge“.

God also shows that men can allow their sexual nature to control their lives causing them to make wrong decisions.   In Proverbs 6:26 the Bible states  For by means of a whorish woman a man is brought to a piece of bread: and the adultress will hunt for the precious life”.  A man can literally be led to the slaughter by his sexual nature if he allows it to happen. 

Ecclesiastes 7:26 states And I find more bitter than death the woman, whose heart is snares and nets, and her hands as bands: whoso pleaseth God shall escape from her; but the sinner shall be taken by her”. And this is why men are exhorted to flee from this temptation and escape the corruption of their sexual nature which would enslave them to women.

Conclusion

The Bible would agree with Red Pill that sex is a much stronger need for men than women when it compares a man’s sexual desire to the human desire for water.  The Bible would also agree with Red Pill that man’s sexual nature is polygynous.

But as we can see based upon the teachings of the Bible, man’s imperative is much more than simply reproduction.  Instead the Bible reveals that man’s sexual desire is only a part of his larger true “imperative” which is to image God and live out or display all the attributes of God’s nature in his life.

And while God indeed created man with a polygynous sexual nature, he also intended for man to bond with each of the women he had sex with and be a husband to each of those women and a father to their children.

Is Red Pill a Theory or a Religion?

Rollo Tomassi has been an ardent defender of Red Pill as a theory, not an ideology, political movement or religion.   In his article “The Political is Personal”, Tomassi wrote the following:

“This is the degree to which the Feminine Imperative has been saturated into our western social fabric. Catholic women in the Vatican may have very little in common with Mormon women in Utah, but let a Mormon woman insist the church alter its fundamental foundational articles of faith with regard to women in favor of a doctrine substituted by the Feminine Imperative and those disparate women have a common purpose.

That is the depth of the Feminine Imperative – that female primacy should rewrite articles of faith to prioritize women’s interests…

It’s my opinion that red pill awareness needs to remain fundamentally apolitical, non-racial and non-religious because the moment the Red Pill is associated with any social or religious movement, you co-brand it with an ideology, and the validity of it will be written off along with any preconceptions associated with that specific ideology.”

In “The Believers” vs. The Empiricists”, Tomassi writes:

“Red Pill people… believe that whether something is “good” or “bad” is a matter of opinion, and that all systems of morality are things societies invented to get a result, and it is therefore pointless to argue about whether something is “evil” or not, instead of about what effect it has. They are moral relativists They believe that the goal of a debate is to establish what the facts are, and how this knowledge can be used to control outcomes. They argue about what is true.

They believe that debates are a cooperative process between two or more people who have the shared goal of achieving a more accurate picture of absolute reality, and that, while people may stick vehemently to their positions, they can also reverse them on a dime if new information comes to light, because the only real attachment is to the truth. They believe debates occur between theories, not people. Thus questioning someone’s character is off-limits, because it is irrelevant.”

So, as we can see from the quotes above, Rollo reflects the feeling of many Red Pill people that Red Pill is and must remain theory (or a collection of theories) about intersexual dynamics.  And it must stay out of political, racial and other arenas and strictly stick to intersexual dynamics.

We Can’t Avoid the Necessity of Religious and Political Reforms

I totally agree with Tomassi that that both men and women across political and religious spectrums will close ranks and join together when Red Pill theories are presented.

The feminine imperative was kept bound and in check by patriarchal societies which existed throughout the world for six millennia.  It was only during the mid-19th century that Secular Humanism based on the combination of individualism, naturalism and blank slate released the feminine imperative from the control of patriarchy.

And once it did that, the feminine imperative brought us the feminine reality.

But again, what was it that released the feminine imperative to do all the damage it has done to Western civilization? It was Humanism.

In “Unmarriageable”, Tomassi gives the following lamentation:

“The way we do marriage today has the potential to be the most damaging decision a man can make in his life. It may even end his life. But despite all that I still believe men and women are better together than we are apart. We still evolved to be complements to the other.

It’s the coming together and living together, and all the downside risks to men today that I have no solution for at the moment. Maybe it’s going to take a war or a meteor striking the earth to set gender parity back in balance, but at the moment there’s only a future of sexual segregation to look forward to.”

If Tomassi and other Red Pill folks want to keep Red Pill non-political and non-religious then more power to them.  But I would argue based on Tomassi’s own comments they can’t really solve the underlying problem and all Red Pill is then is a band aid to help men have sex in a feminine primary world with no answers for getting out of it.

But as Bible believing Christians, we must delve into the political and religious side of this.  Humanism unleashed the feminine imperative upon Western civilization and the only way to put the feminine imperative back under control is to return to patriarchal and religious societies once again. A return to Christian patriarchy would solve the problem of the feminine imperative.

Now I know right now that seems like a fantasy.  And Red Pill folks, Humanists and many Christians reading this are all laughing.  But let me tell you about a man who laughed about gender equality almost 250 years ago.

In 1776, John Adams wrote the follow response to his wife Abigail who asked him to push the founders for women’s equality with men in the new America nation and this was his famous response:

“As to your extraordinary code of laws, I cannot but laugh…Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems… and rather than give up this, which would completely subject us to the despotism of the petticoat, I hope General Washington and all our brave heroes would fight”.

The “despotism of the petticoat” meant the “despotism of women”.  John Adams predicted that if the Patriarchal order which had served human civilization for six millennia was given up, that it would be replaced by a new Matriarchal order. In other words, John Adams predicted what Red Pill calls “the feminine reality”.

It took almost 200 years for what John Adams laughed at the possibility of to be fully realized.

So, is it so outlandish to believe that Patriarchy, and specifically Christian Patriarchy could return over the next two centuries? I think not.

The feminine imperative was released because of religious (humanism) changes that lead to political changes in this nation.  And the only way the feminine imperative will finally be placed back under control is through the same means – through bringing the teachings of the Bible regarding gender back to our families and churches which will then lead to changes in our societies and governments.

It must begin as a grass roots movement.  It must start with men teaching men. Then men teaching their women.  We need to be reaching our teens when they are young and more easily able to change.  And then when larger groups of families in churches band together, they can demand changes in their church leadership and a return to teaching the whole Bible, including the Biblical doctrines concerning gender roles.

Red Pill People Are Not Completely Moral Relativists

Tomassi says Red Pill is completely about scientific theory concerning the behavior of the sexes.  That is just about “the facts”. That its not about what is “good” or “bad” or “evil”.  But the quote below, from Tomassi’s article “The Desire Dynamic” , shows that Red Pill does actually take moral positions:

“You cannot negotiate Desire…

Negotiated desire only ever leads to obligated compliance.

This is why her post-negotiation sexual response is often so lackluster and the source of even further frustration on his part. She may be more sexually available to him, but the half-hearted experience is never the same as when they first met when there was no negotiation, just spontaneous desire for each other…

Genuine desire is something a person must come to – or be led to – on their own volition. You can force a woman by threat to comply with behaving in a desired manner, but you cannot make her want to behave that way. A prostitute will fuck you for an exchange, it doesn’t mean she wants to.

Whether LTR or a one night stand (ONS) strive for genuine desire in your relationships. Half of the battle is knowing you want to be with a woman who wants to please you, not one who feels obligated to. You will never draw this genuine desire from her by overt means, but you can covertly lead her to this genuine desire. The trick in provoking real desire is in keeping her ignorant of your intent to provoke it. Real desire is created by her thinking it’s something she wants, not something she has to do.”

Throughout his writings Tomassi denigrates what he calls “transactional”, or “obligated” or “duty” sex in favor of men only receiving “validational” (genuinely desired) sex from women.

This is taking a moral position.

This violates the male imperative for men to sow their seed as often as they can.

The male imperative is not to have perfect sex with the perfect woman, it is to have sex as many times as possible.

This is actually a glaring contradiction in Red Pill which perfectly aligns with feminist ideology that no woman should ever have to have sex with a man if she does not genuinely desire it.

Conclusion

Red Pill in a sense is only a band aid for the problem of the feminine reality and it has no answers for overturning the feminine reality.  The solution to these problems isn’t learning how to game women into having sex, it is about a return to the Biblically based world view that this nation and Western civilization once had.  It is about a return to Christian Patriarchy.

Only a society based in Christian Patriarchy can take on the feminine imperative and bring under control as it once was.

And as to the question that is the title of this article “Is Red Pill A Religion?” I would have to say the answer is yes.  Any system which offers answers to moral questions, even if it is a naturalistic system like Humanism, is a religion.  And Red Pill does in fact take moral positions.

Red Pill is hybrid of scientific research and moral beliefs.   So, if we separate the moral beliefs from the scientific research and simply look at the research into human nature this can give us valuable insights.

I look at Red Pill the same as I would a biology or psychology class in college.  I know there will be humanist or naturalist teachings in these classes that I will need to weed out.  But I can still glean truths about human physiology and psychology in these classes.  The Bible tells us that God reveals himself and his truths not only through the Bible, but also secondarily through nature:

“18 For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; 19 Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. 20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse”

Romans 1:18-20 (KJV)

Is it possible that Tomassi and other Red Pill people have discovered some truths about God’s design in human nature? Absolutely it is possible.

But as Christians we must always remember that our only infallible source for truth is the Word of God.

Is Red Pill Biblical?

In 2015, a popular Red Pill Blogger named Rollo Tomassi agreed with some traditionalist Christians that “Christianity was already Red Pill before there was a Red Pill”.  “Red Pill” refers to a  collection of theories of how human intersexual dynamics work.   The Red Pill theory has been spreading across the internet for almost two decades.  The phrase “The Red Pill”, as it is used in the Manosphere, is based upon the 1999 sci-fi movie “The Matrix” starring Keanu Reeves. In this film’s dystopian future, all of humanity has been enslaved by machines in a simulated reality known as “The Matrix” by an artificial intelligence that mankind had created long ago.

In the movie a character named Morpheus offers Neo, the movie’s main protagonist, a choice between a blue pill and a red pill in the famous quote below:

“This is your last chance. After this, there is no turning back. You take the blue pill—the story ends, you wake up in your bed and believe whatever you want to believe. You take the red pill—you stay in Wonderland and I show you how deep the rabbit-hole goes.”

This Red Pill/Blue Pill paradigm was adopted by the manosphere over the past two decades to compare and contrast two different collections of theories of how human civilization should be conducted.

Even though I will be quoting from Tomassi’s blog during this series to compare and contrast Red Pill with the Bible, I want to make clear from Tomassi’s own words that he is not the inventor of Red Pill theory.

In his article entitled “The Purple Pill” , Tomassi, wrote this about the origins of the Red Pill:

“While I am humbled to be accounted as one of the Red Pill’s prominent writers I will never lay claim to having created it. The Red Pill in its truest sense belongs to the collective that has contributed to it as a whole. It belongs to the men who’ve fostered it, who’ve risked their livelihoods and families apart from it to make other men aware; it belongs to those who understand that its objectivity is what’s kept it open and honest, discussable and debatable.”

Rollo Tomassi began studying psychology and behaviorism in 2001.  His emphasis was on behaviorism and specifically behaviorism as it relates to how the human genders think and act.

He began by taking his gender centered behaviorism theories to an online forum called https://www.sosuave.com/ where he debated and discussed them with others to refine his theories.

10 years after starting his journey, in 2011, he started TheRationalMale.com blog.  His blog was an instant success becoming one of the most popular blogs in the Manosphere.  In 2013, he published his book “The Rational Male” which was essentially an edited version of his first year’s blog posts along with many questions he had from commenters and his answers to them.

This then leads us to the most important question Christians must answer about Red Pill.

Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?

The answer to this question can be found in the following two statements by Tomassi.

In his article “Male Authority Provisioning vs Duty” :

“I’ve been watching Outlaw King on Netflix recently. There’s a part where the wife of Robert the Bruce says ‘Power is making decisions, and whatever course you are charting, I choose you, my husband’ It struck me that my own wife had said almost these same words to me in 2005. When I’d decided to take a job in Orlando that would uproot us from family and friends. There was no “,…but what about my friends, career, etc.?” from her and I had no hesitation to consider anything but taking the position. She said, “You are my husband, I go where you go.

How many men hold a default Frame in their marriage? Many women are reluctant to even accept their husband’s last name today. There’s a lot of bullshit reasons for this, but the core truth is that women have no confidence in their man in the long term. They don’t trust his ‘course’. There’s holding Frame, and then there’s establishing a long term Frame, a paradigm, a reality of his own, that defines a man’s authority in his marriage and family relationships. Women today still want marriage, but few want to defer to their husband’s ‘course’. They don’t trust him with her life.

And then there is this second quote from Tomassi from his article “Male Authority Be a Man” :

“There are numerous ways a feminine-primary social order removes the teeth from male authority today. First and foremost is the social pretense of blank-slate equalism. A default presumption that men and women are coequal agents in every aspect – physical, emotional, psychological, intellectual – is the cover story necessary to remove an authority that was based on the conventional differences between the sexes. To the blank-slate equalist gender is a social construct, but gender is only the starting point for a social constructionist belief set. Social constructionism is a necessary foundation upon which blank-slate equalism is built, but ultimately it’s a means of control. By denying each sex its innate differences social constructionism denies men their innate advantages and strengths. Once this became the normalized social convention it was a simple step to remove male authority…

The authority men used to claim innate legitimacy of in the past is now only legitimate when a woman wields it. Men need to retake this authority and own it as is their birthright once again.”

The sentiment that Tomassi has just stated, that a man’s authority over his wife and his children is his “birthright” and that a wife should trust her husband with the course he has plotted for them and with her very life is 100% Biblical.

The Bible agrees with Red Pill that male authority over woman is indeed the birth right of every man.  In 1 Corinthians 11:3 we read “the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man” and in 1 Timothy 2:12 the Bible states that women are forbidden to “to usurp authority over the man”.   In Ephesians 5:23 we read “For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church”.

I also want to return to Tomassi’s first comment about women in our modern era having no trust or confidence in their husbands. The Bible speaks to this trust women are called to:

For after this manner in the old time the holy women also, who trusted in God, adorned themselves, being in subjection unto their own husbands: Even as Sara obeyed Abraham, calling him lord: whose daughters ye are, as long as ye do well, and are not afraid with any amazement.”

I Peter 3:5-6 (KJV)

The Bible calls on women to obey and be in subjection to their husbands because they trust God and his design of male headship over women.   In other words, women should trust their husbands ‘course’, to use Tomassi’s language, because they trust that God has given their husbands the ‘course’ he wishes them to follow.

So, the answer to the question of “Do the doctrines of the Bible, upon which Christianity was founded, agree with any part of Red Pill theory?” is a resounding YES!

But just because the Bible would be Red Pill in some areas does not mean it is Red Pill in all areas.

And this is what I will be exploring in this new series “Is Red Pill Biblical?”  There are a lot of different aspects of Red Pill to cover and I want to break them down into bite sized pieces so that Christians can fully understand the Red Pill Theory and where Red Pill is in agreement with a Biblical world view and where Red Pill is in conflict with a Biblical world view.

If You Are Not Following Paul, Then You Are Not Following Jesus

Whose words have more weight? The words of Jesus Christ or the words of the Apostle Paul? This is the question that many Christian feminists pose to us as Bible believing Christians.  Yesterday Lori Alexander published an interesting article on her Transformed Wife blog entitled “Do Not Be a Red Letter Christian” were she addressed a statement by the Christian feminist Beth Moore which goes as follows:

“No, I was not subtweeting the apostle but I would like to say something here. I believe wholeheartedly that ALL Scripture is inspired by God. Authoritative. Truth. But the persons themselves – Paul and Jesus – are not equals. I know this is hard for some to swallow, but Paul is not our Savior. Paul would be horrified, I believe, by the way he has been deified.”

Lori then pointed out the problem with Beth’s statement:

“This is a very slippery slope, dear women. I know too many people who have begun elevating the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words and end up walking away from the faith altogether. I know no one who has deified the apostle Paul, do you? I do know that his words are as valuable as Jesus’ words since the Holy Spirit used Paul to write what he wrote (2 Timothy 3:16).”

Lori also pointed out some responses by some Christian teachers to Beth Moore’s statement:

“James White wrote this about Beth’s tweet, “All egalitarians end up diminishing Paul’s authority. It is a necessary step, even if taken in slow, little movements.”
Another man wrote, “Being a ‘red-lettered’ Christian is dangerous. You’re on a path towards liberalism, if you’re not already there yet.”

The last statement is where Lori got her title “Do Not Be a Red Letter Christian”.

The Gospel is the Most Important Doctrine in All the Bible

I have said it many times on this blog.  Believing in and practicing the doctrines of Biblical gender roles will not save you.  This is why on the main menu for this blog right at the top I have a link to my article entitled “What is the Gospel?” and in that article I give the Gospel as follows.

The word “gospel” literally means “good news”.  The Apostle Paul tells us in his epistle to the Roman Christians what the Gospel of Jesus Christ is all about:

“That if thou shalt confess with thy mouth the Lord Jesus, and shalt believe in thine heart that God hath raised him from the dead, thou shalt be saved. For with the heart man believeth unto righteousness; and with the mouth confession is made unto salvation.” – Romans 10:9-10 (KJV)”

And then I give what we must do to be saved according to the Scriptures:

  1. We must confess that we have sinned against God. (I John 1:9)
  2. We must believe that Christ died and rose again to pay the penalty for our sins. (Romans 10:9 -10)
  3. We must believe that Jesus Christ was God in the flesh, the sinless and spotless Son of God. (Philippians 2:5-8)

The Gospel truly is the most important doctrine in the Bible for two reasons.  The first is that it is the only doctrine we must fully understand and fully believe to inherit eternal life.  If we disbelieve any part of the Gospel, we will one day find ourselves in a place called hell.  The second reason that the Gospel is the most important doctrine in the Bible is because only when we have believed and been indwelled by the Holy Spirit of God can we live the life God has called us to live through his power.  We cannot transform ourselves and we cannot live the life he has called us to live in our power – we need him each and ever day of our lives.

However, just because the Gospel is the MOST important doctrine in the Bible does not mean it is the ONLY important doctrine in the Bible.  The Scriptures tell us in 2 Corinthians 5:15 “And that he died for all, that they which live should not henceforth live unto themselves, but unto him which died for them, and rose again”.  We were not saved to live for ourselves and do whatever makes us happy, we were saved to live for Christ!  This then leads us to our next question.

How Do We Live for Christ?

In the Gospel of Luke Christ tells us how we are to live him:

“And Jesus answered him, saying, It is written, That man shall not live by bread alone, but by every word of God.”

Luke 4:4 (KJV)

Living for Christ is living by “every word of God”.

This leads us to our next question.

What is the Word of God?

Jesus made the following statement about the Word of God:

“17 Think not that I am come to destroy the law, or the prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil. 18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled. 19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.”

Matthew 5:17-19 (KJV)

In the passage above Jesus alludes to the moral law of God found throughout the Old Testament.  Those who think they can throw out the Old Testament will be called least in the kingdom of God, that is what Christ said.

Jesus gave authority and supernatural power to his Apostles to speak and write the very Word of God.

“18 And Jesus came and spake unto them, saying, All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. 19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost”

Matthew 28:18-19 (KJV)

And he gave the following warning for those who would not hear the words of his Apostles:

“14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15 Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrha in the day of judgment, than for that city.”

Matthew 10:14-15 (KJV)

The Words of the Prophets, Christ and His Apostles Are All Equal in Authority

In Hebrews 3:3 the Scriptures tell us concerning Christ that “For this man was counted worthy of more glory than Moses, inasmuch as he who hath builded the house hath more honour than the house” .   And Apostle Paul speaking of Christ in Philippians 2:9 wrote “Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name”.

Believing that the words of the Prophet Moses and the Apostle Paul are equal in authority to Jesus’s words is not “deifying” Moses or Paul or placing them above Christ.  It is simply a recognition of the truth that “All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness” (2 Timothy 3:16).

To all the Beth Moore Christian feminists out there, while it is true that “Paul and Jesus – are not equals” it is true that the words of Christ and the words of Paul ARE equal.  Why? Because Jesus stated of himself “I and my Father are one” (John 10:30) meaning he was God in the flesh.

The Word of God, all of it from Genesis to Revelation is Christ’s Words.  That means Moses’s Words as recorded in the Scriptures are Christ’s Words.  That means the Apostle Paul’s Words as recorded in the Scriptures are Christ’s Words.   So, it is for this reason that every letter in the Bible should be considered a “red letter”.

Babes in Christ Who Don’t Know Paul’s Words

The Bible encourage us to grow in our faith and go further than our just understanding the Gospel and repentance:

“As newborn babes, desire the sincere milk of the word, that ye may grow thereby”

1 Peter 2:2 (KJV)

“Therefore leaving the principles of the doctrine of Christ, let us go on unto perfection; not laying again the foundation of repentance from dead works, and of faith toward God, 2 Of the doctrine of baptisms, and of laying on of hands, and of resurrection of the dead, and of eternal judgment.”

Hebrews 6:1-2 (KJV)

We are called to “go unto perfection” which means “completeness”.  In other words, we need to have a complete understanding of God’s will and plan for our lives and then by his power live out that plan.

Some people don’t reject the doctrines of gender roles.  They simply don’t know them because our churches have failed in their duty to teach “all the counsel of God” (Acts 20:27).

And this is the reason God burden me to start this ministry more than five years ago to stand in this gap that most churches have left and he has truly blessed this ministry.  If you would have told me when I started this blog 5 years ago that this blog would reach more than 8 million views, I would not have believed you.

It is so encouraging for me to hear from young Christians for whom God has used this ministry to literally change the course of their lives.  Over the 5 years I have had this ministry, I have seen numerous young women quit college to become home makers as God has intended them to do.  Just last week I had a young woman write me telling me that she had dropped out of college where she had just begun pursuing a degree in law to pursue being a wife and homemaker.  And just in the last week I was so encouraged to hear from a young 17-year-old man who was standing for Biblical gender roles in his church youth group taking other teens through the doctrines of Biblical gender roles as shown in the Bible.

And this is why it is so important that we as Christians disciple and teach other believers in these important doctrines.  Yes, you can be saved without knowing or believing in the doctrine of Biblical gender roles, but you cannot live a holy life or the life God has called you to live without knowing and incorporating these doctrines into your life decisions.

Blasphemers Who Know What God Spoke Through the Apostle Paul

But some people are not babes in Christ who simply don’t know about the doctrine of Biblical gender roles that was given by the inspiration of God through Paul.  Some are ignorant regarding the concept of the inerrancy the Scriptures, that all the Bible is the Word of God.  Others blaspheme and distort it because they refuse to live by what it says.

The Apostle Peter warned of such ignorant blasphemers in the following passage:

“15 And account that the longsuffering of our Lord is salvation; even as our beloved brother Paul also according to the wisdom given unto him hath written unto you; 16 As also in all his epistles, speaking in them of these things; in which are some things hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest, as they do also the other scriptures, unto their own destruction.”

2 Peter 3:15-16 (KJV) 

And the Apostle Paul also stated that those who reject God’s role for women are blaspheming the Word of God:

“4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:4-5 (KJV)

So yes, based upon the Word of God we must see Beth Moore as an ignorant blasphemer for falsely pitting the words of Christ while he walked this earth against the words Christ which he gave to the Apostle Paul after he ascended to heaven.

Beth Moore stated that “Paul would be horrified” by Christians ascribing the same value to the Word God gave him as the Word Christ spoke while he walked this earth.  Well we know how Paul would feel about this because he told us so in his first letter to the Thessalonians:

 “For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.”

1 Thessalonians 2:13 (KJV)

Rather than being horrified, he would be thankful.  But you know what Paul would be horrified by? He tells us that in his first letter to the Corinthians:

“34 Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law. 35 And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.”

1 Corinthians 14:34-35 (KJV)

The Apostle Paul would be horrified and ashamed to see Beth Moore standing in a pulpit preaching to men.  He would be ashamed of her teachings telling women they do not have to be under obedience to men in all areas of their lives especially in the church and in the home.

If You Are Not Following Paul, then You are not Following Jesus

Another ignorant, blaspheming feminist blogger wrote that when Lori Alexander warned against the dangers of elevating “the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words” instead of treating them equally that she was saying “Don’t Follow Jesus, Just Follow Paul”.

Just listen to her ignorance and blasphemy on full display:

“Let that sink in for a moment. Jesus, the figurehead of everything to do with Christianity, a religious named for him. A man that suggested you should be nice to everyone, and hung out with prostitutes, tax collectors, fishermen and others society sneered at. God in the flesh according to the Bible, part of the Holy Trinity, yet Lori is telling you to ignore his words and rely on the words of someone who never even met Jesus? That is just wacky!”

Jesus is no more “the figurehead” of Christianity than a husband is “the figurehead” of his wife.  He is “the head of the church” as “the husband is the head of the wife” according to Ephesians 5:23. Lori’s warning against “elevating the words of Jesus in the Bible over Paul’s words” said nothing about ignoring Christ’s Words.  She was saying they should be treated equally. It is this ignorant, blaspheming feminist blogger who ignores even the words of Christ when he told us we must listen to the words of his Apostles.

And this feminist blogger displays her ignorance yet again in saying Paul was “someone who never even met Jesus”. Has she not read Acts 9:1-6? Or she is rejecting Luke’s account as well?

She also makes the false statement that Christ and the Apostle Paul had “radically different takes toward women” in the following statement:

Funny how Paul and Jesus have such radically different takes towards women. Jesus talked to women like they were equals, equally valuable in the eyes of God, not walking, cooking, cleaning uteri.”

Really? Did Christ view women as social equals to men? Do you see any women listed among the twelve apostles in the Scripture passage below?

“1 And when he had called unto him his twelve disciples, he gave them power against unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of disease. 2 Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3 Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4 Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.”

Matthew 10:1-4 (KJV)

And surely if Christ was such a feminist, he would have chosen a woman to replace Judas but he goes and replaces him with the Apostle Paul, another man.

Some feminists point to the story of Mary and Martha below to falsely saying Christ was a feminist:

“38 Now it came to pass, as they went, that he entered into a certain village: and a certain woman named Martha received him into her house. 39 And she had a sister called Mary, which also sat at Jesus’ feet, and heard his word. 40 But Martha was cumbered about much serving, and came to him, and said, Lord, dost thou not care that my sister hath left me to serve alone? bid her therefore that she help me. 41 And Jesus answered and said unto her, Martha, Martha, thou art careful and troubled about many things: 42 But one thing is needful: and Mary hath chosen that good part, which shall not be taken away from her.”

Luke 10:38-42 (KJV)

It is true that Jesus did break many social taboos of the Jews by talking with tax collectors and others of lower social classes.  His encouragement for women to sit and hear his words alongside of men most likely would have broken some taboos of the Jews as well.

But the question is this. Did he do anything that was “radically different” than Paul? Did He teach anything that would contradict what Paul would later write under the inspiration of God? The answer is no.

Did he ask Mary to lead the teaching? No. But rather the Scriptures tell us she simply listened and “heard his word”.

Jesus never encouraged women to teach, but rather it was the Apostle Paul which encouraged women to teach other women:

“3 The aged women likewise, that they be in behaviour as becometh holiness, not false accusers, not given to much wine, teachers of good things; 4 That they may teach the young women to be sober, to love their husbands, to love their children, 5 To be discreet, chaste, keepers at home, good, obedient to their own husbands, that the word of God be not blasphemed.”

Titus 2:3-5 (KJV)

Paul even singled out a woman and her husband who had a church in their home:

“3 Greet Priscilla and Aquila my helpers in Christ Jesus: 4 Who have for my life laid down their own necks: unto whom not only I give thanks, but also all the churches of the Gentiles. 5 Likewise greet the church that is in their house. Salute my well-beloved Epaenetus, who is the firstfruits of Achaia unto Christ.”

Romans 16:3-5 (KJV)

Does the Apostle Paul sound like some misogynist hater of women and is his approach to women so “radically different” than Christ’s? The answer based on the Bible is no.

Conclusion

The Apostle Paul wrote almost half of the books of the New Testament with his 14 epistles.  To ignore his teachings as the inspired Word of God equal to what is recorded in the Gospels is to have an incomplete and ignorant view of God.

It is patently absurd to say that if Christ did not speak on a topic, that we can ignore clear teachings on that topic found elsewhere in the Bible.  To do such a thing is to tear down the entire inerrancy of the Scriptures.  It is also an inconsistent position for those who hold it.

You cannot say you live only by the words of Christ during his earthly ministry while ignoring the words of the prophets before him or his Apostles after him. In the Gospels Christ said that you must live by the Word of God given through the prophets and the Word of God given through his Apostles together with his Word which then forms the complete Word of God.

As the Apostle Paul said so let us be.

“Be ye followers of me, even as I also am of Christ.”

1 Corinthians 11:1 (KJV)