What's wrong with this logic?

My former pastor told me Kris do you know the definition of insanity? He replied, doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. Kris, take a look outside. Inside our church has got to be better than what's out there. Kris, if you want to find a godly wife, start by looking in the right places. Are you living in a way that's aligned with God's will? Just remember, how you get them is how you keep them. Kris, perhaps the bad luck you're experiencing to due to the fact that you're not living in a way that's pleasing to God. Kris, maybe you have only been fulfilling your own desires instead of what God desires. 

The logic in the passage involves several potential issues:

1. **False Analogy**: The definition of insanity as doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results is often misattributed and not a rigorous psychological definition. Applying this concept to the search for a godly wife may not be an appropriate parallel, as human relationships are more complex and affected by numerous variables.

2. **Presumption**: The statement presumes that looking for a wife inside the church is objectively better or more successful than anywhere else without substantiating why this would be the case universally. It assumes that locations outside the church are universally inadequate for finding a partner without examining exceptions.

3. **Post Hoc Reasoning**: Suggesting that Kris's 'bad luck' is due to not living according to God's will is a post hoc fallacy. It assumes a cause-and-effect relationship between one's lifestyle and their experiences of luck without concrete evidence directly linking the two.

4. **Moralistic Fallacy**: The argument implies that what is morally good (living in a godly way) will inevitably lead to positive outcomes (finding a godly wife or having better luck), which is not necessarily true. Real-world outcomes don't always align with moral behaviors.

5. **Confirmation Bias**: The advice suggests that Kris's life experiences are directly tied to his religious adherence, potentially ignoring other factors that contribute to life outcomes, such as socio-economic conditions, personal preferences, and individual personalities.

6. **Lack of Evidence**: The passage relies heavily on assumptions and lacks empirical evidence to support its claims about the relationship between behavior and outcomes.

Overall, the logic presented is based more on anecdotal implications and faith-based assumptions rather than empirical reasoning or evidence.