Author Archives: illuvitus

A Small Game

If you are a Christian and attend church regularly, I have a small game you should play every year.

On Mother’s Day, if the church you attend has a service which honors mothers, you win the game.

On Father’s Day, if the church you attend has a service which honors mothers and tells fathers to man up, you win the game.

I’ve won the game every year since I started keeping track in 2010. Pretending to win something keeps me sane.


Feminist Eisegesis

When you encounter a command in Scripture that you don’t like, you have a few options available to you. You can reject it, accept it, or take a more creative approach and impose a new meaning on it.

Here’s an example of the latter approach.

The passage in question is 1st Corinthians 14:34:

“…women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak but must be in submission, as the law says.”

The blogger is upfront about his bias:

It’s embarrassing because it so out of step with our understanding of equality and the value of women in our culture today.

This is a fairly loaded statement, because it implies that if anyone were to take Paul seriously and not try to read his meaning in a way that comports with our post-feminist society, that person doesn’t “value women” or “understand equality”.

He suggests that this statement, if interpreted literally, contradicts Paul’s theology generally, in particular his statement in Galatians that “… there is no longer… male or female”. This passage is often (ab)used to put a rubber stamp on all of the modern, often intentionally anti-Christian movements to attempt to remove distinctions between men and women. I suggest that it’s an abuse of the text, because Paul isn’t making metaphysical statements; he is saying that the Gospel is for everyone. This is obvious from the context, but if you strip that out, you can make the passage in Galatians into a Marxist toolkit.

If you decide to read the entire post, you’ll note that the author takes into account the history of Corinth, the linguistic circumstances of the day, and pretty much every piece of context that fits his case.

What he neglects, however, is the context of the passage itself as well as any parallel passages. Here’s the passage in full:

As in all the congregations of the saints, women are to be silent in the churches. They are not permitted to speak, but must be in submission, as the law says. If they wish to inquire about something, they are to ask their own husbands at home; for it is dishonorable for a woman to speak in the church.

Did God’s word originate with you? Or are you the only ones it has reached? If anyone considers himself a prophet or spiritual person, let him acknowledge that what I am writing you is the Lord’s command. But if anyone ignores this, he himself will be ignored.

Since these are Christians and Paul is an Apostle who has no problem taking badly behaving Christians to task, Paul could have said “Some women in your churches are misbehaving and talking out of turn, and talking out of turn isn’t good for order, so I do not permit them to do that.” Paul could not have been more clearly not saying that, though.

But it doesn’t stop there. We have a related passage in 1st Timothy 2:

A woman must learn in quietness and full submissiveness. I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For Adam was formed first, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman who was deceived and fell into transgression. Women, however, will be saved through childbearing, if they continue in faith, love, and holiness, with self-control.

I strongly suspect that the reason this passage was skipped was because Paul explains his rationale here, and it doesn’t fit the blogger’s interpretation. Paul doesn’t say “I do not permit a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man; she is to remain quiet. For your churches have women who are misbehaving”. If that’s what he meant, he easily could have said it. Instead he traces his reasoning to the very nature of man and woman. Eve was deceived and Adam was not – and this is a huge deal.

Finally, there’s this gem summarizes his thoughts, and I think it explains what’s really going on. A feminist, thoroughly imbibing on Marxist toxin, doesn’t like the passages in Scripture that contradict feminism and all his pet liberal causes, so he imposes new meaning on them. At least in this instance, his motive is clearly stated:

Unfortunately, since many of the dominant voices throughout church history, have been straight**, white*, males, this has meant that the church has been slow in pushing past the flimsy exegesis, and damaging assumptions of our past.

Instead of being the sexist, misogynist many have taken him for, I believe that Paul brings the challenge of feminism to the Church.

It’s worth remembering that if this is true, 2000 years of Christians were women-hating, racist, homophobic, sexists  who couldn’t understand Paul. It took secular anti-Christian feminist and sexual revolutions to get the church to finally see the light. Paul was, in his mind, obviously a far-left radical.

What I’d prefer, though, is for those who think all of these things to stop reinterpreting Paul and just say what they really think: Paul was wrong. Honesty is much better than manipulation.

* Most of the early church fathers were not European.

** I bet this blogger would also support the notion that the Bible has nothing meaningful to say about sexual ethics (except those cherry-picked portions that support feminism and egalitarianism). Who knew obedience to Christ’s commands about sexual activity was an unfortunate thing?

Tech Wars

On display today is a series of lies and deceptive statements coming from Ars Technica to maintain credibility with the (leftist) mob. Like many pop culture “magazines”, the content is a kind of distillation of trash and gossip. The end of this article is to describe why one Markus “Notch” Perssons (the creator of Minecraft) was unwelcome at party for the 10th anniversary of his game. Apparently, his comments on Twitter “do not reflect [the opinions] of Microsoft”. Or Ars Technica.

Even before the article begins, the author’s byline says everything we need to know: “Transphobia, homophobia, and racism aren’t Microsoft’s core values”. However, not a single example is provided of any of those things.

So what are Perssons’ comments? We will get to those. What’s fascinating is the author of the article, his legionary horde of commentators, and their response.

For example, Perssons apparently made the comment that people face jail time for “using the wrong pronouns”. The author of the article calls this “false”. Politifact stumbles around like a drunkard trying to explain things away, but even this far-left “fact” checking website admits that there are fines for the California version of this bill. However, Canada has a much more open-ended version of this type of legislation, which can certainly lead to jail time. And then in the UK, someone is facing jail time now for this very thing. The author is on the “right side” of this issue, and so can make bald-faced lies.

Perssons also used a slogan sometimes used by the alt-right: “It’s OK to be white”. If you read the comments, you’ll find a contradiction brewing, but no one seems to notice it. The same people who condemn the statement have a lot of bad things to say about white people, including several oikophobes who say that they are doing well because of their skin color. The comment section is full of nasty things to say about white people, who have the “white privilege” of being subject to the comments and being disbarred from responding, lest they be accused of racism.

The author of the article goes further however, and simply assumes that there are “systemic racial biases and imbalance within Western society” by saying that this isn’t something Perssons merely disagrees with, but that he fails to recognize it. The author is again on the “right side” of the issue. He can make these assumptions because the mob already makes the same ones.

Perssons seems to go too far with this tweet: “If you’re against the concept of a #HeterosexualPrideDay, you’re a complete f****** c*** and deserve to be shot.”, but a glimpse at Twitter of some of the horrific things said by the LGBT+++ crowd against Christians is far, far worse, including real death threats. Such context would not help the case that Perssons is simply an insane person who hates people, so it is not provided.

So where was the “transphobia”, “homophobia”, and “racism” that the author promised was so obvious that Microsoft couldn’t risk being associated with Perssons? The comment section has defenders of the terms claiming that “phobia” doesn’t mean or imply fear, but instead “hate” or “discrimination”. These are open-ended terms that allows anyone who even merely disagrees with the forced celebration of same-sex acts or transgenderism to be called “transphobic” or “homophobic”. These are not useful words to have in a reasoned discussion; they are insults that bullies use to shame people.

There’s a cold war in technology today between those who want the freedom to say what they believe and those who, as part of the fascistic mob, want to destroy the lives and careers of those who disagree with them using lies and deception if necessary. Notch seems to belong to the former, which is a surprise to me. Peter Bright, the latter.

Sacred Sin

An old acquaintance of mine recently claimed to have reconciled his Christianity and his newly admitted same-sex attraction. He provided a lengthy explanation which followed this pattern (written from his perspective):

  1. Before I was openly gay, I had shame and feared rejection. Now that I’m openly gay, I feel great.
  2. I’ve been encouraged by lots of people, but there are also lots of judgmental, hateful bigots and I hate any law that would prevent me from openly working in a Christian institution. Damn those laws.
  3. I think our country is moving in the right direction on sexual ethics.
  4. Make sure you fully support anyone who identifies as LGBT++, lest they commit suicide.

The first thing that struck me is how this reasoning is consistent with the most radical anti-Christian sexual revolution rhetoric you can find: same-sex attraction is totally fine, people who disagree are judgmental bigots, religious liberty is a code-name for bigotry, we are Progressing, full acceptance of radical gender ideology is the next mile marker, LGBT++ people commit suicide because of evil hateful bigots being mean.

This is not the type of thing I would ever expect a Christian to write. In fact, were it not for a comment that he had somehow reconciled his “faith” and his “sexuality”, I would have figured he had abandoned Christianity altogether. Instead I conclude he has abandoned the content of Christianity while retaining the form.

My point for this post is not a comprehensive take-down of his poor moral reasoning, his unsubstantiated claims, or his vitriol toward Christians whose ethics are biblically informed and haven’t changed with the culture.

Instead, I want to illustrate how bizarre same-sex acts are as a category of sin. Imagine that, instead of same-sex attraction, this person was constantly tempted to rape women. Follow the reasoning again:

  1. Before I was open about my desire to rape women, I had shame and feared rejection. Now that I’m open about my desire to rape women, I feel great.
  2. I’ve been encouraged by lots of people, but there are also lots of judgmental, hateful bigots and I hate any law that would prevent me from openly working a place where women felt unsafe by my presence. Damn those laws.
  3. I think our country is moving in the right direction on removing the stigma from rape desires.
  4. Make sure you fully support anyone who wants to rape women, lest they commit suicide.

This is a totally unacceptable series of claims, and yet same-sex desires are elevated in such a way that they somehow get accepted, even among Christians.

I think there is a history here of Christians leaving behind the words of Jesus and Paul on marriage which has made any of this possible, but it is still striking. Same-sex attraction and same-sex acts are now sacred.

The Immoral Gag Reflex

The harbingers of the sexual revolution within conservative circles often point to disgust and gag reflexes as symptoms of bigotry.  One of the more insidious efforts of the sexual revolution was to shame people for their natural gag reflex.

The term “homophobia” is a bizarre neologism. No one “fears” people who are attracted to the same sex, so its meaning is left intentionally ambiguous. For most on the Left, it means any disagreement with same-sex acts at all. But on the Right, which has become simply a loyal opposition to the Left (moving Left with them) instead of standing on something concrete, “homophobia” has morphed into a term to guilt people who are disgusted by the acts performed in same-sex relationships.

But one need not fear (no one does) nor hate (few do) same-sex attracted people to be repulsed by the acts. Little do conservatives know that by giving in on this term, they have made the baseline for sexual attraction to be bisexual. If you are shamed for having disgust at same-sex acts, they become acts that you know are forbidden by divine command, but for no other reason. If the only reason to avoid an act is because you are commanded not to, you are far more likely to engage in it or to lessen your hatred for it.

We see the same thing in other places. If you command someone to eat better (maybe a doctor trying to help a patient), they will likely fail at dieting. But a vegan who is convinced this meat is to be reviled is probably going to stick very strictly to a diet.

Shame (when we do something wrong) and disgust (when we see someone else doing something wrong) are God-given.

But exclusively on “consensual” sexual issues, we are told that disgust is oppressive, mean, and “phobic”. We are told no such things when we see a murder, a theft, a scam, or a rape. With those things, we are encouraged to be disgusted.

This doesn’t even get to the far-reaching damage that the liberalizing perspective causes. There’s a vast distance between a man who finds same-sex acts repulsive and one who happily engages in them. If that repulsive reaction is beaten out of the man through coercion, that distance is reduced to nothing at all. By being forced to accept same-sex acts as perhaps immoral but not intrinsically disgusting, the man who has so far avoided the acts is now has lost his strongest defense. It is our revulsion of evil that protects us when our wills and our hearts, evil and weak as they are, fail.

Contrary to popular opinion, Christian charity requires disgust and revulsion at evil acts of all kinds. Only by passionately hating evil can we love people who engage in it. Anything less than a passionate revulsion of evil will make us tolerate sin, which is the opposite of charity.

Discrimination In the Fight Against Discrimination

The BBC has published an article to apologize for hiring people based on their skill instead of their sexual organs.

We’re in excellent company. Both inside and outside of the BBC, more journalists and editors are realising that, while the media didn’t invent gender bias, it has a key role in perpetuating it. The BBC’s director-general has announced a target of 50:50 across all of the BBC’s programmes and sites by April 2019. The challenge is also being piloted by media organisations in the US and Europe.

The article is like an encyclopedia for feminists. Here’s a gem from The Atlantic they quote:

“Women in science face a gauntlet of well-documented systemic biases. They face long-standing stereotypes about their intelligence and scientific acumen. They need better college grades to get the same prestige as equally skilled men, they receive less mentoring, they’re rated as less competent and less employable than equally qualified men, they’re less likely to be invited to give talks, they earn less than their male peers, and they have to deal with significant levels of harassment and abuse.”

As I wrote yesterday, the feminist angle is to ignore any of the interesting causes that might lie behind the effects they are seeing, and to instead assign a cause, namely sexism.

The author is careful to avoid mentioning the female-only scholarships, the female-oriented primary schools, the female advocacy articles (like this one) for cushy jobs. No women are demanding equal representation to work on oil rigs or fishing ships.

The only way the BBC can have equal representation of both sexes is to systematically hire on the basis of sex. They have quotas. If ten qualified people apply to the BBC for open positions, the BBC will first look at the sex of each of those people to determine whether they can be hired. This isn’t sexism or discrimination, apparently, because only men can be sexist, and only women can be targets. This is the very definition of an unequal measure and of unjust discrimination, but that’s a point that’s been safely ignored for decades.

We started to make gender-even sourcing a requirement in all our commissions, something requested of our writers along with a deadline and word count.

The BBC is admitting that the quality of a source is less important than the sex of the source. This is beyond virtue signalling and into clear social Marxism.

The try to counter this with nonsense:

To make it clear, we will continue to interview, and reference, the most qualified people. That hasn’t changed, and nothing about seeking out female voices undermines that.

“Yes, my job is to serve readers by finding the best sources for my stories, but why assume that the best source isn’t a woman?”

Notice the false framing. No one suggested that we ought to presume men are the best sources. We just don’t want to presume that the best sources are equally men and women. There’s no warrant for that whatsoever. The BBC knows this, but can’t admit it, so they hide behind a defense against an obviously flimsy argument that no one has made.

What’s astonishing here, even for me, is how little self-awareness the author of this article or any of the quoted sources are. For all the moaning about unequal percentages of the sexes in every single metric that can be conceived, the authors refuse to acknowledge that men and women might be different. They hold two* contradictory notions at the same time:

  1. Men and women are exactly the same.
  2. Men are oppressors and women are oppressed.

They are forced to affirm (1) out of reverence to their false god, Egalité. They are forced to affirm (2) out of their commitment to the cult of Feminism.

They’d rather hold a contradiction at the center of their worldview than admit that the differences we see between men and women on various metrics is a result of innate differences between men and women and not from some evil spirit of sexism that haunts and guides the world.

That the BBC is so bold as to publish an article like this reveals just how far into the cesspool we’ve fallen.

*Granted, there are other contradictions held as well (e.g. women are better than men, women are naturally good and men are naturally evil, etc).

How Blame Fails

A bookstore in London noticed something in the sales lists of the top 500 rare books sold at auction in 2018: no woman broke the top 20. In fact, they began to average 1 woman every 100 books. They call this grim:


Any set of data can be analyzed in limitless arbitrary ways. This same data, for example, would probably show that men of a certain age appear in the top 500 than men of other ages. Books probably come from some centuries more than others.

A more thoughtful person would probably not notice or care about any patterns. After all, this is a list of rare books sold at auction. The types of books that become rare and the demand for those books are contingent on innumerable causes. Maybe the third-place book made it so high because the author recently had a resurgence from a movie based on his work. Maybe copies of dozens of the books were recently discovered in an old library, allowing them to be sold. Maybe books written by women are produced in larger quantities than books written by men such that they never become rare. It’s all speculation. Professional investigations could be performed on each book and the buyers (if the data is available) and it might take years. It doesn’t seem to be a valuable use of time.

But what is a valuable use of time for the Perpetually Outraged is to quickly look down the official list of victims (from least to most victimized) to see if any are represented less than half the time. At the top of the list is women in general, followed by select racial minorities, etc. Lucky for this bookstore, they didn’t have to go very far down the list.

The bookstore doesn’t spend any time considering what the possible causes are for the results. Obviously, as men wrote more books in the past than women and older books are typically the ones that become rare, the obvious explanation is that we see exactly what we expect. There’s no systematic bias against women by people who collect rare books or people who auction them. There’s just fewer rare books written by women. Reflection is anathema to the Perpetually Outraged, so we fall instead to the default position of blame.

Feminists on Twitter soon took the data to say things it did not say:


Aside from some severe misunderstandings of scarcity (scarce books cannot be auctioned more frequently than less scarce books), the Twits also presume that sexism is to blame for the apparent discrepancy. Why do women have fewer rare books? Sexism. There can be no other explanation. Even though it would take a great deal of effort to determine if someone is a sexist (hating someone for their sex requires incredible knowledge of one’s inner thought life), the Twits have no problem applying the term to a bunch of strangers. Strangers whose names are not even known.

Where reflective, thoughtful people might, in extreme circumstances, wonder how best to improve their own writing, the feminist Twits blame sexism. It’s much easier that way.

The article concludes by reminding us both that female authors are not taught as frequently in the UK as male authors* (for likely similar reasons as above), and also that entire bookstores dedicated to feminism exist without issue. This isn’t something the author of the article should be so excited to mention. If women are read less than men even without dedicated bookstores selling only books written by men all while women do have such bookstores, feminists have bigger problems to worry about. The conclusion isn’t that men are sexist, but something much simpler: people in general don’t like female authors and blame keeps the harshness of reality out of sight for feminists.

*Maybe the accidentally anti-feminist Transgender movement will helpsolve” this problem by having men produce books while claiming to be women. That way men still write all the books, but ideologically pure liberals will stop noticing.