Archive for category Christianity
I made some heartening discoveries today. Apparently I’m not the only Christian man who thinks that game is necessary for a healthy relationship. I never realized (mostly because I hadn’t spent more time on his site than it takes to read a single article) that Dalrock was writing about game from a Christian perspective. He has gone into my bookmarks, because, after all, it is 3:45 here, and I still have work that needs to be done. (Yes, I know, that means I shouldn’t be writing a blog post. Hush, you.) Anyway, going through his blogroll (where I was surprised to see In Mala Fide, while excluding Heartiste), I encountered a blog entitled Haley’s Halo. It is fascinating to see the contemporary Christian sexual market examined from the other side, which is exactly what HH is doing. Her blog is also in my ‘to-read’ list. I shall probably have more to say when I’ve actually finished reading it.
The question of God, religion, et. al. is ultimately a philosophical one. And, no, it is not some absurd philosophical question like “What came first, the chicken or the egg?” or even more interesting ones like “What is the nature of evil?” It is, ultimately, the only philosophical question that actually matters (although, depending on your answer, it might not matter). The question is this; am I prepared to base personal beliefs on subjective input, or only on things which are completely objective. It is REALLY not hard to justify either position, sadly. Those of us who have had religious experiences (even if the experience is something as ephemeral as just saying ‘I feel like it is true’) and accept them, feel the need to integrate them. As much as it galls me to admit this, though, without a religious experience of some sort (hereinafter shortened to theophany. Because I can. Look it up.) it is impossible to justify a belief in God. Materialists/naturalists refute these experiences as being irreproducible. Well, yeah, but so is a live musical performance. Your point? My belief in God (and for that matter, in Christ) in no way impinges on your rights to deny them. I am, of course, leaving aside those wingnuts who insist on teaching unverifiable pseudoscience, or legislating things that have no business being legislated, but those are rants for another day.
Claiming the mantles of both Christian and rationalist probably disturbs rationalists more than it does Christians. I’m okay with that. Rationalists believe that all questions can eventually be answered (although it will probably open up new questions in the process, of course), and that is, fundamentally, the core of their rejection of religion. I believe that the universe will always have some mysteries; specifically origins. That alone is sufficient evidence (leaving aside my personal experiences) in my mind to require a God. Again, leaving aside my own experience, Pascal’s wager and the nature of most world religions implies that there are very few religions that are appropriate to choose. The overwhelming majority of belief systems do not require salvation in itself, merely good behaviors. Only a very few demand some form of redemption for man. At that point, if there is some immortal part to me (and I don’t know that there is, necessarily, much as I like the idea) then it makes sense for me to choose a way that leads to maximal utility.
So, we start with three beliefs, and I think you will see how starting down this path leads to Christianity.
A) The universe has unanswerable questions.
B) God, by His nature, is unknowable in any complete sense. (A topic for a later, MUCH longer post)
C) Only a few religions demand some sort of penance for being human.
There are more aspects to my specific choice for Christ, of course, some of which are much more telling (for me) than these, but they are for another time.
Twice before I have attempted to start a blog. Twice I have failed. Maybe three times is the charm. To start with, I give you a few (mostly) disconnected thoughts. I make no apologies for the eclectic nature of what I have to talk about; I am an eclectic person.
I read a lot of PUA blogs. Well, okay, mostly Heartiste (formerly Roissy; a name I rather think I prefer) and Rational Male, but I skim a lot of others. One theme that keeps coming up is the concept of Oneitis. I agree with them that it is bad, but only because of its manifestation. I think most PUAs would agree with me that it isn’t necessarily a bad thing to be in exclusive relationships, but that the attitudes that go with pursuing exclusive relationships are the dangerous part. When a man decides to pursue a woman to the exclusion of all others, he almost always immediately starts giving off a desperate vibe. That is bad. One very dear friend of mine, shortly after meeting the woman who would later become his wife, told me that the secret to meeting a great woman is giving up on meeting women. He’s probably right, because the point of inner game (or even outer game, although outer game is more concerned with how you seem) is to stop caring whether or not any specific woman finds you attractive. Ergo, you become attractive. Of course, the converse is that you cannot come off as desperate, which is the flip side of the same coin.
Continuing along the same lines (don’t worry, I have no intention of turning this into a game blog. It is just what is on my mind right now), about ten years ago I was sitting with a group of women and a couple of guys when one of the guys started pontificating (even truth can be pompous, and his was) about how women don’t know what they want. I certainly believe that his choice of venue was… erroneous, but he was speaking truly. At the time, I was obsessed with one of the girls in the room and when she and her friends jumped to object, I jumped with them. However, I never considered the implications of what he said, versus what I believed and accepted. I believed that women would genuinely tell men what they wanted out of a relationship (and to be fair, some do, but almost never up front), and that being the guy your mother wanted your sister to marry was the secret to finding a relationship. However, there was one huge flaw in my thinking, that didn’t occur to me until much later. If there are two competing models presented – say, model A and model B – of a person’s behavior, and model A calls for that person to act in a certain way, while denying that they act that way, whereas model B calls for a person to act a way that they don’t actually act, but claim that they do, it should not be a hard choice for a thinking person to choose between the models. This is as much to say, who do you trust when it comes to predicting the behavior of women in response to your actions – the woman who tells you precisely what to do, then LJBFs you when you act that way, or the man who seems to have his pick of women?
And now for something completely different…
Although I have studied a certain amount of game, and had some success with it (enough that I feel like I can actually say something useful about it), I’ve found Plate Spinning, or even serial monogamy, to be singularly unfulfilling. I want marriage. I want children. I want a family. I am, of course, aware of the risks concomitant upon the first, especially in light of the second, but surely there are women out there (where, I don’t know) who are trustworthy. It is, naturally, only appropriate for a Christian to engage in certain behaviors (not limited to intercourse, I think) within the bounds of marriage, and it is possible that being willing to have sex with a series of different women would make serial monogamy more fulfilling, but I somehow doubt it.