Monday, August 24, 2009

The Origins of Game: Jesus

The attempt to trace the origins of Game are the most clear refutations of the pretentions of Game itself. Some have traced it to Jung, to Byron, to Shakespeare. Nope, way too shallow. Game was invented by Jesus. You think I'm joking? I'm not. Of course, it wasn't Game that Jesus taught, he taught us how to be men (the principles of positive masculinity), and how to deal with women. Read on:

Jesus, master of the neg (as recorded in Mark 7):
Greek woman approaches Jesus, "Please heal my daughter." Jesus replies, "You are not worthy, you little dog." Jesus's neg gets the proper response too, leading the woman to grovel further: "Even the dogs get a scrap of bread." Happy with her full submission stated out loud, Jesus provides the requested healing.

Jesus, master of the alpha demand and validation (as recorded in John 4):
Coming upon a strange woman at a well, Jesus starts off by straight up ordering her to fetch him a drink. The woman gives him a shit test, throwing up some religious bullshit excuse not to do it for him. Jesus responds by elevating his own status: "If you knew who was asking this request, you would do that and more, because I give the living water." The woman continues her shit test, asking him to prove it.

Jesus then negs the girl, shifting the subject, demanding "Where is your husband?" This begins to break her down, shifting the ground to her uncomfortable zone, as she admits she has no husband. Jesus drives the woman down even harder: "Darn right you don't have a husband, you are a little slut [five previous husbands, living with man currently]." The woman is totally owned by this, and sees to it that Jesus is fed and housed for the next couple days in her village.

Jesus refuses any woman's attempt to order him around, even his mother (recorded in John 2):
Jesus is at a wedding party when his mother tells him, "We are out of wine." Jesus replies, and I quote, "Don't tell me what to do". His mom, being put in her place, then turns to the servants, and validates Jesus, to them, "Do what he tells you." Jesus then orders the servants about, and creates some high quality wine for the party.

Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 1 (recorded in Luke 10):
Martha was doing chores, Mary sitting at Jesus's feet hanging on his every word. Martha starts bitching about Mary not helping, and actually tells Jesus to tell Mary to get up and help. Jesus puts her in her place: "Martha, drop the negativity. Mary is doing the right thing."

Jesus, encouraging female servitude, part 2 (recorded in John 12):
Martha was serving him supper, when Mary started cleaning Jesus' feet WITH HER HAIR. Not just with her hair, but using some seriously expensive oil to do the job right, filling the whole house with the scent.

His jealous beta Judas starts to object on religious grounds, so Jesus tells him to shut the F up, and he takes the opportunity for a high status display: "You will always have the poor with you, but you won't always have me."

Do I need to mention when Jesus beat up the sleazy Jewish bankers in the Temple? He pulled out a WHIP, and literally WHIPPED THEM out, knocked over their chairs, and kicked over their tables. Jesus was not a pacifist, as I have analyzed before (here). The night before his crucifixion he commanded his followers to carry swords for self-defense.

Jesus was a man's man, and it showed in the absolute devotion he inspired his women. Jesus had a number of women taking care of his financial needs, some even married. Luke (in chapter 8) records: Mary Magdalene, Johanna, Suzanna, and "many others" who supported him out of their own means. Jesus's women were broken down in hysterics seeing Jesus dying up on the cross, and they were the ones visiting him at his tomb after he died.

Christian teachings are clear: the man is the head of the household, and the woman is required to submit to her husband. Adam, the first man, was guilty of letting his wife lead him. A Christian man who allows his woman to be negative or domineering is failing to be a faithful Christian, failing to follow God's command and example.

This is not the case of running Game on your wife. This is the attitude of leadership and responsibility that comes from God's plan, rooted in human nature. To have a successful marriage, you don't need to "learn Game", you need to BE THE MAN.

It is not a set of techniques, it is an attitude of command. The principles of positive masculinity are based in the reality of human nature. You don't even have to be a Christian to see their validity, or understand how they were the foundation of our civilization.

Not coincidentally, returning to the principles of the revealed religion that undergirded Western Civilization is the key to our contemporary problems, not resporting to manipulative tricks based on the poisonous gaming of the contemporary dying culture.


Φ said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Φ said...

Adam, the first man, was guilty of letting his wife lead him.

My favorite line from Paradise Lost was when, after Eve blames him for allowing her to go off by herself, Adams says (and I'm quoting for memory):

Thus it shall befall him who lets her will rule; / restraint she will not brook.
Left to herself, if evil thence ensue, / She first his week indulgence will accuse.

Josh Krebs said...

Horrible exegesis, misquoting, and foul language aside, I find it hard to believe that you have found this successful in your personal life. I mean, are you happily married?
Furthermore, not knowing you background I have to ask, have you ever actually studied passages like Ephesians 5? Do you recollect what Christ said in Philippians about humility and servitude? Have you even looked at the literary and historical context of these passages you "quote".
I know I'll probably just get deleted without a response, but atleast I tried.

Justin said...

Josh, I get the condemnation of the cusswords, but for the life of me, I can't figure out what else you are objecting to?

You mentioned horrible exegesis and misquoting. Please specify, I really appreciate your feedback.

Also, if I am missing some literary or historical context that would render a different meaning on the passages, please let me know.

Also, I really don't see anything in Ephisians or Philippians that disagrees with my conclusions. If I am missing something, please let me know.

For the record, yes, I am happily married, and yes, I take my duty to be the head of the household seriously. My conclusions are formed from my own life, both its successes and failures (such as my first marriage) and from much study and observation of others.

I do invite your feedback. Thank you.

Beta Prime said...

This is a highly entertaining and enlightening post.

Krebs uses that million dollar word, 'exegesis', to make guys like me feel shame for not having an NIV study bible on hand. Then he goes into some (typically female) shaming tactics, "are you happily married?" Yawn.

Appreciate Jesus where you can. Christianity may yet save us, but not type Krebs pushes.

Welmer said...

You beat me to it, Justin. I was actually thinking the exact same thing a couple weeks ago.

However, I tend to shy away from advocating Christianity on my blog, because the last thing I want to do is have to deal with atheists, people from various denominations, and people of other faiths arguing about religion.

Welmer said...

BTW, the post is also hilarious -- it's a real classic that ought to be widely disseminated.

Josh Krebs said...

I do apologize for the anger in my previous comment. I ask that you will forgive me taking my anger at several previous blogs all out on you. It was very ungracious of me and your reply was quite gracious. I am not entirely in disagreement with your post, for instance I agree that Jesus was neither passive nor a passivist, but I do think you may have missed some important interpretational issues. Becasue I am limited on time, I hope you don't mind if I deal with the issues one at a time over several days.
The passage in Mark 7 follows a passage in which Christ is teaching the Jews their place as those who are blessed, and as such bless the nations, yet have missed their calling by being nitpicky.
In this passage the woman is greek, meaning a gentile, and so when she approaches he proclaims that the Children, meaning Israel, should recieve from Him first, and she responds--showing that she knows who He is and the true role of Israel in the covenant--by responding that even those outside of the covenant receive "crumbs" of grace.
The theological implications of this are huge and it is a great passage about "common grace."

Novaseeker said...

Quite entertaining, Justin!

Justin said...

B.P. and Welmer, I am glad you enjoyed it. And Welmer, you are correct, stepping on religious toes can cause some stress.

Josh, I appreciate your response. But trust me, I know the standard theological interpretations.

My point is to simply show that Jesus has a manly side that we don't normally think about. In my opinion, Jesus being a dominant man adds to his appeal, and in no way takes away from it.

The feminized participants in many of today's churches may not like it, but He was not the sweet, softy, nice guy that they imagine.

He is the Alpha and the Omega after all (think about that in Game terms!!!)

Josh Krebs said...

I agree that Christ is nothing like the Jesus we see in the Jesus film, I think that there are planty of pasages that illustrate His masculinity...I just don't think that most of these fit that description. One notable exception is that He certainly did chase out the money changers. Moreover, it was not an act of temper, as often portrayed, but a pre-meditated act ("so he made a whip out of cords" John 2:15).

At the same time, Jesus was never married and so we have to take the apostles' word on what Christ means for romantic relationships to be.

"Husbands love your wives, just as Christ loved the church and gave himself up for her..." Sacrifice of pride for the service of your wife is something that Christ's example leads us to do. "He feeds and cares" for his wife. (Eph. 5)

"Husbands, in the same way be considerate as you live with your wives, and treat them with respect as the weaker partner and as heirs with you of the gracious gift of life, so that nothing will hinder your prayers." (1 Peter 3:7)

Because we are lords in our households does not mean we "lord" it over our wives. Maybe this is not what you mean by "dominate", but it is what it sounds like.

Furthermore, Philippians 2 tells us that while Christ had the right to demand respect, He instead humbled himself and was obedient to God, and it is that act that brings Him greatest respect--not demanding it, but demonstrating that He deserves it.

Todd White said...

Heads up...

Silvia said...


Anonymous said...

This is a classic. A brilliant post. I wanted to reference it in my comments in MRA forums. But I didn't find it. Now finally I have found it.

Too bad it is not included in The-Spearhead or something like that.

As a Christian and MRA, thank you.

Jennifer said...

Oh yes, and Eve didn't "lead" Adam anywhere; that's a typical asinine joke of twisted traditionalism.

Jennifer said...

In all fairness, one of the readers here said that you were joking in this post. While I'm sure you were serious about men being men and all, I hope you were exaggerating about Jesus' exact treatment/views of those women.

Jennifer said...

Hi again. I visited Todd White, and he said he's certain you were joking here. That's what I imagined, considering how you hate game, but since I knew the last half of your post was serious and you never made any disclaimers otherwise (including to Josh), it seemed to prove the reverse. (If I'm wrong in my conclusion now, please let me know). Anyway, just wanted to apologize for the misunderstanding and tell you, in all sincerity, that your words on game are an answer to my prayers; you and Todd have provided a balm to my heart after hearing so much disgusting tripe and disrespect thrown at women, and simplification of the male soul to boot. Thank you, and please keep this up.

Justin said...

Thank you, Jennifer. Your comment does mean a lot to me. I am sorry you took the post wrongly in the first place. Looking back on, the context of this post was a blog-wide pissing contest of sorts, wherein everyone was boasting of some earlier and earlier exression of "Game". Combined with the ever-present categorization of Christianity as a sissies religion, with every Gamer constantly ragging on "socon" (social conservatives) as being the major enemy of modern men.

Obviously, my writing was somewhat satirical, in the sense that I clearly over-played the image of Jesus as a disrespectful Gamer. But, equally obviously, I highlighted a manly side of Jesus that is often overlooked by the Christian establishment.

I'm sorry that you mistook it upon first reading, that it pushed your buttons related to disrespect of women, I do hope you understand that was not my intention. Please just keep in mind that my primary intended audience for this post was the MenSpere, and its intended effect was both apologetic (defending Christianty) and polemic (attacking Game), in the context of that audience. Again, thank you for understanding, and I am truly glad that you appreciate my overall body of work.

Jennifer said...

Justin, thank you so much for your kind reply! :) I really appreciate it, and am definitely grateful for your overall body of work; my apologies for the misunderstanding and my angered words). You express many things I've tried to, and you and Todd succeeded where I couldn't, in speaking steadily and tirelessly on the topic; I myself have found the ugly images of both men and women that gamers paint to be overwhelming and, after a time, emotionally exhausting. Our culture is a mess, and there are both men and women playing the blame game with the other sex while often simultaneously exploiting them. Sometimes it's rare to find people, even Christians, that are neither feminized nor bitter towards women. I'm so gratified to see wise Christian men take a stance on this. Thanks again and God bless!