339 thoughts on “5 Lessons From Church That Will Wreck Your Life”

1. And that is the difference between what Church teaches you and what the Bible says.

   1. Except it was the Church that decided what will be in the biblical canon.

      1. This may be of interest to you then:
         http://www.tektonics.org/lp/ntcanon.php

      2. But it was the authors and churches that preserved the original letters that were canonized.

2. Leaving evangelical/fundamentalist Christianity might have been the best decision of my life. I still struggle with beta tendencies, but evangelical/fundy Christianity made me and other men extreme betas. Seriously, this religion turns dudes into girly men. If I were still a fundy Christian, I’d be a 36 year old virgin. Not that there’s anything wrong with being a virgin, if that is what one desires for himself, but I was facing the real possibility of dying without ever getting laid. Thankfully, that is not a concern anymore.

   1. Funny that fundamentalism was an attempt to escape effeminacy of victorian times but they failed and got assimilated into the Borg.

3. Emo Phillips once quipped “when I was a kid I used to pray every night for a new bicycle. Then I realised that the Lord doesn’t work that way so I stole one and asked Him to forgive me.”
   Good advice, but it doesn’t work for pussy.

   1. Well, you know what they say.
      Christians live in humility ask God to help them.
      Pagans try to live their lives so their gods and ancestors are proud of them.

      1. sounds like hard work. Praying’s easier

      2. Or pagans sacrifice children on the altars of Moloch, Baal, Tammuz and others to make them “proud”.
         The druids required that you sacrifice a member of your family every year to appease their gods. Betraying your family for the pride of some demented god?
         Good job!

         1. Moloch, Baal and Tammuz are gods I’m not at all familiar with. Druids? We know literally nothing about Druids from primary sources. The main source we have on Druids is from Julius Caesar himself, the man who spent half his life eradicating them.

         2. That’s some super-duper propaganda you’ve got there. There’s no such thing. As far as killing for religion, nobody trumps the christians in Europe. That’s why you never learned about Pagan or Heathen kings “converting people on penalty of death.
            That’s also why you never heard of any “Pagan Iquisition”.
            “You’re free, do as you please, its all about love….but do as we say or we’ll kill you.” Sound familiar?

         3. What exactly in my post are you accusing of propaganda?
            Apparently a simple google search on ancient child sacrifice and the names of the pagan gods which I listed is completely lost on your superior intellect.
            Congratulations sir. The thousands upon thousands which you spent on your education has most assuredly paid off!

         4. Apparently you don’t know very much at all before you open that big mouth.
            There are several orders of druids operating today that I am sure has a much wider array of knowledge concerning the subject than your ignorant dismissal of the history of druids.
            For example the Ancient Archaeological Order of Druids founded in 1874 by Robert Wentworth Little which later became the Ancient Order of Druids in America probably has a little more info on the subject than your
            “well derrr we dont kno dat much bout da druidz.”
            The correct thing to say would have been YOU don’t know much about the druids just like you admittedly don’t know about other pagan gods but you do seem to know what makes them proud however.
            Oh the irony.

         5. …dont make it about me, sweet tits. Paganism was never about “convert or die” religious expansionism, which cannot be said for any of the abrahamic religions. Cjristianity wad all i grew up on so it hurts like fuck at first, but take a good look, your religion is a patchwork of hand-me-down testaments from desert dwelling sheep-herders. The beliefs of original Europeans were crushed by a “religion of peace”….sound familiar at all?

         6. “There are several orders of druids operating today that I am sure has a much wider array of knowledge concerning the subject than your ignorant dismissal of the history of druids.”
            They can’t have any more knowledge than I do, unless they are time travelers. You must understand that the last Druids became irrelevant and died out in the Early Middle Ages. They left zero, that is to say absolutely no, written material about their beliefs or practices. We only have three things to even approach what they must have believed in: (1) archaeology, which is incomplete, (2) ethnographic comparison, which is far from flawless, and (3) secondary and tertiary written sources, primarily by those who hated them (especially the Commentarii de Bello Gallico) or wrote centuries after they had disappeared (for example, the Celtic Christian lore about Saint Patrick lighting a fire for God to rival the celebratory fire of the Druids, thereby converting Ireland to Christianity).
            Now, you have stated the problem with these ‘Druid revival’ types yourself: their movement only came to exist in the nineteenth century, around fifteen hundred years after the last Druids were converted or killed off. They claim to know things, and claim to believe things that the ancient Druids believed, but according to all mainstream historians and archaeologists theirs is a faith of conjecture. Basically, they’ve made it all up. You know, many of these ‘Druids’ claim Stonehenge as their cathedral. Which, as most people certainly do not know, is funny because Stonehenge is actually a pre-Celtic, Neolithic monument which would have been abandoned for centuries by the time the first actual Druids came about.

         7. Neo Druidism like Witchcraft is speculative, relatively modern and generally has no bearing to anything that could have either.

         8. Not sure if you’re a) trolling, or b) really that stupid.
            I hope for your sake it’s A.

         9. You sound like an Indo-European. In which case I don’t blame you for wanting to reconnect with your cultural/ethnic heritage etc. You said you grew up on christianity which I’m not sure your anecdotal experience but I can tell you 100% that you are completely wrong about christianity being a religion of forced conversion.
            This is a testament to the rigorous indoctrination all leftist educational institutions have planted in the minds of its disciples. All it would take by you is a simple read of the new testament to see that on christian doctrine alone anyone who claims to follow christ yet converts through force is not someone who is practicing the religion.
            This is like someone judging the entire sport of football by the team who plays it the worst or doesn’t even play it correctly.
            And by the way christianity in medieval europe was probably the largest force in uniting Indo-Europeans together under a common banner.
            Also if you hate the religion…so what….I really don’t give two shits but if you have any kind of objective ability to think for yourself you must understand that the bible as a literary work is the most copied work in our entire written history. You can write it off personally all you want but hundreds of thousands if not millions have suffered untold tortures, trials and tribulations just to possess a few words of those books.
            Also regarding paganism…it is common knowledge that many pagan belief systems the world over condoned human sacrifice to appease their gods so don’t even try to argue that issue as it is of the most elementary ability to find it’s historical accuracy.
            Glad you brought up the “Inquisition” where in total about 20,000 people were killed. Compare that number to atheist/communist regimes just in our last century where millions upon millions of innocent people were slaughtered because of an ideology. Sorry pal but in terms of sheer numbers in killing no one can beat the atheists.
            Even the french revolution whose supposed virtues were all about Liberty, Fraternity and Equality was just an excuse to for a deranged heathen people to slaughter innocent lives and go on murderous rampages in their own country.
            Now on the person of Jesus Christ…for a man who was born of low position, a simple carpenter who was condemned a criminal and crucified he sure does seem to garner a vast amount of hatred from alot of people.
            Kind odd really for man who preached love thy neighbor as yourself, a man who healed others and taught them to be righteous. You sure do hate that man don’t you?

         10. Ok so there is not much tangible evidence specifically on the druids themselves and their practices that is understood.
             My point which you are trying to obfuscate is that pagan belief systems the world over from our most ancient historical findings prove beyond any shadow of a doubt that virtually all had similar characteristics in that:
             They worshipped the sun(male deities), the moon (female deities) the stars, trees, fire, and every other element imaginable.
             Their gods often required sacrifice from animals to even humans and children to be appeased and to grant a favorable harvest for the new season.
             They also indulged in countless sexual perversions in their equinox celebrations which also by the way are celebrated by nearly every pagan civilization the world over. Most notably the Romans were the most debauched in this aspect with their bachanalia and saturnalia celebrations…every manner of sexual perversity was not only allowed but encouraged.
             Now for a people as lecherous as the romans it should strike anyone as highly odd that even julius caesar was revolted at the sacrifices the druids called for from the family members of their own people. At first they used criminals and then captured peoples from battle and then the innocent. All to appease some disgusting pagan abomination in the sky because these high priests(druids) told their acolytes this would bring a more fertile harvest.
             But Im sorry thats all bullshit because caesar conquered them so of course he’s lying right?
             The norse believed the evergreen was magical because it did not die and stayed green during the winter time. That is why they brought it into their homes for the equinox celebration and adorned it with silver and gold and worshipped some stupid fucking tree like its some magical god. Oh and they were no strangers to human sacrifice either!
             Ironically enough retard christians do this same exact practice every Dec 25th when they celebrate the christ-mass. They think they are literally eating his flesh which is forbidden by mosaic law and is a pagan vestige. And they also bring the evergreen into their homes and adorn it with silver and gold. They are as much pagan as all the rest of antiquity. The irony being that they think they are not.
             Now leaving all that aside there has been a resurgence of paganism in the last 100 yrs or so in europe and the leaders are seeming to encourage this greatly. Perhaps they will re institute human sacrifices again? I guess we shall see..but if they do I suppose it will be welcomed by all the neo pagans in europe.

         11. “They worshipped the sun(male deities), the moon (female deities) the stars, trees, fire, and every other element imaginable.”
             That really depends on the religion. The northern faiths, such as Baltic and Russian paganism, limited their worship mainly to what was visible and there in nature itself. They especially liked the water and the groves. And even now, there are faiths in places like the Amazon rainforest which don’t follow that pattern at all and simply worship local deities, local natural features (waterfalls, mesas) or simply ancestors.
             “Their gods often required sacrifice from animals to even humans and children to be appeased and to grant a favorable harvest for the new season.”
             I think it’s wrong to think that they were people who went about butchering people for their religion all the time. They weren’t Muslims. Certainly, in some cases – some, far from all – there was human sacrifice. But to think that it was widespread, or often involved children, is rather inaccurate, except when you include the Mesoamerican pantheon.
             “They also indulged in countless sexual perversions in their equinox celebrations which also by the way are celebrated by nearly every pagan civilization the world over.”
             Perhaps you should stop taking 1970s cult films about paganism as sources. The sexual perversions they were supposed to indulge in are all hearsay, stories written down by the people who hated them. Stories you probably shouldn’t take so seriously.
             “Most notably the Romans were the most debauched in this aspect with their bachanalia and saturnalia celebrations…every manner of sexual perversity was not only allowed but encouraged.”
             The idea that the Romans were a bunch of sex-hungry maniacs is entirely wrong. Actually, there are very few examples of any ‘orgies’ involving group sex. The Romans were a people who favored chastity to such an extent that, at one point, they chased a senator out of the senate because he had been seen kissing his lawfully wedded wife in public. The stories you think you know about the Romans being these Freudian sex maniacs were largely invented by early Christians who needed a contrast to make their religion seem wholesome, peaceful and chaste.
             “The norse believed the evergreen was magical because it did not die and stayed green during the winter time. That is why they brought it into their homes for the equinox celebration and adorned it with silver and gold and worshipped some stupid fucking tree like its some magical god.”
             Well, it’s better to worship some stupid fucking tree than it is to worship some stupid fucking man sitting on a cloud doing nothing. At least the tree actually exists, whereas the man sitting on a cloud is just your imagination.
             “Now leaving all that aside there has been a resurgence of paganism in the last 100 yrs or so in europe and the leaders are seeming to encourage this greatly.”
             They’re all idiots, because they’re making the same mistake you keep making. They have an image of paganism which is half 1970s cult films and half early Christian accounts of paganism and they think they know everything about paganism. Hell, the two largest groups of pagan revivalism (Wicca and Asatru) even combine what little we know about the religious beliefs of different pagan groups that were constantly at war with each other because they don’t have enough information available to revive just one. And as for Wicca, it’s nineteenth century mysticism for crazy women and beta orbiters, pure and simple. It has nothing to do with paganism.

         12. “I think it’s wrong to think that they were people who went about butchering people for their religion all the time. They weren’t Muslims. Certainly, in some cases – some, far from all – there was human sacrifice. But to think that it was widespread, or often involved children, is rather inaccurate, except when you include the Mesoamerican pantheon.”
             Wrong. Human sacrifice/animal sacrifice was committed by religions throughout the world as a normal and regular part of their religious practice and not limited to the meso-american region.. Stop trying to spin the truth so it sounds more favorable to your pagan harpies.
             You also contradict yourself by saying “its wrong to think that there were people who went around killing for religion” and then your very next sentence you list a group of people that go around killing for religion. Get your fuckin story straight.
             By the way I suppose if a group of people went around killing for other reasons ranging from the sheer pleasure of it all the way to lack of resources you would equate it as less of a crime wouldnt you?
             The vikings killed for the sheer pleasure of it and the fact that killing innocents, raiding, pillaging meant securing a place of honor for them in valhalla. So please quit trying to pin all religious crimes on those stemming from the god of abraham. Your lack of objectivity and liberal bias is readily apparent.
             “Well, it’s better to worship some stupid fucking tree than it is to worship some stupid fucking man sitting on a cloud doing nothing. At least the tree actually exists, whereas the man sitting on a cloud is just your imagination.”
             LoL you contradict yourself. They didn’t worship only the trees or the sun which you can see but also some imaginary dude sitting in the clouds or somewhere like Odin, Loki, etc
             You are an obvious pro-pagan trying to frame the truth in a way that sounds favorable to your worldview.

         13. “Wrong. Human sacrifice/animal sacrifice was committed by religions throughout the world as a normal and regular part of their religious practice and not limited to the meso-american region.”
             I have never come across any credible archaeological study which has suggested that human sacrifice occurred in significant numbers in most pre-monotheistic societies in Europe.
             “Stop trying to spin the truth so it sounds more favorable to your pagan harpies.”
             Believe me, I don’t like those any more than you do. I try to stay away from social justice warriors, and these neo-pagan movements are absolutely full of them. But any ‘pagan harpies’ that I’m talking about here have been extinct, in my part of the world, for more than thirteen hundred years. There are none alive, and there are none who know what exactly those people did. No credible archaeological record exists that supports the idea that there was widespread human sacrifice here.
             “The vikings killed for the sheer pleasure of it and the fact that killing innocents, raiding, pillaging meant securing a place of honor for them in valhalla.”
             Again, you are touching a stereotype here. What the Vikings did was not much different from what any other seafaring people at the time did. In fact, what the Vikings did was nothing compared to what the Muslims did and would continue to do until the French and British navies put them out of business with excessive military force in the nineteenth century. In any case, the Vikings were primarily traders, settlers and explorers.
             “Your lack of objectivity and liberal bias is readily apparent.”
             I’m willing to bet that I am more conservative than you are, so I don’t really see where you are coming from. No, I’m not a liberal – I just don’t like it when people keep regurgitating the same used-up stereotypical cult film nonsense about complex ancient cultures.
             “They didn’t worship only the trees or the sun which you can see but also some imaginary dude sitting in the clouds or somewhere like Odin, Loki, etc”
             I’m not talking about the Norse variant of Germanic paganism specifically, and even then there is a lot to say against the notion that they were ‘imaginary dudes sitting on clouds’ (as they were part mythological, part natural).
             “You are an obvious pro-pagan trying to frame the truth in a way that sounds favorable to your worldview.”
             I’m not pro-anything. I’m staunchly agnostic, as paradoxical as that sounds. But I’m not afraid to attack those who say something wrong even if they’re saying it about others who are also repeating tired nonsense. Both you and the neo-pagans are absolutely ridiculous in what you do, because you both say things that have absolutely no basis in accepted archaeology about people who generally left no written record of their own, were only described very briefly by others, and have been gone from this world for more than one millennium.

         14. You may very well be 100% correct as far as archaeological evidence goes. I am not an archaeologist so I’m not going to comment any further on that aspect.
             However you made the claim that human sacrifice only existed in the meso-american region and that simply is not true. I also listed some other pagan gods from the cradle of civilization from which you admitted you had absolutely no clue about.
             So really your claims don’t add up. You would have been better off saying “there is no archaeological evidence which supports the claim of human sacrifice in x area” and then I could say ok well here you are being honest.
             You did not say this. You claimed to be unaware of a whole set of pagan gods and their practices and then go on to make claim that you know FOR A FACT that human sacrifice only existed in the meso american region.

         15. “However you made the claim that human sacrifice only existed in the meso-american region”
             No, I did not. I did say that it was the only region that I have any knowledge of where human sacrifice existed on a fairly large scale. In other parts of the world, either there is simply no reason to assume that this was also the case or I simply do not know. That’s your point out of the water.

4. Maybe he should become a Confucian.

   1. Yes it would be nice to see solutions wherever criticisms are given. Especially in the realm of religion, since everyone has their own personal beliefs from which they speak and reason and criticize.

5. Atheists and agnostics, your beliefs give you the same bitterness, anxiety, and arrogance of the average Christian.

   Atheists also tend to adopt liberal political beliefs without thinking about them very deeply, especially those annoyances in the Atheism+ crowd like PZ Myers. A patriarchal atheist can most certainly exist and have defensible, negative beliefs about women because women exist and we can observe them, just like we can observe cats, the weather, the movements of the planets and other phenomena that fall within in the purview of empiricism.
   BTW, whatever happened to the stereotype, formerly promoted by both christian authority figures and some atheists themselves, that atheists enjoy swinging sex lives? That seems to have changed around the time an atheist unsuccessfully tried to pick up Rebecca Watson, the SkepChick, at an atheist convention, and she went online to complain about this beta male’s effrontery. Now atheist men live in fear of even speaking to women at these events.

   1. The organized atheist/skeptic movement is a fraud. Now, let me clarify that I have no problem with any individual being an atheist or skeptic per se. I, myself, am skeptical of supernatural claims. However, organized atheism/skepticism is basically a front for cultural marxism and radical feminism.

   2. I think most atheists (myself certainly) are more libertarian than liberal. But, then again, I’m an Ayn Rand style atheist, so, perhaps that has something to do with it.

      1. Seems to me that most of the liberty lovers in history have been believers of one sort or another.

   3. Liberals become Atheist because they dislike the patriarchal God not by reasoning. Hence the leftists in the Atheist movement.

      1. Absolutely. Their atheism is purely tactical.

6. The decline of Christianity is sad, and while fundamentalists / evangelicals seem to be the only ones seriously in business its pretty sad that that’s the case, because Christian IQ has suffered as a consequence. It looks backwards, and when it isn’t looking backwards it is looking inwards.
   If you look at jewish religion / kabbalah (whatever you think of it) it manages to juggle the metaphysical and the modern. It does that by calling everything metaphorical rather than literal, whenever it needs to. Christianity hasn’t managed to do this, beyond a few trendy anglicans who just want things to modernise, to make things more ‘inclusive’. Literalism / fundamentalism is killing christianity by making it incapable of adapting and ‘engaging’ in a meaningful way. Just follow the jews, and say, jesus walking on water – that was a metaphor that was…or if you like you can add a ‘for all I know’ which would be a perfectly legitimate nod to the pointlessness of claiming absolute knowledge beyond faith.
   No I don’t want to see the church go liberal, I just think it needs to look forward or go all Lots wife or something

   1. Judaism has always had a very literal interpretation of the Bible, hence why they didn’t see Jesus as fulfilling the prophecies. Only in recent years have some Jews moved beyond literalism.

      1. I’ll defer to your understanding of judaism but I was thinking of reform judaism perhaps and perhaps Kaballah, allowing for the latter’s somewhat tangential relationship with the mainstream. In that respect I’ve noticed quite a few spokesman for Kabbalah discuss creation myths etc in metaphorical terms rather than asking for it be understood as literal truth. Christianity doesn’t seem to do this very successfully for some reason, and when it does it comes across as wishy washy liberalism.

   2. Calling everything metaphorical is the death sentence to a faith based upon reason. We Christians are commanded to present a reason for that which we believe, for our faith. Once you take the “metaphorical” pill you are invited to the wide world of relativism and post modernism, the universal acid that eats at all humanity and reasoning.
      I say no, stand up and pursue the truth assuming that it is all very real, no matter the cost. At the end of the road you will have either the truth, or nothing. Taking the “everything is metaphorical” road leads you ONLY to nothing, with no chance of finding truth ever at all.

      1. I understand what you’re saying, and in terms of the degeneration of faith that has accompanied progressive theology I think there’s some evidence that you are right. At least in the sense that non-literal interpretations of scripture etc have tended to correlate with a weakening of faith etc. A lot of that though may be down to liberalism rather than simply interrogating the basis, and the possibly metaphorical nature of truth claims that we have tended in the past to see in very concrete terms.
         For instance I once I once knew someone who tried to conceive of heaven as involving some kind of trap-door opening up in the sky. Most people would think that a bit strange, but what it denotes is simply concrete thinking (I am not suggesting there is a scriptural basis for that or anything). To try to understand heaven in that way may not be wrong as such, it may just be very unsophisticated. And unsophisticated is a real problem if the sophisticates are unpersuaded
         When I speak of metaphorical understanding, I am mainly referring to the critiques of language that have been so challenging to traditional ‘literal’ / concrete takes on our understanding of the world (with regard to scripture but not just with regard to scripture). There have been some recent works that suggest much of our thinking is typically metaphorical i.e. we can’t really escape thinking metaphorically, although perhaps to say that is to speak not just about the nature of our understanding and the nature of language but also perhaps about the evolution of our understanding, namely from more concrete ways of thinking, speaking, etc. to more indirect, metaphorical ways.
         Assuming there is anything in this, this a development, and a challenge that traditional Christianity has not really risen to very well. In a sense it isn’t really about ‘the nature of reality’ or whether Christ did or did not do X, Y, Z but about getting up to speed with the ways in which we can understand and talk intelligibly about the world around us, including truth claims relating to religion. That is a question of language, of sophistication in the use of language, and as such it is also about what works at the level of rhetoric and persuasion when making claims about eternal truths. The eternal doesn’t change, but fortunately or unfortunately we do.

7. Point #1 is SPOT-ON. We have to first learn to be content with who we are and what we have.

8. Point #1 is SPOT-ON. We have to first learn to be content with who we are and what we have.

9. I hate posting this story on every article, but this is a dangerous precedent that needs to get more attention: A major media outlet asking the question: “Should men’s 1st amendment rights be revoked to make women feel comfortable?” Soon, pick up in public spaces may become illegal:
   http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior

   1. Should anyone be surprised that such a heinous opinion column appeared in the cultural marxist New York Times? My beta father still thinks that’s a legit news source. What an idiot he is!

      1. You realize how much readership the NYTimes has? Yes, it’s liberal as fuck and a laughingstock for sane moderates , but the paper is also an opinion maker and culturally significant. Today, it’s a stupid article by a feminist professor saying pick up in public spaces should be illegal. Tomorrow, it’s dumb state/national politicians passing more anti-male laws and eliminating your 1st amendment rights. Wake the fuck up.

         1. Unfortunately, as much as I wish I could argue with you, you are right. Also, it’s not only our 1st amendment rights that the NYTimes wants to take away from us. They also want to go after our second amendment rights. But they can go after my rights all the want. I’ll never give up my right to say what I want to say, and they can take my guns from my cold, dead fingers.

   2. Such a law would have a disproportionate impact on black and hispanic men.
      Therefore, Democrats will never pass it.
      Despite its massive readership, The Jew York Times is less influential than it would seem.
      As an example, an old newspaper insider joke goes like this: The Wall Street Journal is the paper read by those who run the country. The NY Times is the paper read those who THINK they run the country.

10. I hate posting this story on every article, but this is a dangerous precedent that needs to get more attention: A major media outlet asking the question: “Should men’s 1st amendment rights be revoked to make women feel comfortable?” Soon, pick up in public spaces may become illegal:
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior

11. Church teaches men to be servile manginas and white knights. In a functional society, it also teaches women to curb their hypergamous instincts and to devote themselves to a husband and her children instead of slutting it up every weekend at the local bar until she’s dessicated.
    What we have today is men still being expected to turn themselves into provider doormats, but most expectations of women to behave themselves have been removed. So, we end up with a very one-sided deal heavily in favor of women, and enforced by the ever-mestasizing State.
    I see nothing other than collapse that will right this situation for men. The pile of shit is too high, and the self-serving interests of the legal system and the feminist dynasty too embedded and too shrill for things to be corrected with reform.

    1. Church is the ultimate scapegoat for women to absolve themselves or responsibility and to find the perfect sucker. Pastors are well aware of this.

       1. I remember my first year in college. I ended up hooking up with this one girl and we were earlier in the night about this one Christian guy that we knew. She was saying how he was “marriage material”. The dude was a total sucker.
          She’d be the kinda girl who’d pretend to be sexually conservative to some kind of a sucker that’d go to church on a regular basis and wife him up while banging (and being impregnated by) other guys on the side.
          Most of these super-religious Christian guys are total fucking suckers.

          1. Alpha fucks, Beta bucks plays out yet again. It might as well be right up there with the Law of Gravity for constants in the universe.
             But call women out on their bullshit in the United States of Vagina (of the vagina, by the vagina, and for the vagina needs to be our new national credo) and get labeled a seeexist or a misoooogynist, and be outcast from all but the most menial jobs. Or worse. We aren’t currently burning people at the stake, but we do enjoy crucifying them in our court system.

          2. I went to a church youth group function a few years back. The kids were young, but my god were the dudes beta. It was sad.

          3. Oh yes, those girls do exist, too.

       2. Pastors are often sociopaths, too. Don’t take my word for it. Look it up. The power they exalt from their throne in the church puts them in the perfect position to dip their toe into the lake known as female hypergamy, too. We all know there’s nothing women love more than a powerful man.

          1. I agree priests are kings of gay hypergamy… I had one in college (Chem prof) try to seduce me with sexual innuendos in an email. I was sucking up to him in class, so he took it the wrong way.
             I missed his office hours one time ando he sent me an email titled:
             “You didn’t stick your head in (to my office)?”
             These priests are sick fucks… they can’t get away with sodomizing little boys as much as they used to, so they aim towards younger gay men.

          2. Something about all-male environments full of single men acts as a magnet to those people.

          3. The catholic priesthood has been a front for pedophilia for centuries. Catholic priesthood is, or at least was, a highly respected position in society, one in which the man didn’t have to marry a woman in order to be accepted. How convenient.
             Every other male in any high position would have to be married in order to show that he’s willing to play ball, and also to demonstrate to his enemies that he could be reached through his wife. Being married used to be necessary in order to gain a high position in society. But the church protects it’s child molesters and changes the rules for them.

          4. That’s what taking a vow of celibacy before you really think it through does. When you repress your sex drive, bad things happen. Saint Paul said that one of the hallmarks of the apostate church in the last days would be one where its leaders are “forbidden to marry.”

          5. You are aware that, at the height of the abuse crisis, the abuse rate in the Catholic priesthood was 1/5 the rate of abuse in public institutions like schools and Boy Scouts, right?
             Who runs our society? Why might they feel the need to demonize and flout the Catholic priesthood, despite it being a far safer environment than their favourite, government-run institutions? And why does everybody fail to realize that it has never been the faithful, orthodox priests that acted this way, but has been the leftist priests who *publicly announced* their intent to infiltrate the Church, beginning in the 30s? The men doing this, far from being Catholic priests, are anti-Catholic activists who entered the priesthood precisely to discredit it. This is by their own admission (cf. Antonio Gramsci and Bella Dodd, et al.).
             It doesn’t take long to understand the real facts of this problem. I am surprised at how many “red pill” men allow the Blue Pill Machine to teach them everything they know about religion, and Catholicism in particular.

          6. No, he warned of heretical sects that “forbid marriage and command abstinence from meats” speaking of the Gnostics, who were already doing this in his day. St. Paul spoke in favour of the permissibility of both practices, if left as a matter of choice. He himself was a celibate, as he admits in his epistle to the Corinthians, where he also encouraged celibacy as the highest standard of Christian living (as did our Lord). He also ordained Timothy and Titus, both of whom were celibate bishops, imitating their master, Paul, as he was an imitator of Christ.
             The Church does not “forbid marriage.” Rather, if one wants to aspire to the highest spiritual responsibilities in the Church, the Church requires that one be willing to embrace the highest standards of asceticism and sacrifice. If one doesn’t want to do this, that’s fine. He has the option to marry and eat as much meat as he likes.

          7. Yeah. I’ve known a few religious leader types who have serious God complexes. There can be extraordinary arrogance in that world.

          8. Makes sense.
             Aristocrats had women, families to provide for.
             Priests had more time on their hands, they know that the beta dream leads to a boot stomping a human face forever.
             It ain´t the beta doing the stomping.

          9. There is a bigger “chuch” in western societies.

          10. ??

          11. Political correctness and the banking/governement/media/education/politics system that created it.

          12. Ah, now I’m with you. “The Cathedral.”

          13. There have been periods of clerical corruption (as with aristocrats). A good priest, a good monk, a good ascetic, is a thing to behold; a far, far cry from “beta.” I have known many priests who lived in the gulags; the boot was stomping on their faces, and this is the way it has been for at least five centuries now; not the other way around. I have seen the martyred corpses of Serbian, Romanian and Russian priests by the hundreds; these men were men, and died as men. Clerical power was only at its zenith for about two hundred years before the corruption of the 15th century papacy brought it all crashing down. In the 1200s it was still suffering under the aristocracy, lay investituture, etc., and it was largely interfered with by kings and nobles for a millennium before that.

          14. Exactly, for their good to actually matter, they had to make it a major objective for themselves.
              Above their personal interest or next in kin, above the beat dream.

          15. There are record from different branches of the Roman Catholic Church showing that child sexual abuse isn’t a recent phenomenon. The earliest of those mention an incident that happened in 4th century Spain.
              Abuses of power are endemic to any human institution, an this is the world’s biggest corporation we’re talking about.
              This institution has been rotten to the core from day one, but I suppose Communist Freemasonic infiltrators are just the icing on the cake.

          16. For women, power is the ultimate aphrodesiac. It’s the reason Trump is swimming in top notch pussy, despite looking like a troll doll.

          17. My gay, college roomate liked middle-aged, professional men. He was getting butt rammed by a local Catholic priest for over a year of the two years we were roomates.

    2. Don’t hold your breath on that collapse. It’s not coming anytime soon. Things will get much, much worse for men in the future. The anti-male laws are coming fast now, especially out here in CA.

       1. I go back and forth on how fast the collapse is proceeding. Some days it seems like it’s accelerating, other days it seems like things could go on another 10-20 years, although getting increasingly shittier year by year in that time frame.

          1. Collapse is highly unlikely, there are too many suckers out here. I see it more like a war though: Betas vs. Women. Alphas always win and the system isnt aimed at sucking from them. My general definition of an alpha is a man that thinks for himself, refuses to be controlled or manipulated, and attracts high quality women so he doesnt have to settle.
             Every time a beta male marries a used up party girl, a tiny battle is won for western women.
             Whenever a beta breaks up with a slut, goes MGTOW, or takes the red pill, men win a little more power back.
             The only way I see change happening is for young women to see miserable older women living alone with cats or kids and decide that she will never end up like that. Similar to how we have all decided we arent going to be that guy slaving at a job he hates to support a woman that disrespects him continuously.
             Its a bold prediction, but Im guessing that a large female anti-feminism movement will begin in about 50 years. It seems like women are winning but they arent. Theyre miserable and cant even mother children properly anymore. Most cant survive without antidepressants and alcohol. There will be a time when women wake up too.

          2. For native Europeans and European-Americans it seems, the consumer culture has replaced having children as life’s main goal.
             Muslim culture is full of messages laying out the practical advantages of procreation. As the hadith saying has it: ‘Marry, for I will outnumber peoples by you.’
             We are just beginning to see the fruits of what 50 years of suicidal feminism and liberalism has done to our society. It has all but destroyed Caucasians, who will soon be outnumbered in their own lands in both Europe and America by Muslims and Mestizos, respectively.
             So, they will either have to wake up as you suggest, or there will be an insurrection once that demographic realizes how impotent it has become.

          3. Yep. And with the self-hate that White kids get pumped into their heads from day 1 of kindergarten, its up to people like the men here to keep speaking the truth about whats going on. Otherwise we are pretty much looking at the last generation of White people to walk the Earth.

          4. The consumer society is already collapsing fast and so does the welfare system.
             That is why support for Obama and the dems dropped so much between November 2012 and November 2014, not just scandales, the White voters have become poorer and they can´t pay as much taxes.
             It is only because of China and the rest of south-east asia that it hasn´t collapsed yet.

          5. Always home or neighborhood school, at least while it is still legal.

          6. “A recent incident on a railroad train justly illustrates the result [of women’s ‘rights’]. A solitary female entered a car where every seat was occupied, and the conductor closed the door upon her and departed. She looked in vain for a seat, and at last appealed to an elderly man near her to know if he would not ‘surrender his seat to a lady.’ He, it seems, was somewhat a humorist, and answered: ‘I will surrender it cheerfully, Madam, as I always do, but will beg leave first to ask a civil question. Are you an advocate of the modern theory of women’s rights?’ Bridling up with intense energy, she replied, “Yes, sir, emphatically; I let you know that it is my glory to be devoted to that noble cause.’ ‘Very well, Madam,’ said he, ‘then the case is altered: You may stand up like the rest of us men, until you can get a seat for yourself.’ This was exact poetic justice; and it foreshadows precisely the fate of their unnatural pretensions Men will treat them as they treat each other; it will be ‘every man for himself, and the devil take the hindmost.’ … [A]nd the society which will emerge from this experiment will present women in the position which she has always held among savages, that of domestic drudge to the stronger animal…. [S]he will reappear from this ill-starred competition defeated and despised, tolerated only to satiate the passion, to amuse the idleness, to do the drudgery, and to receive the curses and blows of her barbarized masters.” – Rev. Dr. Robert Lewis Dabney (March 5, 1820 – January 3, 1898) Minister, Professor of Theology at Union Theological Seminary and Chief of Staff to General Stonewall Jackson

          7. White Genocide is VERY Real. 99% of “White Men” are oblivious it seems.

    3. Agree….and again it’s all about the money (even in church). The church (just like any corporation) knows who they are going after…the female consumer (and her money).
       The language at church must cater to women – for fear of losing “customers”. So they give women a free pass while still preaching that men need to “man up”.

       1. Just listen to the Mother’s Day sermon vs. the Father’s Day sermon for all the proof you need.

    4. This is EXACTLY how it is now. To the ones that know what it is it’s blatantly obvious but to the ones who don’t know what it is they still believe in fairy tales. I grew up in a catholic household…I tried the whole believe in the good part of humanity, forgive everyone, my whole life I was told that all the young fertile women were looking for the inherently good guy…but maybe by some genetic defect I’ve always felt off, like I knew it wasn’t true but it was the only road map I had growing up so I trusted it. After having slut whore ex gf’s fucked other dicks sprinkled in with a few harsh rejections here and there my suspicions were finally confirmed. They are ALL whores and this country with its sick religion supports their whoredom. The only way to make sense of it was to take the scientific approach and treat it all like a transaction. I’ve slowed down my notching and turned to other pursuits as of late because sometimes it gets really old watching the same movie over and over again. People tell me that there’s a wall for me or some bull shit like I need to believe in religion again but I just simply can’t buy in to that lie they are selling. This site likes to promote the idea of something called a red pill. I suppose in those terms I overdosed on too many red pills. Now the only thing I can believe in is nothingness. I’m only alive just to more ever creatively demonstrate just how much of a joke everything is…because I’m the only one that lives on 345 weird street in Mind Fuck City….around the corner of Con Mart and where I go worship at the Nihilist Temple every other Sunday.

    5. Don’t forget that men used to be expected to turn themselves into “provider doormats” for women who at least were at their peak attractiveness of 20-22 years old.
       Now men are expected to turn themselves into “provider doormats” for women who have partied for their entire 20’s and are now 30+ and not sexually attractive to most men.
       That deal is now an insanely bad one for men. Who wants to marry an old hag? (Yes, 30 is over the hill. Fuck that “coyote” bullshit).
       Church or no church… only a serious pussy would sign up to take care of a woman he isn’t sexually attracted to. And that’s what’s on the menu in the first-world. Women in the first-world have two modes: Princess and Bitter.
       They spend their beautiful years being complete cunts. And then they take their bloated sense of expectation with them into their not-so-hot years and wonder where all the “good guys have gone”.
       It’s a sorry state of affairs.
       But the solution isn’t collapse. The solution is picking up your ball and leaving the field. There are other fields to play on that are much more fun. Head down to Colombia or Panama, for example. There it’s a different world…

    6. The Church encouraged men to stand for their principles even in the face of death; the Church conquered the philosophy of the Pagans and overturned their temples within three centuries; the Church inspired men to construct paradises in the deserts and caves of the wilderness, striving for spiritual and physical self-mastery every moment of their waking lives; the Church launched the Crusades to avenge and repel the Moslem invaders from their rapine activity in Christian lands; the Church inspired men like St. Francis Xavier to get in a boat from India and to sail to China and Japan, despite not speaking the language or knowing a soul upon his arrival; the Church raised up armies to defend the West from Islam, checking them at the Pyrenees in the West and (ultimately) at Vienna in the East; the actual Christian faith demands resistance to the Modernist, tolerant system on the grounds that it has dogmatically condemned its founding principles and moral conclusions, even as regards Socialism and the economic issues you mention, as being damnably erroneous.
       The people who may mismanage churches at present, are one thing; the Christian Faith objectively, and the Church through most of its history, has been an intensely masculine and masculinizing force.

       1. Only because they believed there were heavenly rewards, so they wheren´t really courageous, only eager for Allay/Yaweh´s heaven.
          Just like ISIL in Iraq.
          When they took over, suicide was made into a sin because the followers would kill themselves otherwise.
          It is only the latter christian faiths that where Worth anything and could make real contribution to societies, after a 1000 years.

          1. No, I wouldn’t say this is accurate; perfect charity is the Christian ideal, and it breathes forth in many of the martyrs’ words. Also, continence and manly comportment was considered reason enough to go to death manfully on principle, which is shown in the deaths of many men in Christian society for principles other than religious martyrdom. The prospect of future reward, and the fear of punishment, are both held up as legitimate goods, but as goods that move increasingly away from the ideal.

          2. Fucking Pagan.

       2. Well said!

12. I’m not a religious person, but I think the big problem with most modern western “religious” people is that religion to them is not a spiritual and moral obligation to-do right but rather just another fad to look cool. Not being a religious person but sometimes I like to listen into what certain pastors and priests have to say for a better understanding(I seriously do this sometimes) and the impression I get is one where man has 100% of all the responsibilities of getting family, keeping together family, etc. while women are given a free pass. This is ultimately the reason I cannot take 90% of American Christians seriously with their religion, because they simply allowed their religion to be warped and twisted by every SJW phase that came along.
    I don’t really know too much about how other Americans view their religion. It does at least seem that some religions take it more seriously(like maybe Islam) but I really am unsure. It seems that most people I meet regardless of race or ethnicity view religion as a convenience. Like a light switch to be turned on and off. This is just America, it is different elsewhere but there are a lot of bad teaching that the Church offers today. Tradition is long dead and any semblance of a real religion will only come about in hardship. We’re not experiencing a wave of irreligiousity because of some massive campaign, but rather because we have had it too good for too long.
    For example, the Puritans, some of the most devote Protestant Christians on the planets, they were extremely religious, why? Well it was one part identity and escaping England, but the other was that life in the 1600’s America was exceptionally brutal, with most people in the early settlements dying off. It makes sense that the most wealthy nations(relative GDP per capita) are the ones were religion is being thrown off. There may be an outlier or two but generally the trend stands.
    Of course all of the benefits of religion are lost as well, greater sense of community and purpose, identity, and ability to take large groups of people and have a common ground. The other benefits are of course a traditional monogamous(speaking about Christianity here) family structure where both people make a sacrifice to one another. These losses are massive, it is no surprise that as all of these concepts have been destroyed, that Christianity would be weaker. There is no stopping the path down the road though, all you can do is pray.

    1. “Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat: Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” – Matthew 7:13-14
       That’s why.

13. Christianity is as blue pill as you get. No one actually believes that there were 12 tribes of Isreal (no archeological evidence) or that Moses rose from the lower ranks of Egyptian society to raise his people to freedom. Everyone (including clergy) pretends to believe this. The New Testament was never meant to be taken literally, it is a symbolic and esoteric treatise. Furthermore, all of this holy language about the divine origin of the Bible is delusion … books have been taken in and out of the Canon from Nicea to the Middle Ages (1000 years of change).
    Christianity is a total fraud meant to serve as a political tool of control. Theism (as opposed to more objective spiritual systems like paganism) is meant for women, slaves, and other degenerates who can’t face reality… that’s why it was so effective in undermining the patriarchy of Rome.
    I speak as former Catholic who took his religion very seriously.

    1. Buying into the popular doctrine, rather than the original doctrine, is primarily why Christianity appears to be blue pill.

       1. The whole world view is an unhealthy lie which appeals to mediocre people. I prefer gnosis and reason to faith (in what a bunch of subversive liars tell me is truth).
          The spiritual question is essential, but let’s be real there is no God controlling man’s providence. It’s a conceptual flaw in the way spirituality is described.
          I’m a Platonist, so I respect some of the more esoteric ideas in Christian literature, but the historical narrative is fiction.

          1. Like what?

          2. Mediocre people? St. Augustine? St. Athanasius? St. Patrick? St. Columba of Iona? St. Benedict? St. Romuald? St. Peter Urseolus? Popes Ss. Gregory I and VII? St. Thomas Aquinas? St. John of the Cross? St. Ferdinand (III of Castile)? St. Louis IX (of France)? St. Stephen of Hungary? St. Pius V? St. Lawrence of Brindisi? St. Robert Bellarmine? St. Francis de Sales? St. Francis Xavier? Bd. John Henry Newman? King Alfred the Great?
             I can only conclude that you are unfamiliar with the martial, ascetic and philosophical history of authentic Christianity. Indeed, the idea that faith and reason are opposed is a sign that you do not know the Church’s teaching on these topics; there is no expectation that faith exists by spiting reason.

          3. An appeal to “authentic” Christianity is such a cop out.
             There are at least two other apologists for so-called “real” Christianity on this thread who are in complete opposition (Catholic vs Protestant) on what “real” Christianity is.
             Also, as to the “martial history” of Christianity: they were warriors long before they were Christians.

          4. Let’s not forget that “the word of God is like a two edged sword”… it can be used for both good and bad… the fault is not with the book, it is with the application or them who make the wrong use of it…
             An appeal to Christians being responsible for their own faith and “carrying THEIR own cross” is what is necessary, theological arguments are useless

          5. First, I would say that there are certainly Protestant personalities who do not deserve the title of “mediocre.”
             Second, so what? Some people still think Socialism is worth a try, even though it’s failed every time; some people still think Feminism is a good thing, even though it is a manifest destroyer of society. Some people think democracy is magic, even though nothing fosters ubiquitous mediocrity quite like it. Some people are still Protestants, even though it has never been easier to see what a silly idea it is. Just because people believe something, doesn’t mean the idea is credible.
             We are fortunate enough to have clear, historical documentation at our fingertips these days. I used to be a Protestant. It didn’t take me more than a few hours of reading the Apostolic Fathers to realize that Protestantism simply was not and could not be historic Christianity. And then, when I listened to the traditional point of view for the first time, I was actually embarrassed for ever having believed the patently stupid notions that: 1) Sola Scriptura is an essential point, despite the fact that Scriptura nowhere teaches it; 2) Sola Fide is an essential point for people who believe Sola Scriptura, even though Scriptura has but one verse where these words occur together – “You are not saved by faith alone” (James 2:24). And this doesn’t begin to touch upon problems with literacy and the availability of manuscripts in the ancient world. Protestantism, like Modernism, is an exercise in denial.
             The only rival claimants to authentic Christianity, would be the Eastern Orthodox Churches. Ultimately, their claim also fails, but that’s a much longer discussion.

          6. I almost forgot: I wasn’t saying that Christianity was the first religion with warriors; I was simply observing that there have been many great, Christian warriors, even warrior saints, who were not “mediocre” people.

       2. Exactly correct. The True Faith is still there, hidden in exiled corners of the Church (where Modernism wants it). The purity of the Faith is anything but “blue pill.”

       3. Which original doctrine are you referring to?
          The first Council of Nicea?
          Early Roman Catholicism?
          The Scholasticism of men like Thomas Aquinas and Roger Bacon?
          There are so many conflicting ideas within the “original” doctrine that you’ll need to be a bit more specific.

          1. The old testament is the original doctrine, even Jesus said “I have come to fulfill the word and not to abolish it”… imagine if old testament rules stood as doctrine… half of the degenerate stupidity wouldn’t be possible….. but since it is “outdated”… well enjoy your updated blue pill stupidity…

          2. If you read the whole Bible in chronological order, you’ll get a better idea of what the original doctrine is.

          3. So you’re Team Protestant.

       4. A lot of people do not actually read the bible, both christian and non-christians… they all just say what they hear on TV but never take the time to read and verify it for themselves… which is ironic because Paul said exactly that “check the scriptures and verify them that you are not led astray”….

       5. The original doctrine is not any good either.

    2. “Christianity is a total fraud meant to serve as a political tool of control. Theism (as opposed to more objective spiritual systems like paganism) is meant for women, slaves, and other degenerates who can’t face reality… that’s why it was so effective in undermining the patriarchy of Rome”
       I’m a Christian but I definitely see what you are saying. Indeed the church is used to manipulate others, by government as well. My Christian upbringing is part if my roots and now that my parents are dead I retain my religion as part of my identity, a sense of familiarity and roots. The messages laid out in the bible are good for a morale compass, as long as one recognizes the specific ‘guidelines’ that would compromise my rights. It does not serve a man to be a Ned Flanders.
       I at times appreciate the Buddist philosophy, which I find can be very similar to what the bible teaches.
       I do believe in a life after death as well.
       If I may ask you: what are your beliefs?

       1. Have you read Old Testament Law? How is that a good morality in the modern world?

          1. The OT law was brought to cleanse God’s chosen people from sin and sinners, as well as to crush God’s chosen people under its weight. (Also to guide social life in the bronze/iron age.) Until Christ came, the law was a stone upon which everyone was crushed. After Christ, the law was fulfilled and grace has been delivered to us.
             How is it that you judge the validity and justice of any moral law, such as the one found in the OT?

          2. That is debatable. All throughout the New Testament, Jesus says that the law is not to be abolished.
             “Do not think I have come to abolish the law…”
             “till heaven and earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass the law until all is accomplished. Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven;”
             “It is easier for Heaven and Earth to pass away than for the smallest part of the letter of the law to become invalid.”
             Unless, Jesus is lying, I’m not sure how laws such as “Whoever curses father or mother shall die” are to be ignored under this morality.
             Old Testament law seems rather suitable for a tribe of people struggling to survive in violent times. Laws opposing eating pork or unclean animals or opposing homosexuality make sense from a perspective of survival. However, that is not the modern world, at least not in the Occident.
             How is that I judge the validity and justice of any moral law? How is it that you do not judge the validity and justice of any moral law. I am of the stance that one should be critical of such things. A man ought to weigh the worth lest it be found wanting.

          3. There is God’s law, the ten commandments, which apply to all people at all times. There is also the Mosaic law, which applied only to the Hebrews. Paul describes this in Galations.

          4. Why are we so obsess with choosing which law to follow? All of god’s law is just and fair. All we need to know is that “Sin is the Transgression of the law” and anybody ignorant of God’s laws and ways that sin are still held accountable

          5. Paul is extremely contradictory, not only self contradictory, but he also contradicts Jesus throughout the writings attributed or referencing him. Even with the vision of Jesus that Paul claims to have had, he gives three narrations of this event and they are contradictory.
             Jesus even seems to warn his followers of men such as Paul, when Jesus says “Take heed that you are not led astray; for many will come in my name saying,…’The time is at hand!’ Do not go after them.” whereas Paul says “salvation is neared to us now than when we first believed…the day is at hand.”
             Paul also states that all commandments can be “summed up in this sentence, ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’” Yet, this seems to be forgetting Jesus claiming that “‘You shall love the Lord your God with all your heart, and with all your soul, and with all your mind.’ This is the great and first commandment.”
             Paul says “you have died to the law through the body of Christ…apart from the law sin lies dead…the very commandment which promised life proved to be death to me.” Where Jesus says “Why do you ask me about what is good? One there is who is good. If you would enter life, keep the commandments.”
             Now you claim that Mosaic law doesn’t apply according to Paul. However, Mosaic law states that if “anyone has a stubborn and rebellious son who refuses to obey his father and mother…the people of the city will stone him to death.” and Jesus says “he that curseth father or mother, let him die the death.” This seems to suggest that Jesus supports Mosaic law.

          6. Quote mining won’t do. Read the whole book start to finish, and don’t skip a phrase. The “fulfilling of the law” was “love your enemies” all the way to the sum of the law, “do as you would like others to do to you”. That is the fulfilling of the law you ask about.

          7. Should I include the apocrypha as well? How about books that were once cannon, but are no longer? The ‘scriptures’ are quite incoherent and rather contradictory.
             Consider Leviticus where an eternal system of atonement is established that cleanses man of all sins before God. Since there is already a system of atonement there is no need for the human sacrifice of Jesus, whom the scriptures claim was a man. Despite Jesus upholding the law, parts of the New Testament claim that the death of Jesus was an atonement, but according to the law of the Old Testament, (Deuteronomy), human sacrifice is an abomination unto God.

          8. Why apocrypha is not canon:
             http://www.tektonics.org/lp/otcanon.php

          9. It is canon if you are Catholic.

          10. So what? It shouldn’t be canon for the reasons stated in that article.

          11. His reasoning for many of these books not being included in canon could be applied to many of the remaining books in the canon. Despite this, canon was determined by the Catholic church, which is infallible by decree, as God will not allow the church to err. At least that is the belief. So, if you don’t accept the tradition set forth by the Catholic church, why accept any of it?

          12. I have to stress that I did not say “abolish” but fulfill, because that would be blasphemy. You seem smart enough to understand the difference, so I don’t know why you put words into my mouth like that. It seems you have the Bible but not the Spirit. Your eyes have not been opened, yet.
              The Law is still valid, still there, still real. However, it condemns us. We, you, are condemned to death by it. The Jews observed ritual sacrifices but they were unsure of their own salvation and eternity. It was not revealed until their Messiah fulfilled the prophecies. The Jews were saved by faith in Christ and the sovereignty and omniscience of God. Not by sacrifices.
              Christ was not a “human sacrifice” because he was fully God and he was murdered. He gave up his life willingly and did not fully die but was transformed. Comparing this to human sacrifice is a real stretch.
              Your perspective on Paul is nothing new. I can only bid you to conduct more research and believe in Christ. Your “contradictions” listed can be reconciled, but there are many more you have not listed that can also be reconciled. For example: loving your neighbor as the summation of the commandments. Paul says that love fulfills the law. That does not contradict what Jesus said is the summation of the law. Paul was talking about how the law kills us, and the way to obey it is to love your neighbor as yourself. He is talking about what’s known in Christian circles as legalism. Legalism is the obedience to the law as a means to attain salvation. Yet Paul teaches that nobody can actually ever obey the law, just as Christ taught that “none can do good” in Mark 10. Love fulfills the law, yes, but the law was fulfilled by Christ’s love. You can try to emulate Christ by loving your neighbor as yourself, which would take care of the legal requirements if you could actually do it without error. But you will fail, and the higher teaching of Paul comes into play- the higher teaching is that Christ fulfilled the law, and Christ is one with God the Father, and God is love.
              The stubborn and rebellious son is still to be put to death. Also, his father was a sinner before him. We are all to be put to death. We are all dead in our sins. We must be born again, as Jesus taught in John 3 and Paul teaches in his epistles. That son is to be stoned, just like the adulteress in John 8 is to be stoned. At no point did Jesus say that woman was not to be stoned, he merely asked that he who is without sin cast the first stone (after he wrote something mysterious in the dirt that seemingly startled everyone there.) He then told her to go and sin no more. He never said she didn’t deserve to die.
              And if you do not accept Christ and get born again in the Spirit- you too will die as a disobedient son. The difference in the New Testament is that Christ does the deed now, not us. He once used the sword of the Jews to deliver justice, as well as plagues and fire from heaven. Now, that has come to pass, but his justice remains. He is going to deliver justice upon you, a wayward sinner from a line of wayward sinners. I pray you repent and believe.

          13. “So, if you don’t accept the tradition set forth by the Catholic church, why accept any of it?”
              Why accept any of it? Because it is the most rational, evidence based, powerful, humane religion of them all. Its nothing like the other religions and myths. It is open to science and history.
              We had to have a reasonable conclusion to the canonization question. Even if there was no council and canon we’d still have to come to some kind of personal reasonable conclusion about the body of Christian scripture. You are still free to disregard the canon if you see fit. You only need a superior reasoning to that which was used at the councils and debates of early Christianity. Good luck with that.

          14. ”as God will not allow the church to err. At least that is the belief.
              So, if you don’t accept the tradition set forth by the Catholic church,
              why accept any of it?”
              And how would you know that? And what makes you think this tradition is set forth by the Romanist Church?

          15. The non-Romanist Catholic church has as canon at least in the OT books that are identical to the Hebrew Tanakh.

          16. The only documentation that Jesus existed at all were written 30+ years after the alleged fact by Middle Eastern laborers. Look into how many other cults and belief systems that pitch a holy man of virgin birth.

          17. …so sayeth the hebrew. Middle Eastern cult beliefs do not apply to me.

          18. The Hebrew Tanakh is the Masoretic Text, which is mentioned in this article. Some researchers suggest this article is a false scripture created by Jews to trick the Christians into accepting an Old Testament that didn’t support the Christian New Testament, which had been written with the Septuagint in mind. As an example, when discussing the Virgin Birth in Isaiah 7:14, the Septuagint discusses a virgin conceiving, but the Masoretic text discusses a young woman being with child and does not mention a virgin.

          19. It is the doctrine of the infallibility of the Church, which stems from the promise of Jesus to Peter, “He who hears you hears me.” Also, Catholic tradition establishes that Jesus founded the Catholic Church. Originally Christianity was a sub-sect of Judaism, but as more Gentiles were assimilated, Christianity strayed from Judaism. This early church was rather loosely structured, but by the year 100, Catholic teaching was defined to separate itself from other systems, such as Gnosticism. From 100 and onward, the Catholic Church began to create tradition. By 325 the Church was determining the divinity of Christ and by about 400 canon was established for the New Testament, by determining which books were inspired or not.

          20. Comparitive mythologies are ripe with analogies, some better than others. Dionysus and Mithra are typically considered to have strong parallels to Christianity and the Christ.

          21. Can you show me from scripture?
              “He who hears you hears me.”

          22. ”Some researchers suggest this article is a false scripture created by
              Jews to trick the Christians into accepting an Old Testament that didn’t
              support the Christian New Testament, which had been written with the
              Septuagint in mind.”
              ????
              I don’t think you have addressed the objections in the article I provided that oppose the use of the Apocrypha in the bible.

          23. The Catholic Church cites Luke 10:16.

          24. I take back my previous comment. You did answer the objections somewhat.
              ”His reasoning for many of these books not being included in canon could be applied to many of the remaining books in the canon.”
              You are wrong on this one. How can this reasoning be applied to other books of divinely inspired writ?

          25. Searched it up. And looks like this basis is quite flimsy. He was talking to all 72 of his men and was sending them out. Since they had the gospel and they were the ones preaching it therefore they were preaching the word of God himself and so it is with this after condemning unrepentant cities:
              Luke 10:16
              16 “The one who hears you hears me, and the one who rejects you rejects me, and the one who rejects me rejects him who sent me.”

          26. And they don’t need to. One of the things about Christianity, is that Christ’s major conflict was with the law creators and scholars of the time who were in position of power to subjugate the people under ceremonial and rituals. The concept of sin is also misinterpreted as a breaking of the rules or divine laws (or the ones created by man to gain power over others) But sin is really a state of being separated from the mind, and therefore knowing the will of God. The apostle Paul, who was once a person in much power and persecuted an put to death people, was changed by what he learned from Christ, he became who he persecuted, a man liberated from the “laws” and a threat to corrupt powerful people, by teaching that God doesn’t’ want his children to be in bondage to the bad stewardship of the current ruling class. If anyone thinks that Christianity is about being enslaved by an vengeful dirty, I disagree.

          27. Well, if you accept the Catholic Church’s doctrine on Church infallibility then one wouldn’t be questioning the canonization. However, since he is arguing that some books shouldn’t be canon, it would seem that he doesn’t accept the doctrine on Church infallibility. Assuming, then, that the Church is not infallible, we can consider his claims. For several of the books listed he argues that they shouldn’t be canon, because they are primarily just history and records, yet you find that throughout the remaining books. Ruth’s genealogy list as an example. Other books he argues shouldn’t be included due to contradictions with other books, but of the books that remain there are also remaining contradictions.

          28. @Marashni
              Would you mind signing up for:
              http://www.theologyweb.com
              I think going back and forth in the comments means that some of the points you or I have made will be lost. I will meet you there.

          29. Gal 5:14- For the Law is fulfilled in one word: Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. Is what Paul said, and he is confusing the first dozen times reading is words. But Paul means the liberty and discharge from the old ceremonies, Sacraments, and the whole bondage of the Law, and from the servitude of sin,, and the Devil, to such as obey him: but not liberty to do what every man wills, or to be under no obedience of spiritual or temporal laws and Governors.
              Jesus responded to the pharasees trick question by listing two commandments, and said that those two contain all the law and prophets. If one truly loved god, his creator, then likely that person would follow all Gods commandments. That islikely the faith that redeems a person from sin. Knowing and doing exactly what God bids you to do even if it brings discomfort. TThat’s the main reason people reject this faith and I am not a good Christian either. Maybe if I were some red pill alpha high speed death machine, ..

          30. And you’re entirely welcome to. Taken as a whole though, I see a belief system developed from a series of eastern superstitions, blended with pagan observances, and forced onto European people. That belief system today has morphed into a support system for victims and a cop out for weaklings. No thanks.

          31. There is christianity as you describe it, completely flaccid, and used by whomever wants to for their own ends, pedophile priests, money laundering popes, and his coke dealing underlings, caring ministers who will gladly bang your spouse if she came in for counseling, the IRS to thwart and further agenda. Blair points out that many don’t understand or interpret the understanding correctly. So instructors, those who are supposed to be responsible, find themselves corrupt able, in a position of power, and able to do damage. It is not the time anymore of the survival of the fittest, technology and the laws prevent that. So we can expect a huge amount of degeneracy,in the future, largely due to lack of moral gguidance, and wisdom. If you were have children, would you teach them to stay away from killers, thieves, liars, cheaters, etc.? I would, because people tend to be found around who are most like them. See morality doesn’t need to be obtained by faith, it really is a boundary that we set ourselves, and various religions and belief systems have done that and do, but absolutely, they are not the only source of our good and bad virtue.

          32. He fulfilled it; He did not abolish it.

          33. The things you have cited are not contradictory. As to St. Paul’s vision, there are no contradictions; a simple Google search on the topic will reveal plenty of pages explaining the matter. Just for starters, the most common “contradiction” (that the soldiers “heard but did not see” in one account, and “saw yet heard not” in another), is easily explained by reference to the Greek text (where the differing prepositions of ἀκούω can differentiate between passively “hearing something” vs. actively “hearkening to and understanding a voice,” and where the different active and middle voices, respectively, of θεωρέω and θεῶμαι indicate a difference between passively observing something that happens vs. closely inspecting, observing and understanding something – from which our word “theory” is derived). You’ll find more explanation besides, if you care to look. The other things you mentioned are not contradictions, either, but come from your failure to understand some point or other about the chronology of New Testament events. I say that with no detraction implied; not everyone can be expected to have studied these things… but for that reason, one should also be cautious and hesitant in making assertions!

          34. God Himself commanded the Ceremonies and Rituals, and Jesus gave several rituals to His Apostles. Jesus’ beef with the Pharisees was hypocrisy, the replacement of Mosaic Law with Pharisaical customs, and, of course, the Law’s ultimate impotence for justification.

          35. Beautiful.

       2. I’m not a theist, I believe in a dualistic spirituality, though. Modern Buddhism has nothing to do with the original tenets, which are ascetic and practical, not humanitarian.
          Platonic thought is easiest to understand for a western mind, and although it has been critiqued by thinkers like nietzsche and heidegger, I find it to make the most sense.
          I subscribe to ancient wisdom on ideas about purpose and the after life (which is conditional, not garunteed)… plotinus, plato, iamblichus, and Julian the apostate have been most influential on me.

          1. “I subscribe to ancient wisdom on ideas about purpose and the after life (which is conditional, not garunteed)… plotinus, plato, iamblichus, and Julian the apostate have been most influential on me.”
             Interesting… so would you say that a man’s fate after death can be determined by how well he conducts himself during his biological life?

          2. Fate in the after life is tied to psycho-spiritual unit, not morality (although an immortal being would be prone to virtue more than anyone else). The vast majority of people will merely dissolve their psychical being shortly after expiring. One must create ones spirit, it is not a given.
             The ancient theologies of the world suggest that one must be dead (to continent things) while living by breaking ties with ones earthly self (the original meaning of asceticism). The hero and saint (cremated and sent to heaven, so to speak) can survive, the rest are recycled into the earth (burial).
             I do not follow the 4th way (my tradition is different, but philosophically similar), but if you want more ideas about the spiritual task of man according to ancient theology and his destiny in the after life, I suggest you research P.D. Ouspensky and G. I. Gurdjieff.

          3. Thanks, I will look into it.

          4. PS – what is the afterlife fate of a man who commits suicide?

          5. I can’t answer for a fact, but it would depend if the act was based on despair or detachment.

          6. Let’s say based on despair. A friend of mine took his life because he literally felt useless to the world at age 50 – a hetero man in gynocentric culture. He simply felt there was no place for him and he didnt want to end up some homeless senior citizen rummaging through the trash everyday for his food.

          7. Geez that’s sad. It’s too bad guys who get to that state of desperation don’t know that they can just head to Kathmandu or Caracas or something. The third world saves. That’s my religion, not to make light of it. I just have seen so many sad men in the US yet they don’t consider leaving. Maybe because they have kids there.

          8. I see this a lot. The trouble with south america becomes an economic one – not a place that is booming with opportunity. Assuming one is looking for demale c9mpanionship, it is worth noting that SA is skankifying as well. Forget about Argentinian women – they’re already toast, and argentina is allowing gay marriages, etc.

       3. Ned Flanders is the archetype of a puritan. He’s paralyzed by fear of a world out there, with its sins and non-conformist ways, and so chooses to live in a cocoon of a sterile and tension-filled environment. That’s also the Muslim world’s dilemma in a nutshell.

       4. You might take a look at the original belief systems of Nordic Europeans. The focus on strength, industriousness, and discipline resonates with what a lot of us here see as that something that makes us different than the betas that go around with their eyes shut. When read up on the true history of Christianity, (mass genocide, forced conversion, cherry-picked and contradictory doctrine, heavy borrowing from pagan beliefs) it took a while for me as a former born-again Christian-type to come to grips that I had been snow-job’d since before I could walk.

          1. Any specific books about nordic europeans you could recommend?

          2. Uhhh, I’ve looked at a few, I Dunn if theres one that’s “best”. Since Nordic philosophy was more tradition and belief, theres not so much religious aspect to it. The different perspectives include Asatru, Odinism, and paganism, a lot of the interpretations are modern because most of the original writings were destroyed by Christian missionaries.

          3. All the bad things done by Christians, are the same as the bad things done by worldly folk in any group of people. But the achievements of Christianity – the things that truly proceed from its essence, rather than being the incidental emergence of universal human failings in it – are not matched by any other civilization.

    3. Not only did twelve tribes exist, they still do. Now, who and where they are? that’s another matter.
       Just because Christianity has become a worldly fraud, does not mean that Jeshua (or his Father) is a fraud. If they were, you would not be commenting. Or functioning.
       Cheers.

       1. I agree that modern christianity is very blue pill especially with the man- made doctrines and favors of ungodly women but what I read from the comments here seem to have a misunderstanding of the bible itself. If y’all just sit down and open its pages instead of taking everything your pastor say as truth, you’ll find much more than your life can ever mound to. The only reason why Christianity became a fraud because its system is a counterfeit system. The bible made it clear that the whereabout of the 12tribes became a mystery to the world. Because of their sins and ignorance, it led the tribes into their own captivity thus making it hard to find their traces throughout history but NOT impossible. If we were to sit down and analyze both old and new testaments, you’ll find that America and Britain is actually prophesied to be both great nations of prosperity just like the ancient times of the tribes before their captivity. However both countries and many parts of Europe is now in the same ignorance and sin just as their ancestors were and the role of feminism, stupid liberal democrats, and Obama will soon make our nations a laughing stock of a degenerated society.

    4. There are actually a few people who believe that. They are the ones who have been indoctrinated from childhood so that their brains are literally wired the wrong way. Nothing you can do will convince them they are delusional except for removing their brain and replacing it with another one. At least as a catholic you get a somewhat more reasonable approach to faith. The evangelist mind does not work the same way, unfortunately. (By the way I’m not a catholic in case you’re wondering)

       1. ”The evangelist mind does not work the same way, unfortunately.”
          The result of anti-intellectualism in American Christianity in general which is the result of cowardice.

       2. You described my mother. She was raised on this church bullshit, and will never be able to let it go. It’s very sad.

    5. ”Theism (as opposed to more objective spiritual systems like paganism)
       is meant for women, slaves, and other degenerates who can’t face reality”
       Yet Islam and Judaism is male-dominated.

       1. I spent a lot of time in the Middle East, women are BARELY managed by Sharia law, they still pull the same shit behind closed doors as they do here; they burn through money, they run their mouths, they make things difficult at every opportunity.
          As for jews….yeah, everyone knows about the diminutive jewish wife and mother. Men aren’t dominating shit in those cultures.

          1. @Dick Hatewell
             Looks like they are well into their decline. Likely at the beginning of their society not long after the conquests sharia law was strictly enforced but over time as men got comfortable and lost their virility due to the loss of challenge what you described happens.

          2. Oh no question. That whole region is a disaster.

    6. I speak as a new ex-Muslim Christian. (Check my IP if you don’t believe me.) Believe me, I thought the answer was in Islamic fundamentalism, agnosticism, I thought Islam could be liberalized, I thought liberalism was great, I once thought “why shouldn’t a woman have an abortion”, and I thought secularism could be applied to a Muslim state, and that Islam needed to be applied “properly” and not like we see in the news.
       Believe me, the answer is in the parables and analogies, and the whole nitpicking over what actually happened IS a waste of time. Details aren’t half as important as what really counted from Jesus’ appearance on Earth.
       Not to divulge private details, but I have refrained from carnal pleasures for a whole month since my conversion. As a Muslim, I couldn’t go beyond 2 days. Just to let you know there is value in the gospel you left behind,

       1. I watched porn daily for about 10 years until the day I was born again. That day it was gone, and the enslavement has not returned.
          I have come to conclude that Christianity and Islam are the only rationally possible religions in the world. Judaism was destroyed by the Romans in AD 70. Hinduism and Buddhism are not even answers to the questions we all ask; they’r not even rational at all. Islam and Christianity are coming to pass as they were foretold. Zeus and the other mythical gods were falsified. Islam and Christianity are based on real historical people and events, while the others are much more dubious.

          1. Believe in what you like, but Christianity and Islam are both faith-based religions and therefore not rational. Buddhism might not be for everyone because it involves work and a lack of magic, but it is completely rational in it’s un-altered state. It encourages questioning, which is why you tend not to see people killing each other over it. When something is faith-based it makes people so much more cross when someone messes with that . . . all the best though, there are many paths, and it’s a big old universe, and a short old life here.

    7. Rome collapsed because it got fat, lazy and sexually decadent. Abortion was widely practiced. Nobody was having kids or cared about the future. Constantine made it the religion while Rome was on its way down the crapper in order to bring into fold an alternate religion. Even so, most Romans kept on with their pagan decadence It didn’t collapse because Marcus Driscollus was telling men to “man-up” in a revival in the colosseum. Chrisitianity rebuilt and improved what the pagans let slide into decay. At any rate, nothing much beta about being eaten alive by lions instead easily recanting in favoring of worshiping Caesar. Sounds a little familiar, doesn’t it?
       There’s a lot wrong with modern Christianity, particularly among the “enthusiasts” of evangelicalism and the new SJW Pope, but let’s not forget that all of the splendors of the last 2000 years archived today in Europe exist solely as the work of Christendom. The horrors of the 20th century were brought to you by humanism and paganism, don’t forget that.

       1. Paganism is truth, Christianity is beta male, effeminate postering.

          1. “Paganism?” That’s a bit vague, don’t you think? Considering that broad swaths of Paganism have encouraged faith in far dumber things, have put forward far more mundane expectations in prayer (“O Mars, I will give you ten head of cattle if by next Tuesday my enemy is dead”), and have routinely practiced far more effeminate and orgiastic indulgences, it seems a bit absurd to state that Christianity – Christianity, mind you, not Protestant-Evangelicalism – the religion of fasts and abstinences, of Augustinian and Thomistic thought, of Crusades and Reconquistas, of monks and warrior-saints, is easily dismissed by comparison with Paganism as “beta male, effeminate posturing.” It is to laugh.

       2. What BS, ancient Rome was clearly “christian” in typical biblical fashion, obscurtanism and fanaticism, when it collapsed, the state religion, the “pagan” Roman empire is the one that did the conquest and building part.
          Decadence happened because even non-slave average Romans where able to live prosperously.
          They also whipped the floor with ancient judea, destroyed the temple, that too.
          The Church and its followers spend the following centuries preventing the rise of civilization and destroyed much of the “pagan” era knowledge in good 1984 fashion. How many angels can sit on the head of a needle?
          Byzantin Empire couldn´t beat back the Turks, must be because they where still Pagans, right?
          The christian faiths of the last 500 years are the big achievers, it is under them that western civilization was rebuilt.
          The further away from its middle-east “roots” and the more european = the more glory, simple as that.

          1. This x1000. Christianity had a huge role in the collapse of Rome that it does not get enough credit for.

          2. I would argue the collapse of Rome had much to do with its reach extending beyond it’ grasp and its increased acceptance of moral rot like homosexuality.
             Why exactly do you believe that Christianity is hugely to blame? I’m curious.

          3. True. Christians hate when you point these facts out. Rome was at its greatest when it was pagan.
             312 CE – Constantine converts to Christianity.
             380 CE – Christianity becomes only legal religion in Roman Empire.
             476 CE – Roman Empire officially ends and the Dark Ages begin.

       3. Here! Here!

    8. I grew up Southern Baptist, same here, took it verrrrry seriously. So good to see there are other reasonable men saying, wait a minute, I’ve been manipulated all this time!

    9. I speak as a former Atheist who is now a Catholic, taking both very seriously. Nobody who knows anything about history, would say that Theism is meant for women; it has always been men who were the best Theists and who really plumbed the full realities of spiritual life. Women are sentimental; sentimental religion is for them. Modern sects have certainly started to pander to women, as women have become the “moral sex” in decadent Modernism. But this trend was anathematized repeatedly by the Catholic Church.
       Have you read the New Testament? The Gospels are full of straighforward narrative, the Epistles (with the mild exception of Colossians) are all extremely mundane and business-like, and the only book that could beconsidered esoteric and symbolic, is the Apocalypse. In Modernity, giving up on faith is the easy thing to do, and there’s plenty of disinformation around to recommend that course of action. A longer, sterner, more studious and sober look, I am convinced, vindicates Tradition.

    10. I’ve always believed that reality was merely a crutch for those that couldn’t face hard drugs. Better living through chemistry.

    11. Ancien judea, flat earth with 4 corners and held on pillars, the sun revolves around it.
        The Greeks figured out the Earth was round, goes around the sun, calculated the size of the Earth and the moon, that of the distance between them.
        A Roman guy figured out stars where other, much more distant suns that could have planets revolving around them.
        Roman legions whipped the floor with ancient judea.

14. Really good article. As a devout Christian myself (one who is not taken in by popular trends though), I always enjoy reading criticism from other people about the Church.
    I’ve written about how the Church has, by and large, failed when it comes to marriage in the past several decades recently as well (shameless promotion, but whatever):
    http://swiftfoxmark2.blogspot.com/2014/10/marriage-church-and-pride-of-women.html

    1. I no longer enjoy religious criticisms without solutions. It would have been nice to hear how Blair Naso’s church is going, since he seems to be so wise and well versed on people’s problems.

15. Church like the media has a death grip on women.

    1. Of course it does, it’s the cornerstone for justifying immoral behavior in the first place. Media = Everyone else is doing it so it can’t be that bad, Church = No matter what I do it will be forgiven.

16. I don’t disagree on any particular point. And for the record I don’t email anyone asking them to become anything. But the big fallacy is thinking you could be a non-religious person. This is what SJWs think they are, non-religious, but they are actually more religious than anyone.
    Ever read ‘Animal Farm’? Secularists who deny that they are religious are like a rooster who crusades against all the dumb animals. “I’m above all you animals, I’m non-religious.” Fact is, any belief is religious. Your belief in gravity makes you religious. Someone from 3,000 years ago would think you are wacky for believing that. It is just the fact that that belief is universal today that makes us not consider it religious. So therefore, when someone claims they are non-religious, all they are claiming is that they only believe in universal beliefs. Do you really think the beliefs you laid down here are universal, not to be questioned? That would be a SJW thing to think.
    All I’m asking is to rethink the claim that all religions are the same. Be careful how you group things, be careful what direction your logical process leads, and do a lot more research on the facts. And as for me, I don’t have a problem with Joseph Smith’s “disorderly conduct” charge of 1826.

    1. Wrong. The law of gravity has been tested time and time again. People believe in it because it has been demonstrated to be true with the rigors of the scientific method. Religions ask you to believe their tripe absent any evidence or testing of any kind. The two types of belief are not even close.

       1. They do? I wouldn’t believe anything absent of any evidence or testing.

          1. And yet you do.

          2. Without proof. A strawman erected.

       2. I’m a fan of science but you seem to imply that science is infallible which is laughable. Many discarded theories over the years. The scientific method has it’s limitations, i.e., Science can’t decide if light is a particle or a wave because of conflicting test results. They can’t explain the singularity of the Big Bang. Talk about believing in miracles. And they usually dismiss anything as rubbish they can’t test in a lab. It’s a powerful tool but many things seem to evade it’s grasp especially the metaphysical. I suspect they dismiss or avoid phenomena which are beyond their ability to evaluate.

          1. Science is not infallible, however, when proven wrong, it throws the old theories in the trash and puts the new ones to the test. Religion just cannot stand being proven wrong; so it fights battles that, to most of us, seem almost like a child taking a position on something they know nothing about. The world was not, for instance, created 4000 years ago. Nor was it created in 7 days. Arguing otherwise is like saying that “up is down”, or “the earth is flat”. It just is a nonsensical argument that cannot be supported (or really even argued against, because whoever says something like that is obviously immune to facts).

          2. You are right of course. I prefer spirituality to organized religion and I take the dogma of religions with a grain of salt. But this type of thinking also exists in the scientific community where some issues are not allowed to be discussed fairly. The correlations between race and IQ for example. All men and women must be created equal despite the evidence. Confirmation bias and political correctness exist to a great extent in the scientific community. Some scientists work quietly behind the scenes of controversial subjects like UFO’s, ghosts or NDE’s, things people have experienced for thousands of years. Those subjects are forbidden in the USA and career suicide.

          3. ” The world was not, for instance, created 4000 years ago”
             YEC embarrasing the rest of us.

          4. Maybe, but unlike religion, science seeks to prove things. Religion on the other hand simply demands that you believe without proof, and in many cases despite proof.
             It is a physical scientific fact that human beings cannot walk on water. Yet, the Bible tells us that Jesus literally walked on water.
             I remember the exact moment I rejected religion. I was 6 years old and in Sunday school. I told the teacher that I tried walking on water at the pool just to be like Jesus. I told her it didn’t work. That kook had no answers for me.
             A 6 year can see through this bullshit. Why not adults?

          5. Just out of curiosity, do you reject the existence of all things paranormal or just religious teachings? I mean the Chinese believe in Ghosts but not God. And what do you think about this? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miracle_of_the_Sun
             It was witnessed by 30,000 people including some prominent people and an article written about in the Portuguese newspaper. How do you reconcile it? Mass hallucination? There are many contraindications to non-belief just as there are for belief. Some days when I read about some horrible shit that happened to some little kid I doubt the existence also. I just don’t know. Sorry for talking so much.

          6. I believe they claim 6,000 years, and even that is just the calculations of some medieval monk. The Bible wasn’t subtitled: The Unabridged History of the Universe. Many Christians try to make the Bible give answers that God has seen fit not to fit within our purview. They do it for the same reasons that those on the other side so vigorously support what ostensibly occurred 30-some billion years ago. (Which consequently is also a faith of its own, but I digress.) Because they want absolutes from ourselves, without God. Why was it that Adam and Eve took from the Tree of Knowledge? So that they could become God themselves.

          7. So you continue to reject the whole of a faith, of which enough volumes of theological books have been written to fill a city, to this very day, because of an interpretation of scripture you had that you thought granted you present and continual superhuman powers, all having been arrived at by the ripe old age of six?

    2. Yes, I love how the author made a point to insult atheists as well as the religious.

    3. “Your belief in gravity makes you religious.”
       Nonsense. Just as a person 3000 years ago I am shocked, shocked I say, every time when I drop a rock it doesn’t just shoot of in some random direction at some random speed.

       1. Belief is not the same thing as prediction. Belief is an understanding why something happens.

          1. Although I have measured it myself any number of times and taught many others to do so, I have no idea why gravity happens, nor do I presume one.
             I do not even presume that the question is meaningful.

       2. Gravity is shocking. All of nature is shocking and bizarre. You only forget that because it is something you’ve dulled your senses to. “Nature” is the system of constant miracles and absurdities we’ve all come to take for granted.
          Some invisible force informs matter that it should travel in a certain direction. And this mysterious force is ubiquitous, constant, uniform. And on top of that you expect me to believe that this force just got there for no reason, on accident or something? No, it is more reasonable to believe that the laws of nature are there because someone put them there. More reasonable to believe that we are living in a dream or living in a piece of art that was formed by a higher mind or higher power.

          1. “”Nature” is the system of constant miracles and absurdities we’ve all come to take for granted.”
             Nobody who investigates nature takes it for granted. The concept is an oxymoron. Such people wonder.
             ” . . . ubiquitous, constant . . . ”
             If we set aside the issue of singularites for the moment, yes.
             ” . . . uniform . . .”
             No. It is proportional to mass and follows the inverse square law of distance. Where you are it is not the same as where I am, although it is very close, as the differences in masses and distance is very small.
             ” . . . you expect me to believe . . .”
             I do nothing of the kind. I expect you to measure. Twice before cutting.

    4. B, I would like to help you work on your apologetics. It takes a much deeper philosophical understanding for someone to know why their senses cannot be trusted as a valid method of understanding reality, and therefore how their experience of something like gravity is essentially a “belief.” That kind of advanced epistemological analysis is not a good way to start a conversation in public with non-philosophers.
       Instead, pick something more understandable and universal, like morality. I like to use morality as a substitute for gravity/math/logic. Like I said, it is much easier to show the average person that morality is nothing more than belief, but much more advanced to show that all logic and math is ultimately circular or suffers from various paradoxes and fallacies.
       So I typically explain to people that any public expression of opinion is nothing different than religious proselytization. It can be easily shown that morality doesn’t exist since it’s never been found in a microscope or telescope. It is easy to show people who talk in public that their opinions are nothing more than personal beliefs. And it is easy to explain to them that their personal beliefs are exactly equal to religious beliefs.
       In the end any social person who cares about anything is acting along a series of moral beliefs they have invented for themselves. In the end all people have a personal religion of some kind. Understanding this forces you to formally acknowledge your personal religiosity and to select the most reasonable religion from the menu, or at least give your invention a name.

       1. Well said. Thank you.

17. Meh, schoolboy nihilism. I was transported back to the dormitory for a minute there.

    1. Ha! Nihilism is easy. Solving it is harder. Nietzsche failed to solve the problem of nihilism. Atheism fails to solve it. Social Darwinism fails. Everything fails. We need a bailout from this nihilist prison of a universe. I found Christ.

       1. I think it was Nietzsche who said that all of life is a debate about tastes. (Could have been Kant?)
          This writer just hasn’t fully developed his palate, I believe. Got some prejudices and issues (endemic to most young men) that he will need to reconcile before he can understand fully what “alpha” really is.In his little bio, he talks of having a messed up mom. A good mom is integral to the formation of alpha traits that are healthy.
          The writer will find his version of “excellence” as he matures. In the meantime, he will play the nihilist that believes in nothing, because as you said, that is actually much easier than commitment.Real alphas know that rugged individualism and the nihilism that is in all of us has to be tempered and channeled. Individualism is good, but isolation is dangerous. Got to have some myths, some tenets, some centrality, some things that endure…a home base.
          Real alphas have the full set of tools.

18. So how, then, should we spend our Sundays? Maybe hanging out here… No, lifting. Lifting is the answer.

    1. Sabbath is on SATURDAY you fool!
       hah

       1. ok you’re an adventist. got it.

19. I know plenty of black Jehovah’s Witnesses. They simply teach the word according to God. In fact, they have members of all races here in Phoenix. Not just one. Many of all. You’d immediately retract that statement.

20. Religion is good as a framework for raising kids and teaching them right from wrong. But like Santa, eventually you gotta grow up and leave that shit behind.

    1. Well said.

    2. Which religion? Islam? Maybe not so good for the kids.
       We are all kids.

21. One of the man’s virtues, I admire most is humility. Christianity is much older than our young Blair Naso (raised by a single mother) who dares to question its whole doctrine. Arrogance rules intellectuals. Intellectuals are always arrogant, and usually make serious mistakes.
    Truth is people need moral guidance and religion used to do a good job providing it. The European civilisation was possible thanks to Christianity.
    Moral relativism is dangerous for society. By this way of thinking, for example, a crime is only a crime if we say it is. For example, if a murder is committed by a woman or a gay man, it may be fine because these are oppressed minorities. However, if a white male does the same thing, then it is horrible and he should be put to death or punished severely because he is an oppressor in their mind, even if he is a poor, simple man. Too often, this is as deep as their thinking goes. They are often not capable of deeper thinking, which requires more mental clarity than they have, even with their PhD degrees and other academic credentials.

    1. The opposite of Christianity isn’t moral relativism. I agree that society needs a strong moral foundation to function, but modern christianity is very deficient in this regard. What’s the bigger problem for society, gays or single mothers? I’d argue that the 50% or something mothers that are single are far more damaging to society than the very small 1% fraction of dudes that want to hokey up each other’s pokeys. Modern christianity has its priorities fucked up. And then there’s the question of simply believing stuff that is patently not true (or wildly insane), like human beings riding dinosaurs. How can you keep a straight face while saying stuff like that?

       1. I don’t remember dinosaurs in the Bible. Must have skipped over that part. At any rate, you say society needs a strong moral foundation. Well if that moral foundation doesn’t come from God, it comes from man. Call it utilitarianism, call it whatever. Question is, where has that worked well in the past, for the average person?
          When we begin with ourselves as the base of morality, we will search endlessly for universality, but we will inevitably end by our throwing up our hands, accepting nothing. Man coming from himself, finds only himself and his own self interest. Which means we accept everything. Which pretty much describes what the Left believes at present. So how would doing more of the same produce a better result?

          1. > Well if that moral foundation doesn’t come from God, it comes from man.
             All morality comes from man.
             There’s no need to accept utilitarianism or attempt to find universal moral principles (which obviously don’t exist). Just find a set of social laws and rules which seem to organize society satisfactorily and produce relative happiness and progress. You can even call them ‘laws’ if you want. There are many many examples of human populations throughout the world who found rules of social organization that seemed to work pretty well, and they did it without divine inspiration – just trial and error. We can learn from history so we don’t have to go through the ‘error’ part.
             > Man coming from himself, finds only himself and his own self interest.
             Who should we be interested in, then? Trees? Are you suggesting that we should not put man’s self interest at the forefront of importance?

          2. Sure, different societies have come up with different organizing principles to order society that have worked to one degree or another, but two points. All of them, best as I can see, have come connection to the divine. Whether the divine is within you, or in a statue, or some other place, is besides the point. The thing about it is, eventually, they all fell apart. The reason; because man is naturally selfish and turns in towards himself, not towards the good of others, individually or the whole, collectively. What maintains a certain level of selflessness, is faith in something beyond himself. When that faith evaporates, all he’s left with is himself and gratifying his own immediate desires. Then everything collapses. So why shouldn’t man be interested first and foremost in himself; because civilization is by definition where people take a “civil” outlook towards others, wherein we care about other people and other principles beyond ourselves and our own desires. Without that, we degenerate into a mob of individual barbarians. What maintains that is faith, of some sort or another, with the force that comes with an order set from something beyond our own desires, not simply an agreed upon set of good guidelines to live by.
             One other thing. How many of these other societies in history or at present, would the free-thinkers on ROK want to live in? Remember, a good chunk of the world, even if it doesn’t actively believe anymore, still has its cultural and legal roots in Christianity.

    2. The problem with what you’re arguing here is that you’re not saying we should have Christianity in society because it’s true, but because it gives the common man a reason to be good.
       That’s a serious retreat on your part. You’re so lacking confidence in the truth of your beliefs that you won’t even argue for them on their own merits, but rather are arguing that people should embrace these beliefs just because it keeps the great unwashed in line.
       That’s a piss-poor reason to believe something. According to your logic, we should just believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster since belief in Him could also keep us peasants from misbehaving.

       1. That’s true, but I don’t know if he’s a believer. He might just admire the results of belief. At any rate, you can’t negotiate belief in God and Christ’s atonement. Faith is by Grace.

22. Um, nope. Purgatory and annulments are natural phases of humanity. Sometimes people get married but didn’t know how deep the dedication should go, so we annul them. And the great mass of dead aren’t good enough for heaven, nor bad enough for hell. Purgatory is hell with a time limit to make them good enough for the former and save them from the latter. It’s just logical.
    Protip: Jesus doesn’t wash away your sins like they never happened. He washes them away, and He gets royally pissed when you relapse. He’s like “WTF, DUDE!?”

    1. So the Catholic Church doesn’t allow divorce, but it allows for annulments? Sounds like equivocation.

       1. Nope. Annulments are far harder to get.

    2. Also, the doctrine of purgatory has changed radically over time. In the old days, purgatory was as painful as hell, but now it’s a marshmallowy expectation.

       1. There’s the regular purgatory, which is hell with a time limit, and the purgatory of the Fathers, where there is no suffering. Both concepts existed in the old days. That’s why the latter was named after the Church Fathers.

    3. Athos isn’t just a cult; it’s a frat.

23. The bible is the blue print for bieng an alpha male, a lot of guys on here seem to believe that bieng an alpha male getting lots of women. I personally don’t think so. That’s why all the music and movies are designed to numb the mind. It’s a ploy to make you weaker, and atheism is a weapon against you the same with evolution. Here’s how , survival of the fittest if we apply that to life if that was the undisputed truth of the earth, how can you condem Hitler. Or Stalin these people killed and murdered millions, but that’s evolution. It’s a religion of the elite how they justify bieng a tyrant becuase they hold the power, and how can every one achieve having power it’s a finite resource. So according to them it’s ok for them to tap your phone and watch you non stop. Becuase after all only the strong survive. And you believe what their selling you to enslave you. The bible is the only thing to set you free. It’s burns people up they lie,steal, and cheat to get where they are. You give up every thing and at the end of the day you realize it doesn’t make you happy. And then they see the truth that Christian guy who will quit if you try to make him work Sunday is happier, more content driving his mini van then you, your in your bently and the hate rises to the top. Becuase you’ve been sold a lie and you bought it.

    1. The bible is NOT a blueprint for the alpha male. The bible is a blue print for beta; and also, incidentally, a blueprint for building a society. If everyone becomes alpha, nothing gets done. The majority HAS TO BE beta or else the world will collapse. So the bible puts together a framework for how a “good beta” should live and function in society. Which worked very well until the rise of feminism and the death of the church. Now, like before religion became a major force (a guess, but I’d put money on it) we have the “rule of the jungle” out there. The alphas are tearing up society for their benefit, be it women, money or power, while the betas are finding it hard to even find one good woman to date/marry. This is not because they “aren’t beta enough” it’s because we’ve allowed women to return to their instincts rather than the rule of the bible and man.
       And this is coming from a “devout” atheist. It’s hard for me to admit there’s any good in religion, but, I can’t argue that it certainly gave us a better framework for dealing with women and hypergamy than what we have today.

       1. See me and you are on two different levels. Bieng a provider for your family is isn’t bieng beta. It’s easy in today’s society to be what you call a alpha male a man who sleeps with women and leaves bearing no responsibilty. The only reason they are Able to do things such as that are becuase of technology. The framework already put in place through years of sacrifice by those who came before you. If you put a hundred late 90s baby’s in the middle of no where they wouldn’t survive becuase they don’t understand how much simple things such as bieng a homosexual or a whore or whoremonger can affect a society. So your saying a male who doesn’t sacrifice is the alpha, that to me is totally false, and backwards. Why was male hood given to us why are we physically stronger and mentally to be the leaders and leaders sacrifice. And your version of a alpha is a traitor to all mankind. You are the reason why we will be wiped of the face of the earth, becuase you forgot God and only seek to please yourself. For every action there is a equal and greater reaction.

       2. This comment resonates on so many levels.
          This as red and as true as the Red Pill can be.

       3. The bible IS for the alpha male. Why? Because God gave men authority, not women. Man was not made for women. Woman was made for man. Marriage in and out of itself is not beta. It’s the man that is beta marrying a low quality woman.

          1. I would say, rather, it is man that’s been given “dominion”. The book of Genesis is the best piece ever written on the state of male – female relations. You just have to study it. The bible isn’t a Top Ten Jezebel list.

       4. The Bible is absolutely an ultimate alpha male book. You, like most people especially Christians, have taken a couple verses out and created a whole doctrine and belief system out of it. However, if the book is taken as a whole, a more complete perspective would be gained. Everybody likes to think God is all about Love and Forgiveness, but He is also about War and Justice. There cannot be one without the other. A true alpha male is not just about banging as many women as possible, being a douche bag…etc. But a true alpha was the leader of his tribe, yes he could have sex with any women in his tribe, but he also acted as a father, a protector, of Everyone in his tribe. Which can only possible with love, a masculine love.

       5. That’s all true about what’s happened to the church and what’s happened to society as a result, but back to your (our) usage of “alpha.” If alpha is just synonymous with “does his own thing, without care for anything beyond self-interest,” isn’t that just selfishness, parading around as a virtue?
          There’s a moral dimension to this. Honestly, who would want such a person as a friend, or a co-worker, or a brother, or fellow soldier by his side. Surely, our working dichotomy of alpha as “cares about nothing beyond himself,” and beta as “cares about something beyond himself,” is not just a utilitarian question of which can build a society. Surely, if anything is immoral, selfishness is immoral. The pursuance of the self is the root cause of all wickedness, as you can justify absolutely anything by it. So if you don’t believe that being “alpha” (under that working definition) is immoral, then what you’re saying (or what we’re saying in the manosphere) is that nothing is immoral. There is no morality. Morality might build a society, but it doesn’t exist, so I’ll do as I please under any circumstances. That’s a pretty miserable, wretched view of people and life. And we can’t very well complain about what the other side has done, can we? They’ve just outdone average men, by manipulating society to their advantage. And apparently, we would have done no different.

          1. Alpha is not inherently immoral (although, very often, it does turn into that; some of the biggest alphas in history have been tyrants). But the 2 are not intrinsically related.
             Think about it this way, take a situation that has 2 possible outcomes. Outcome 1 is the man is happy, woman is sad. Outcome 2 is the opposite, woman happy, man sad. An alpha, almost without fail, is going to choose option 1 because, in his mind, he’s the king and should be the one who is happy and served. Is his decision the “right” one? Who knows, it may even be the moral decision, but, he didn’t do it for moral reasons, he did it because it furthers his goals.
             Alpha, while very helpful for landing a ONS or LTR, is really not something that we should exult to the level we do on this site. There are a ton of problems with being the alpha male, and a ton of problems when there are too many alphas (see: Africa). It’s fine to encourage others to be more alpha and to seek it for themselves, but, if everyone follows that advice, the whole thing comes to crashing halt.

          2. What I’m saying is that it’s one thing not to supplicate to the whims of a woman, it’s quite another to believe in nothing beyond immediate self interest. It’s more than just saying, “don’t kiss her backside.” Our concept of alpha isn’t being a man, it’s being a selfish man. We can choose to be men, without having to be selfish men. The definition that prevails in the manosphere has shoehorned in the selfish bit, because women respond to it, not because it defines manhood.

          3. I agree. There is a way to be an altruistic alpha. It’s just that “be selfish” is a good shortcut to alpha for most men, so, unfortunately, that’s the most “common” type.
             Frankly, I’m not sure most men want to be the alpha. They want to get laid, that’s for sure, so they emulate the behaviors of alphas to get pussy. But, in the end, there’s a reason that a “natural alpha” is so rare.

    2. The bible isn’t a ‘blueprint’ for anything; it’s a compiled collection of myths and folk tales that each reflect the (many contradictory) moral viewpoints of whoever was writing them.
       It’s exactly because of this vague and self-contradictory nature that the bible was so useful to kings and dictators; you can extract and spin passages from the bible to make them support virtually any position you like. The bible has been used to support the whole spectrum from communism (google ‘christian communism’) to socialism to fascism to nationalism to liberalism. And not to mention the numerous suicide-genocide cults. Of course everyone says that their own pet interpretation of the book is the right one and everyone else is going to hell.
       What you’re talking about isn’t religion, it’s government power and state control. I agree with you that we have to keep these things in check but ironically the very religion you support is one of the main enabling factors that keeps the powerful powerful.

       1. So atheist societies do nothing to keep the powerful, powerful, since they have no religion? No. It seems that everything and anything will be used for power, and it will be twisted and molded to fit the next person’s agenda. Mensheviks versus Bolsheviks, anyone? Even Marxism has been twisted and reformed over and over. You can’t throw out religion because people have contorted it.

       2. Yes you are right about people using it for evil and to enslave people, but look into how they did it. The catholic church might as well have patented how to. They mixed older pagan reiligions that were forbidden in the bible repackaged everything and set up the Catholic Church not a bible beliving church. And they controlled all the Kings by this pretty much the same way the media does now. It is classic bullying and believe me they just used it as a tool they controlled who knew what was actually in it and invinted totally new concepts purgatory, praying to saints. They would still be using it to enlsave people but now any one can read it. So they are still doing the same thing using being PC to enslave you, it’s come full circle for now they just verbally lynch people. You’ve already watched countless kangaroo courts convene and decide the fate of actors for calling someone a faggot, or nigger and punching there wife in the face, the result is always the sameness symbolic death they are just building the frame work for a real one. It will be the same as the dark ages an inquisition for anyone who wasn’t PC and watch what they go for the bible becuase they know it’s the only thing to set you free. You can call some one a faggot and all that it’s not what they are aiming for, the real enemy is the word of God.

24. Christianity has been used historically as a tool to subjugate the masses as well as a tool for colonial powers to Subjugate the people who were being colonized. The mixing of Christianity and African Religions which predate Christianity and Judaism created Voodoo in Haiti, Santeria in Puerto Rico, and various of the like in Latin America. Also Catholicism is the majority religion in Latin America and also enjoys the largest population size, although in these areas a form of “liberal” Christianity has sprouted.
    In Europe Christianity and Catholicism has been the basis/excuse for many battles amongst populations and royal factions like in France, England and Ireland. In modern day America certain areas of Christianity are found in Conservative Bible-Belt sections of the country (which I fall opposite off) and more liberal forms of Christianity. In respect to interpersonal relationships I believe it is good for some women, because I have seen some women who are actually great for marriage in the church (they do exist). It can also teach men great values. This does not mean being a mangina/sucker for women and the game they run. But a strong male role model can teach you more than the Church or anyone else can if we really get down to it.
    In reality I would describe myself more a spiritual person than a “religious” person.

    1. Think of all the good that Christians have done in battle for you. Can you spend a moment to thank them? Charles Martel? Jan Sobiesky? It seems our modern breed of secularists is going to roll over for Islam, and ask nicely for lube.

       1. This one is a hard one to tackle Sgt P….I think it is more a policy issue and a fiscal issue. America has a very strong military and I don’t believe having more secularists or Christians in the military will be the deciding factor in whether America or Western Nations “roll over” for Islam. Especially when certain swaths of “Islam” are fighting alongside Western forces.

26. Well that’s more actual knowledge of Jesus than is offered by the fakes in America’s pulpits.
    Yeah only Jesus heals, but he usually does it through other people, or animals, and being ‘healed’ typically involves lots of personal discomfort. You don’t just get to stand up in church and make gobbledygook-spiritual sounds, then fall backwards into some dork’s arms. It’s not a freebie.
    As for happiness, Jeshua made it clear on numerous occasions that those seeking personal happiness have no business with him. His cup is bitter and full of pain, and will isolate you from your friends and family, not bring tidy self-gratifying Happiness and lotsa personal affirmations.
    Judaism, however, didn’t begin as politics or ideology, given that God hates both. It was a way to vector the concept of fatherhood (and of God the Father) through selected geographic kinship-groups, so that eventually as Scripture attests, salvation could ‘come through the Jews’. Salvation being not the Jews, but the ‘fruit’ of those tribal developments, Christ.
    Cheers.

27. I believe Feminism in its earlier stages served an important purpose but in its current state they shoot themselves in the foot. For example the “Street Harassment” video that went viral. Although there were some creepy men most of the comments were pleasant. I publicly responded to this and openly opposed Feminism in a public fashion…and got positive responses from many men and even some women!
    As a non-white male who is not completely on board with feminism I straddle the line with many on this site while also having to deal with other issues as well. The street harassment video was double impact on people like me because I am against “over-reaching feminism” while at the same time many white male manginas were taking the opportunity to bash minority males at the same time…so it was double the insult. Plus the fact that minority males deal with “COLORISM” which can manifest itself in SOME minority females choosing white males because they have an inward inferiority complex, and this video seemed to justify this deep seeded centuries-long practice.
    I am for equality for women, but some of this over reaching Feminist “causes” I don’t like. It makes society Robotic and puts the ball in women’s court. What is harassment? When can you approach a woman? As a more leftist thinking person the realization that both parties are taking money from the true rulers of this nation plus coupled with the “over-reaching” feminism that is supposed to be “on my side” you start to question your own position and society in general.

    1. The 1st thing you learn of this website is Equalism is quite the damaging lie.

       1. Truth you are right….however Ideally I believe in Meritocracy…if you can perform your craft well I do not care if you are black white purple, woman, man, or Alien. Perform and get what you earn.

          1. We are in agreement with regards to Meritocracy.

          2. Since men perform most efficiently in all-male environments I would also accept segregation even as men and women work together.

28. I don’t think anybody comes here to get religion, The bible is open to interpretation, and its possible to find a quote that justifies divorce on the grounds of infidelity. Most churches encourage counseling first, because some marriages can be saved. Christianity was more red pill until the feminists started getting influence, now its more diluted.

    1. My theory is that Christianity is susceptible to wealth, just as Jesus taught that it harder to squeeze a camel through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to find his way into heaven. I believe he said that right after a rich man came to him and asked what he must do to gain heaven, and Jesus told him to first be obedient, and then sell all his things and follow him. The rich man walked away and presumably said “forget that noise!”

       1. @disqus_NABxbKyX9s:disqus
          Christianity thrives best when put to the test. Westernized comfort was our undoing.

          1. In my experiences, Christianity usually fails when put to any test.

          2. I am not so sure about that. The fact that it survives 2000 years with varying challenges proves that.

          3. Are you aware that several false belief systems have remained for long periods of time?

          4. Alright now I know what you are talking about. If you are talking about truthfulness? Try me.

29. “A Real Man is Always Selfless and Respects Everyone”
    I think a better way of saying it would be that a real man at least hears the other person out and has compassion for those who are truly in need. There’s a difference between being humble and being a milquetoast. The tax collectors in the temple found that out the hard way.
    “The born again sinners think that just because they are forgiven by God that they can demand forgiveness from others.”
    As a “born-again sinner” myself, I don’t demand anything from others, but I can invite them to find the same deliverance and blessing that God brings. Jesus didn’t impose Himself on others, so I certainly won’t.
    “Time Doesn’t Heal All Wounds. Only Jesus Heals, and Only Jesus Can Make You Happy.”
    Time CAN heal, and it certainly helps. I speak from experience.

30. As a christian, I have to agree with many of your views. Many religious people think just being religious removes all their responsibilities. This is not true as you pointed out very well in point 4 and this applies to all aspects of life.
    However I do recommend you to remain critical about your views or generalizations of religious people, even though religion clearly has disappointed you. Talking to others about my faith or something I’m convinced of, doesn’t mean I want to convert someone. Many of my friends are non-religious and they will second both statements…

    1. As a Christian that has moved around the country a lot, I also agree with much of the article. It is nearly impossible to find a good church, and even when we did, it was still full of sinners and hypocrites. The final analysis of “right living” proves that it is not the church that is the problem, nor the god, nor the doctrines, but us; me. I am the problem. You are the problem. Sin is the problem. This dark glass through which we strive to see is a problem.
       Church, and everything else, is so messed up, because we are not in heaven yet. Heaven comes later. In the mean time…

       1. Church is a hospital for sinners. What matters is that they are getting better not that they are perfect.

31. The modern church is a beta make factory. Things I’ve seen and heard in church. . Man up posters on father’s day all over the church, the pastor telling men to man up and consider single. Mother’s in a sermon. Mother’s day where all women had their ass kissed when the pastor prayed for God to send them a father for their kids aka thug spawn. Men’s groups using a book call inside the mind of a woman where the thesis of the book is if a wife isn’t happy, it’s the man’s fault so he needs to figure it out and fix it. Shaming of men looking at Porn and quoting the movie fireproof as if it’s gospel. A men’s brigade weekly that only sends men out to help single mom’s do work for free. I’ve seen pastors quote the verse about loving your wife as Christ loved the church, yet not one mention of wives submitting. I’ve seen unemployed men cursed and yelled at by Christians on church property and called lazy and stupid. I’ve seen several men’s conferences like man up ok or act like a man and not one conference showing women how to be a lady and not fuck thugs. Happy wife, happy life must be the new church motto, I’ve heard it countless time’s spoken by manginas. . Single mom’s walk in with three kids from three men and are welcomed like rock stars and given straight cash from the church while a unemployed or underemployed man is told to get a job and don’t whine. The modern church is no place for men. It’s is a rotting corpse that caters to trashy women and shits on men

    1. Trad-con feminism:
       http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2013/10/19/defining-tradcon-feminism-part-1-theory/
       http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2013/10/23/defining-tradcon-feminism-part-2-principles/

    2. In Christianity, sin entered into this world when Eve wasn’t “happy” and rebelled. All it would have taken at that point to prevent everything that has since followed, was for Adam to put his foot down and say “NO!” But he couldn’t. He chose to curry favor with his wife, rather than obey his God. This is now called “loving his wife.” Much of the church is preaching a bastardized message of the gospel, that’s rank heresy. Christ would have driven them away from his church with a whip.
       The court eunuchs who masquerade as “strong Christian men” now browbeat those who
       refuse to abet this rebellion and submit to mammon’s reworking of God’s
       order. The righteous path for every Christian man is to refuse to continue supporting it, only getting married under rigid and narrow circumstances. This
       rebellion should be put down, and this heresy banished. It will only be accomplished when a generation
       of men refuse to prop it up. Men have been failing at this and walking
       in Adam’s cowardly path for over 100 years. It’s high time it stop.

       1. I have this debate with pre-millenialists all the time, they think the world is ending because America sucks, so it is kinda funny to hear it from seculars, but I will say it again:
          America is not Christianity!
          In Uganda homosexuality is illegal, thanks largely to Christians. There are an estimated 65 million Christians in China. Who is to say that the death of the Church in America means the death of Christianity all together? Especially when Christianity thrives in persecution.
          http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q1wwe9-be2Y

          1. I have a friend who has lived in China for over 20 years and worked with the underground church during that time. He says when he comes back to the West and visits churches here he is struck by how weak and dead the Christian faith is. It depresses him.

          2. Looks like the future of christianity will involve throwing da poo poo.

    3. Agree. Church, today, is not church of even a couple of decades ago. Back when, a single mother may have had a kid and dad left (or died) so it made a little sense to help out.
       Today, it’s women having their “freedom” to do anything without being called on it. They don’t have to act like a “lady” because no one is holding them accountable. But, of course, the man has to step it up (or man up).
       I avoid the church and any church related functions, donations, drives, etc….at all cost because it is another institution that doesn’t have my (a man) best interest in mind.

    4. I go to some of these conferences and men’s group on occasion, listen, laugh to myself at what is ” preached” and then go home and run game on my wife. The funny thing is I’m one of the only guys I know in this circle who doesn’t have a wife that walks all over him. She’s always bending over backwards to please me.

32. I remember this site being awesome, but this thing has hit a new low for me

33. Feminists have historically blamed Christianity for their perceived grievances from “patriarchy”. As a result, churches started to change to accommodate feminist ideas, to try to make the church more inclusive or contemporary. Feminists want their own religion, with female priests, making female doctrine.

34. Mark Driscoll is/WAS the epitome of White Knightedry on display. The guy spent SO MUCH time shaming men…”wife up single moms”, and “single moms have it the hardest” CANNOT WAIT to this fat fuck’s wife divorces him, now that he lost his church and takes all his shit…will send him a friendly email reminding him to make sure she is taken “care of” in alimony and CS. It’s a race to the bottom with TradCons, who have completely adopted the basic tenants of bull shit feminism.

    1. Yeah when he is divorced remind him of all the 200lb single. Mom’s at Mars Hill who need a father of or their thug spawn

    2. Fuck Mark Driscoll.
       I would smack that beta mangina if he started yapping at me like he does all those omegas in his “church”

    3. Well, I have issues with Driscoll too, but fat? Come on now

    4. Wifing up single moms is a benefit to society except Mr. Beta Bux. I can hardly blame pastors for encouraging this behavior, as we all know the consequences of single mothers. The less fatherless children we have, the better, but I won’t be the band-aid in this situation.

35. ”I never realized that most Christians I met were miserable, arrogant, and morally ambivalent.”
    Must be legalism that is doing this.
    Likewise they don’t show signs of being saved:
    Galatians 5:22-23
    ”22 But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such there is no law.”
    They must have got the gospel so wrong.

    1. Sometimes I am tempted to despair, and it’s not the Muslims cutting off the heads of Christians that gets me, it’s the Christians in America giving up what they had that gets me. We had it pretty good, but we’re throwing all that away.

       1. Persecution is coming and has come:
          http://www.lifenews.com/2014/10/22/california-forces-churches-to-directly-fund-abortions-churches-refuse-to-comply/
          http://www.christianpost.com/news/houston-sermon-subpoena-scandal-5-things-you-need-to-know-128268/
          And it will not be pretty. Strap on your setbelts for the spiritual war is heating up.

36. Let’s all give the feminist professor @ProfLBNielsen a warm welcome to the red pill for her proposal to make ‘unwanted’ male speech illegal. I’ve already sent her a concerned email. If you’d rather not be ruled by Taliban-Feminists, I suggest you send her a concerned letter/tweet as well.
    http://www.nytimes.com/roomfordebate/2014/10/31/do-we-need-a-law-against-catcalling/street-harassment-law-would-restrict-intimidating-behavior

37. Jehovah’s Witnesses: your religion is a pyramid selling scam. Your bishop makes bank off every Watchtower you purchase and give away. You believe them when they tell you you are getting them at cost price? Visit any print shop with a copy and find out what a pallet load would actually cost to print.

38. Ugh, RoK, I hate it when you post articles on Christianity. It attracts a bunch of ‘ALPHA AS FUCK’ pseudo-intellectuals who think they know everything. Of course American Christianity is useless and utterly feminized – no one believes good doctrine any more. Why? They don’t read the Bible. Christianity in its purest form is simply a belief that the Bible is the infallible word of God. Say what you like about this, that it’s weak or deluded or crazy or blind or whatever, but it is not something that Americans do.
    You may be tempted to say ‘there are so many denominations and each one thinks they are correct, therefore Christianity cannot be true.’ This equation does not add up. Most churches in America are driven by pastors who value butts on seats above anything else, hence the feminisation of the western church, as it is not the Word of God that wins hearts and minds, but the most popular political dogma of the day.
    True Christianity should influence culture, not the other way around. This happens in countries where Christians are oppressed, and can be seen throughout history in events such as the Reformation. It does not happen in America. In America, Christianity has become a religion of convenience more than anything else.
    The above article has many legitimate complaints about Christianity, but all bar one of them (1) are results of a weak, cushy Western version of Christianity. The first point confuses ‘happiness’ with ‘joy.’ Americans want Jesus to make them ‘happy,’ but nowhere in the scriptures did He say He would do that. The Apostle Paul presents the Christian model for joy in his letters; that, despite suffering for Christ, he has an all surpassing joy that man cannot take away through violence or manipulation. He is certainly not ‘happy,’ rather, he is secure in his faith in Jesus, and that brings him joy. Happiness is circumstantial; joy is not.
    Real Christianity involves belief that it is all worth it DESPITE not being happy or comfortable. Ideas 2-5 are simply a result of the Bible being interpreted through a Western lens. I doubt many Western Christians, when faced with any sort of challenge to the faith that could actually hurt them, would truly remain Christians. In fact, the infiltration of egalitarianism/leftism/accept-ism/feminism/blah-ism is proof that Western Christians, as a group, cannot withstand even the slightest of challenges to their faith.
    I’m sad to have written this, and would love to see Western Christianity rise up and become what it once was. We could start by taking hold of masculinity and making a stand against the ‘isms.’ Also, exposing the multitudes of pathetic teachers and pastors out there who do not teach the Bible. Unfortunately, Western Christians are comfortable with the way they are, and there will be hell to pay.
    Not all of us are ‘betas’ who sit around waiting for Jesus to send us wives while Bible bashing atheists in a misguided Christian dick-length comparison. Unfortunately, though, you are right; a great deal of us probably are just that.

    1. seconded

    2. Having read through the comments section after making my bold statement at the start of my previous comment, i am going to have to humbly revoke it. There has been great discussion and a lot of creative ideas to consider, and very little of the ‘alpha posing’ i presumptuously expected. In the future, ill refrain from making blanket criticisms of you guys before i have even read what you say. The conversation has actually been mostly great, so thanks.

    3. Great comment!. A church where the whole Bible is preached, sin is not brushed under the rug, Jesus is shown for what he is – our advocate before a most Holy God, His grace is all that is needed and lastly it’s the Spirit of God that changes lives not rules from the pulpit, is a church that will produce healthy balanced Christians who can be powerful sources of “salt and light ” in the midst of a decaying society.

39. Christian women are ruthlessly hypergamous. They want to marry a pastor, they want to marry someone in leadership. If you ain’t one, you’re nothing.
    Why? Why do they so desperately want this?
    Because a pastor’s wife is boss of all the other women. That’s what it’s ***alllll*** about. Men form formal hierarchies, and work together communally within them – the formal hierarchy is only for contigencies. Women formally have nonhierarchical circles, but the day-to-day reality is that there is a savage pecking order. In churchy circles, the pastors wife (if she is not incompetent at social games, which she won’t be) is queen.

    1. I think you mean, “women are ruthlessly hypergamous.”

40. I’m certain this will cause a stir, but take from it what you will. As a student of theology and a pastor-in-training, I both peruse this site and agree with it and this article in the majority. The church has changed at a fundamental level, to the point where I really don’t consider the people today who call themselves Christians to be anything remotely related to the ones of the past when my great-grandfather was a minister (1920-30s). I’m not here to argue the benefits of one religion (or none) over the other, it is abundantly clear that today’s churches and pastors have been completely feminized, neutered, and are no longer places that men should go unless you are looking to come of a dry streak with a bit of low-hanging fruit in the form of a single mother. Men who really seek to find their faith should do so through small groups, or via the internet.

    1. Interesting. Why become a pastor then?

       1. In a sense, the same reason that sites like this one were created. To better myself and to fix the problem. I may never have a church, or convince crowds of people to give me money on Sundays, but those same small groups and internet churches I advocate need pastors, and I want to have the knowledge and the skill to step up and lead if that is what I have to do.

41. 1. Jesus never promised to make us happy – He promises salvation.
    2. You are absolutely correct, there will be payment for all sins. The question is, do you want that payment to be by Jesus’s blood or by your own?
    3. Many churches have clearly misapplied the teaching concerning widows and orphans. Biblical text is quite clear but ignored. Of course, most churches, especially those most infected by Marxism, no longer believe in the primacy of scripture. Instead, they seek man’s approval, not God’s.
    4. Jesus never promised anyone a husband or wife. There is no such promise in the Bible either. So, if a church is teaching that, it is wrong.
    5. Being selfless and respectful have nothing to do with being a “beta male” or taking the blue pill. Jesus, the most selfless and respectful man who ever walked the earth, once took a whip and violently and physically threw the money changers from the Temple. He also stood up against and lambasted the hypocritical religious leaders of the day. Finally, He placed the sins of the world upon his shoulders and, for doing so, was brutalized beyond recognition and crucified. Is that “alpha male” and red pill enough for you?

    1. ”Finally, He placed the sins of the world upon his shoulders and, for
       doing so, was brutalized beyond recognition and crucified.”
       For the elect that is equivalent to jumping on the grenade to save his comrades. Or jumping in front of a person to save him from a deadly bullet.

    2. LOL someone actually responded to the original article. WTF?

42. Solomon had over 800 wives and concubines. He was an observant Jew who was richly rewarded by God. Is that red pill enough for you?
    …feminists don’t want that chapter taught… lol

    1. Probably the first Gentile to convert to Christianity was a Roman Centurion named Cornelius. I find it ironic that so many here would say that the pagan Romans were the true alpha males in history when God chose them as perhaps the most central aspect of his church following Christ’s resurrection.

43. someone from the outside looking in said……what?

44. A christian man’s response to this:
    http://societyofphineas.wordpress.com/2014/11/01/truth-is-subtle/

45. I was raised a Christian and was never taught anything even vaguely resembling the 5 points mentioned here…and I’ve met plenty of white, college educated, middle/upper class JWs…but then again I’m from Australia so maybe it’s different here.

46. Jeez I had to stop reading when he called atheism a “religion”. Bitter? Im only bitter because I know religion is turning this world to shit and there is nothing I can do about it.

    1. Man created gods in his own image. Religion is not the problem, it is the symptom. The worldly projection of his own innermost self.
       Take away a man’s god and he will simply create another. The so called “Godless Communists,” for instance, have reinvented the Moirai/Shai, although they hide this fact even from themselves by misnaming Fate as History.

47. Church is for the weak minded who can’t seem to think for themselves so they turn to a old ass book for modern answers.

48. This article definitely needed to be written. I grew up attending church and christian school. I could never figure out why the harder I tried to be a good boy and a White Knight, the more disdain I felt from the people I was trying to please. Its true, as a Christian nation, America did well, but that was certainly due less to Christian values than to having at least SOME standard of conduct, something we are now sorely lacking.
    I started reading up on the TRUE history of religion, especially Christianity in Europe.
    I had no idea that after the Roman Empire split and Charlemagne came to power, European people didn’t have “religion” per se, they had “traditions” and some “rites”, but nothing that demanded you do X,Y, and Z at risk of eternal damnation.
    After Charlemagne “converted” Europe to christianity by offering the choice of being baptized or killed, original European beliefs were snuffed out.
    Christianity today in Europe and America is about generating compliance and accepting whatever happens to you without resistance; in exchange you get to pass the buck on personal responsibility by saying its part of “God’s Plan”…bullshit.
    In truth, Christianity is a hodgepodge of Middle Eastern cult beliefs mashed together with pre-existing pagan customs such as Oester (Easter), Samhain (Halloween), and Yule (Christmas). The “gospels” are contradictory accounts, each written 30+ years after the fact by uneducated working class men; hardly a reliable source for anything. of all the available writings from that time, another group of men cherry-picked what would constitute the “Bible” your grandma has and which would be ignored.
    Is it any surprise that the original European values of Courage, Truth, Honor, Fidelity, Discipline, Hospitality, Self-Reliance, Industriousness, and Perseverance have been chopped down in favor of meekness, supplication, and blind faith?
    As for me, I refuse to acknowledge any god who demands I kneel, close my eyes, and wring my hands.
    http://marchofthetitans.com/

    1. Those values are still in the bible, they are called Christian character. Its in there all over the place, it may not be preached or cared about much anymore, but it is the major thrust of what the faith is intended for.

49. Jesus will forgive your sins if you repent, and they won’t be held against you at the moment of your judgment. But the temporal consequences of your sins remain, and you will be held accountable for them in this life. If you shoot a man dead, Jesus will forgive you and you can still go to heaven if you repent. But your victim is still dead and you’ll still go to jail.

50. A real man is true to himself.

    1. Does a real man admit when he is wrong or deny it?

       1. Man always know, what is that He`s supposed to do, what is right in his heart. If he listens to It and wont submit to women, fear, greed and hate, everything will turn out to be alright.

51. The most important part is the last, *love yourself*. Relationships will always fail if you don’t love yourself, because if you don’t love yourself you will not resist someone trying to change you or treat you poorly because you don’t value yourself much. Many times, when you don’t love yourself, you’re trying to fill an emptiness in your life that you haven’t/can’t fulfill yourself so you go looking for a piece to complete you. Seeking out a someone to complete your missing parts usually involves acceptance of traits in that person that may well be harmful. If you love yourself, you will not put yourself into an abusive relationship, or allow yourself to be manipulated or denigrated because you will not accept that treatment. Lastly, loving yourself means that when someone attempts to change you (a typical female endeavor) you will not only resist that change, but reject the person trying to change you because they obviously don’t care for you as you are, which means you will disassociate yourself from them.
    For example, I see many women that date men that remind them of their negligent fathers (quote-unquote, bad boys) because they never got love from their fathers. Or, their fathers were abusive (sexually, physically, emotionally) and they pursue a male similar to that in the hopes of getting love from them to fill in that gap. In males, I more often see that men seek to glean acceptance from an attractive woman to give them self-worth, probably because they don’t have self-confidence or self-esteem. Or, men will accept relationships with women that will denigrate them, rob them of their masculinity, or wear them down with jibes (“If you really loved me, you do this for me”). Especially in this modern era, men come to see themselves as needing to be more caring and effeminate and lose perspective on masculinity, seeing masculinity as the embodiment of misogyny (pounded into them by society, see “pussification”) instead of an acceptance of their male nature.
    1. Recognize and accept who you are.
    2. Like what you are. If you don’t like what you are or aren’t fulfilling your ideals as a person, write a list or goals/traits and set out to meet all of those goals so that you become that person that you can respect and like. You *can* change to become what you want to be as a man.
    3. Don’t marry/date someone to “complete” you, marry/date someone that you enjoy being around and that compliments (adds to) you. For example, when it comes to being compassionate, I’m pretty weak in that department, but my wife is strong in that arena. When it comes to disciplining the kids and sticking to it, I’m the one that takes on that role, whereas my wife is more likely to cave (and the kids know it).
    4. Don’t associate with people that denigrate others or you. People that focus on the short-comings of others, and seem to enjoy cutting others down, are usually the most damaged and least trustworthy people on the planet. These are society’s bullies and should be ostracized. Keep them out of your life, and certainly don’t date/marry them.
    Concerning this article, I think a lot of people are burdened by their past, so much so that they cannot forgive themselves, let alone improve or become better. Unburdening them by giving them God’s forgiveness (when they can’t forgive themselves) can allow a person to grow and become better, and that is valuable to that person, their family and to society. Also, God’s love of the person/individual can replace the mistreatment that a person may have received from their parents. I had a good number of friends from school who had fathers or mothers that put them down all the time, told them how worthless they were or called them hurtful names. Christianity can help those people find self-worth, because it is hard to argue against the idea that God loves you even when you don’t love yourself, so seek to be what God has planned for you. The message I normally get from church/Christianity is that everyone is special and that God has a special purpose for you. It is up to the individual to throw off their self-loathing, doubt, sinful behavior (drinking, drug use, abuse of others, cheating, stealing, etc. –> which is not only good for the individual, but for society as a whole) and make themselves into the special being God intended them to be. Religion can replace bad parenting and teach young men & women what a “good” person is and how they can have a fulfilling life. Contrary to popular belief, he who dies with the most toys DOESN’T win, they often find that they are still unfulfilled when they are rich and still striving for “something” to make them feel better. Christianity can give people a purpose filled life that is rewarding and will give them satisfaction that they cannot get from simply acting narcissistically.

52. Popular ‘church’ leaders hate men: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oVfIyD7u5bA

53. Here is a horrible example:
    Hindus practice defecating in public as a religious practice.
    It is disgusting and a good reason to never, ever visit India.

54. There is one very important religious that you left off the list: feminism.

55. Religious organisations have always been the trade union for beta men. Now these beta men think that feminism is their trade union. It’s hilarious that the more people cry for sexual freedom the less free sexual market capitalism helps to gain sex. Alphas now have a monopoly!I

56. First, Blair exposes a huge 500# sexy woman in a flattering bikini by mentioning the correct interpretation of text. I’ve been on some Bible cross reference sites and found literally hundreds of versions and revisions and, comparing them, only a little bit, because the truth is obvious relatively quickly, that entirely different understandings can be contextually derived from comparison. So, I have huge problems with believing all “Christians” are guided by the same rules, and doctrine inconsistancies can therefore destroy and discredit the message of Christ.
    In regards to the doctrine 1 above. The bible teaches that Christians will have pain, that we will sin, and that, because the grace of God, we are free to face these things. mark 7:20-23.
    Negative feelings are normal when you have been sinned against and we must processes these feelings of hurt. Eccl.7:3-4.
    Christians are to not deny their own hurtful activities , they are to acknowledge and don’t do them, but they are also to deal with their pain sadness, hurt and grief by taking it to God and to others where it can be loved and healed. PS. 116:5-9.
    The intended meaning, is not for Christians to deny their badness and pain, rather to accept it and own it and not fear it because God accepts falleness when you don’t hide it and bring it to God and others, through those safe relationships healing can be found that leads to love and good deeds.Heb 10:22-26.

57. Specifically about the three core Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity, and Islam:
    1. Even though I am baptized and confirmed a Roman Catholic, I have gained the initiative and courtesy of knowing the difference between between Judaism and Zionism. For starters, Judaism is older than The Crusades, while Zionism emerged during Imperial (read: Victorian) England’s heyday.
    Sample Timeline:
    Judaism: millennia before Anno Domini Year Zero; Gregorian Calendar uses Anno Domini as its basis.
    Zionism: 1896
    Victorian England: 1836-1901
    2. Theodore Herzl received backing from England, as England used the Zionism movement as a tool to continue its Middle Eastern Crusade shenanigans. Even worse, the Arabs were actually kept in the dark about this.
    “TL;DR” version: England used the Jews for at least two centuries.
    http://www.jewishmag.com/145mag/herzl_hechler/herzl_hechler.htm
    3. The Prophet Muhammad DID NOT GROW UP with a father figure in his life since birth.
    4. Even The Crusades were political in nature, due to the killings of the Jews, the Muslims, and “heretic” (read: politically opposed) Christians; even then, I DID say before that Guinevere’s cheating of Arthur distorted the gender relations in the Anglosphere; it’s rather unfortunate the rest of Europe DID NOT catch on when it happened.

    1. How was Mohammed not a beta? He married a 40-year-old widow?

       1. That screams “mommy complex” but I just realized your point.

58. Turn the other cheek, give to Ceasar what is Ceasars etc.
    But then they don’t mention often two things I admire about Jesus:
    1. :”If a man hath a cloak and no sword, let him sell is cloak and buy a sword”.
    Fuckin A!
    2. How he felt and what he did (that ultimatly led to the Jews using the Romans to kill him) to the money changers — IIRC he turned over their tables and whipped them out of the (Jewish) temple.
    The money changers and the ‘turn the other cheek-ers’ have won.
    I believe some of what is contained in the bible was put there during the council of Nicaea so that the government in charge at the time could use the ‘teachings’ of Jesus to command obedience in their now Christian empire.
    2¢

59. All of these phrases come from Protestant heresy, sentiment before salvation ideology. All of the phrases mentioned above all steer in the direction of chipping away at bearing the full weight of the cross.

60. 1 and 2 I’ve heard at Church; never 3-5.
    As to 1), “happiness” is an ambiguous term, at best, in modernity. Sure, there are plenty of people who are more or less materially content and distracted from the more profound workings of their souls. But I think it is true that a profound, serene sense of interior, spiritual joy (and not merely self-emptying, as in some Eastern religions), is found in Christ. “Gloria Dei homo vivens; vita hominis contemplatio Dei” – “The Glory of God is a man (fully) living; the life of man is the contemplation of God.” I think that’s true; most Evangelicals have a “Joel Osteen” understanding of “happiness,” and I think it’s plain to see that this “happiness” is really a misery, and has nothing to do with the spiritual gladness promised by Christ.
    As to 2), if one abuses God’s promise to make our sins, “though they be scarlet” as “white as snow,” in order to preach some kind of easy, one-off, permanent, inalienable “forgiveness” without regard to one’s ongoing spiritual fidelity, then, sure; but if the promise of forgiveness is held out in such a way as to encourage man to take responsibility for his sins, to feel contrition, and to resolve both to amend for the better and to make restitution both to God and to the men he has harmed (which the Catholic Church teaches to be necessary for a valid confession and instrumental in the temporal healing of the scars of sin), then it is really a spur to manly action, not an impediment. Christ taught us to ask forgiveness of our brother, not to demand it as an entitlement by virtue of God’s forgiveness.
    I was an Orthodox monk; I am now converting to the Catholic Faith. I would like you to give a specific example of a Catholic doctrine founded upon equivocation. My hunch is that you are mistaking valid, syllogistic reasoning, with the fallacy of equivocation.

    1. The writer already did give examples of equivocation by referencing the development of doctrine. For example, purgatory used to be taught that it is as terrible as hellfire, but now it’s taught as a great expectation. Which is it? How do we know which “interpretation” is correct? Can the Church be trusted if it can make such different “interpretations”? Are these “interpretations” or actually very different teachings?
       I doubt you were an Orthodox monk, or at least that you took Orthodoxy seriously. The longer time one spends in Orthodoxy, the longer he sees the profound gulf between it and Catholicism.

       1. It is uncharitable to call people liars without any basis for doing so. Before God, I swear that I was an Orthodox monk, and that I took it dead seriously, even abandoning my studies at University to join the monastery. I was tonsured by Archbishop Maximos of Pittsburgh in 2007, after a 2 1/2 year novitiate. This I swear before the immortal Lord Jesus Christ, and may He judge me if I am lying.
          The author merely asserted that some doctrines were the result of the fallacy of equivocation, but he does not say how. I challenge him to do so. Equivocation is a fallacy that most often occurs in (faulty) syllogistic reasoning, hence my assertion that he is almost certainly mistaking valid syllogisms for the fallacy.
          There is no contradiction between the idea that Purgatory is as painful as Hellfire, and also that it is something to be accepted joyfully. You seem like someone who is either Orthodox, or sympathetic to the Orthodox Church. You probably know the assertion of Alexander Kalomiros, regarding the “River of Fire” – i.e., that Heaven and Hell are the same thing, the presence of God, experienced differently by the just and the wicked? It is the same with Purgatory. The faithful who have departed without being fully released from their sins and attachment to them, experience the vision of God as a simultaneous matter of pain and delight; pain, as the sin is burnt away, but delight as the love for God grows. Have you ever gotten into an hot bath with cold, sore muscles? It’s a good analogy. There is no contradiction in asserting that there is a sensible pain and pleasure at one and the same time.
          Of course I saw the profound gulf between Orthodoxy and Catholicism; but as time went on, I also saw the profound gulf between Orthodoxy and the Fathers. The Fathers of the Church, Greek and Latin, teach: the Filioque, Original Sin, the Sacrificial Atonement, the purgative power of sufferings between physical death and the Resurrection (for the faithful, anyway), the true vision of God, according to man’s capacity, in the afterlife, and the true Primacy of Jurisdiction and Doctrinal Authority of the Pope, rather than the mere “Primacy of Honor” held up nowadays. The Church Fathers also taught the indissolubility of marriage, the absolute prohibition of contraception, etc. The Immaculate Conception would emerge as a doctrine that flowed naturally from the Church’s teaching on the state of the Theotokos’ soul and deeds from earliest childhood, but, like many of the Christological definitions, it took time for the full implications of the doctrine to be realized.
          Just to look at Eastern Fathers, St. Gregory Palamas taught that the Virgin, when she lived in the Temple, was advanced to a state of spiritual purity and knowledge *more advanced than Adam,* and that the Virgin had been granted food from paradise that Adam never tasted, and which, if he had reached the point where he was allowed to taste of it, it would have rendered him immune to falling (as the Virgin was after eating it herself). If the Virgin is possessed of an enlightened nous, perfect justice, knowledge greater than Adam before the Fall and an immunity to sin already before even reaching puberty, and this before Christ’s birth, we can only conclude that the salvation which was to come with Christ, was given to her in a special anticipation, since all of these things are impossible for fallen man and were never given even to the prophets before her.
          And this is what the saints concluded. St. Ephrem the Syrian said “Thou alone and thy Mother are in all things fair; there is no flaw in Thee and no stain in thy Mother.” The saints are also pure, dispassionate, cleansed of every stain, part of that “bride without spot” awaiting the Resurrection, so St. Ephrem must mean something beyond the normal spotlessness that attends upon all the saints. St. John Damascene explicitly teaches that the Virgin was conceived of immaculate seed, and was “hallowed before thy conception, existing immaculately from the womb as a truly divine temple.” St. Andrew of Crete says that, when the Virgin was conceived, “mankind recovered the gift of its first creation by God… the formation [of the Virgin] is made into an absolute restoration, and the restoration a deification, and an assimilation to the first-formed state.” Amazing! St. Proclus of Constantinople said that “as the Lord was creating the Blessed Theotokos, she was not stained, and Christ, proceeding from her, was not defiled.” St. Theophylact of Okhrid called the Virgin “justified from the womb.” Two passages from St. Nicholas Cabasilas show the doctrine in its fully developed, Byzantine form:
          “By this pact the Virgin made a new heaven and a new earth: or rather,
          she herself is the new heaven and the new earth. The earth indeed,
          because she comes hence; but new, because she is in no way connected
          to her ancestors (ὅτι τοῖς προγόνοις
          οὐδαμόθεν προσῆκεν), nor did she inherit the old leaven (οὐδὲ τῆς παλαιᾶς ἐκληρονόμησε ζύμης),
          but she herself, according to that saying of Paul, ‘shows herself to be a new starter-lump,’ and has begun [from] some new kind of stock (νέου τινὸς ἤρξατο γένους).”
          “The wall of separation, the barrier of enmity, did not exist for her, and
          everything which kept the human race away from God was removed in
          her. She alone made a truce before the general reconciliation (πρὸ
          τῶν κοινῶν διαλλαγῶν ἐσπείσατο μόνη); or rather, she never needed truces of any sort, being established from the very beginning as the chief in the choir of the friends of God (μᾶλλον δὲ σπονδῶν ἐκείνη μὲν οὐδαμῶς οὐδεπώποτε ἐδεήθη,
          κορυφαῖος ἐξαρχῆς ἐν τᾦ τῶν φίλων
          ἱσταμένη χορῷ).”
          Indeed, the Russian saints had a devotion to the Immaculate Conception, and St. Sergius of Radonezh belonged to an Immaculate Conception Society.
          And this is what brings me to the point: the Orthodox did not begin to oppose the Immaculate Conception, until Rome defined the doctrine solemnly. Then it became a point of Orthodox pride to resist the definition, since the definition was a triumphal act of the errant papacy. This, for me, confirmed a growing dissatisfaction I was feeling with Orthodoxy, and was the last straw that forced me to admit what I had long known: Orthodoxy has been nothing more than stubborn resistance to the West, based primarily upon Constantinopolitan ambition and pride. Thus far I have only cited Greek Fathers, though of course the Latin Fathers taught all of this, too. The Greek Fathers also taught the Filioque (especially St. Maximos the Confessor and St. Basil, in his Contra Eunomion), the Papal Primacy of Authority (not merely honor, especially St. John Chrysostom, St. Theodore the Studite, St. Sophronius of Jerusalem, Ss. Nikephoros and Proklos of Constantinople, the Fathers of Chalcedon in their letter to Pope Leo after the Synod had ended, recognizing his entire right to nullify or to approve of the Synod’s canons, etc.), Original Sin (especially St. Gregory Palamas, who quotes St. Augustine at length, and St. Maximos the Confessor), the substitutionary, atoning sacrifice of Calvary (especially St. Athanasius the Great, St. Maximos, St. Gregory Palamas and, really, all of them), the purgative and healing nature of suffering between physical death and resurrection (which the Western and many Egyptian Fathers referred to as the “purgative fire” of the underworld, which could be relaxed by celebrating Liturgy, praying, doing alms, etc.), the impossibility of divorce (this was admitted as an abuse through imperial pressure), the prohibition against contraception, etc., etc.
          Modernist Orthodoxy rejects her own traditions because being “different” and more “mystical” or “holistic” or “organic” (or whatever buzz word comes up with each new fad) was more important than adhering to the ancient doctrines of the Fathers and Apostles. Orthodoxy has certainly preserved many of her customs and little traditions intact, largely due to the stagnancy of culture in the Eastern lands for a long time, now. But in her essence, she has sacrificed one ancient doctrine after another to her need to differentiate herself from Rome, and to resist her. The Orthodox Church does not even know what the Church is, being as Constantinople and Moscow and Antioch have completely different ideas of primacy and routinely argue with each other about it. Orthodoxy is indeed very different from Catholicism. She is as different from Catholicism, as she is from her own Greek Fathers’ faith.
          I will grant you that recent popes have been heretics. This is a foretold event, foreseen by many saints of the West and also revealed by the Virgin in Her apparition at Fatima. The popes have not formally defined an heresy, which is the only promise we have from God on that account, but they are certainly heretics and, when this time of judgment is passed, they will certainly be anathematized and declared anti-popes. I would not blame anybody for looking at mainstream Catholicism, today, and saying that they have certainly lost the faith; they have. But not all Catholic have apostatized with them.

          1. tl;dr.
             However, I agree that American Orthodoxy today picks and chooses which passages from the fathers, and most lay people gobble up whatever modernist dribble AFR feeds them. This is in part due to the poor quality of our seminaries.

          2. Also, the author did give out his email. If you want a dissertation length explanation about the doctrine of development, just ask him.

          3. You were the one who asked for an explanation, and impugned my credentials as a monk. I figured I would answer your questions with detailed reference to the Fathers, indicating the essential integrity of the Catholic view as regards them, and demonstrating that my choice to move from the Orthodox to the Catholic Church was not a result of failing to take it “seriously.”

          4. True, though I would say that the problem goes much deeper. Even the Ecumenical Patriarch signed on for the UN’s population control efforts (approving documents that viewed abortion and contraception as valid options), denies the Immaculate Conception, rejects the Filioque, disparages “Augustinianism” etc. Such opinions are common in the hierarchies of every Orthodox Church, Romanians and Serbians (perhaps) excepted.
             The short version, which hopefully is not too long for a man such as yourself to read, is that all the controversies raised by the East against the West rise from two things: 1) Constantinopolitan ambitions to rival the Roman See; 2) Triumphant Hellenism that began to look down on Latinity, especially after the German “Barbarians” began to occupy a more prominent place in the West. This led the Greeks to constantly reject the Latin Patriarchate’s way of speaking, failing to learn Latin or understand the Latin system. Contrarily, Rome had many Greeks in its immediate environs (St. Maximos the Confessor, St. Theodore of Canterbury, Anastasios Bibliothecarios and others being prominent), whose knowledge of the Greek Fathers Rome regularly consulted on major doctrinal disputes. This, and especially the flourishing of Greek letters in the Late Middle Ages and early Renaissance, caused Rome to always have a more universal understanding of doctrinal systems. I would suggest reading the works of Demetrios Kydones, one of the few Byzantines who understood Latin at the time, to hear his own explanation of how Hellenistic pride had completely impeded the Greeks from understanding the Latins, and had caused them to betray their own traditions in their stubborn triumphalism. Every Byzantine Churchman who took the time to really learn Latin and understand theology, like Kydones and his brother (Prochoros), John Bessarion, Isidore of Kiev, etc., wound up converting. Those who opposed, like Mark of Ephesus, sounded like broken records: “the Latins have forged all their documents.”

61. This entitlement to happiness seems to be a purely american concept. See the deceleration of independence for refence to out founding doctrine on the subject and perhaps equivocation of liberty and happiness.

62. You need any more proof that Christianity–if not religion in general–today has gone completely to the feminist dogs? Look no further than this video. And this bitch has the fucking temerity to call herself a pastor. Give me a break…once a pole-daning
    whore (her origin story), always a pole-dancing whore.
    I myself identify as a Christian, and while I understand that this doesn’t represent ALL of Christianity or religion in general, this is a serious red flag that screams sacrelige and mockery…and it’s rather telling of the state of affairs in the west.
    She’s got a halfway decent set of tits, though.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q5yodY7_bto

63. Really? Are we all believing in god now? Which god again? The Christian one, the Jewish one, the Hindu one, the Mormon one, the Muslim one?
    Let’s just take the Hindus to start. There are over a billion Hindus that grew up in a place where god (if you believe such nonsense) orchestrated their cultural separation and as a result they were raised with the wrong theology and missed the revelation. They will now will spend eternity in torture and torment. Your run of the mill serial killer need only take Jesus as his lord and savior before a last meal of steak and fries and he will bask in gods glory forever. I cannot think of a less moral moral framework without a shred of moral accountability then this one.
    The PROBLEM is religion and culturalism creating an “us” and “them” in the first place.
    And for heaven’s sake pick up a fucking copy of Atlas Shrugged. This selflessness is just crap. There is NO SUCH THING AS ALTRUISM. To live a selfless life is to have wasted your life.

64. I really agree with point #3. There are too few people that are willing to work it out with their spouse when the good times become bad. So much for “till death do us part”. If a man can’t keep his promise, he shouldn’t open his mouth. I agree with the Bible saying “because of your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so.”
    I’d say, if you decide to marry someone, stick to it. You married her for a reason right? Make amends. Fix the problems. Don’t wimp out like some weakling. Be a leader. Man up.

65. Wait, how is agnosticism a belief?

66. The problem with your analysis is that it misrepresents the Christian faith. Specifically your paragraph 5 in reference to Catholicism has a link to a site that also misrepresents the faith (I believe that is the logical fallacy of Appeal to Authority). To misrepresent the faith and then to draw conclusions from that is hardly offering anything novel, been happening for the last two thousand years. Anyone even remotely interested will find that Christianity is quite coherent and free from any “fallacies”.

67. “Mormons, Joseph Smith had a criminal record before he founded a church.”
    As a Mormon I have to say for starters few have more internet rumors spread about him than this man….but let’s assume he wasnt *GASP* perfect and committed a crime or two. I speak especially to christians who like to paint mormons as a cult founded by the psychotic Smith.
    read your fucking bible you twats….in the bible we have Paul who writes half of the new testament or more and yet he is responsible for killing possibly thousands of christians. Well I dont know the exact number but he kills a fair amount and hunts them down….yet strangely Jesus forgives him and Paul ends up becoming immortalized as St. Paul. in fact its the entire Paul story which he repeats seemingly 435345345 times….Paul persecutes the saints, Jesus eventually appears to him while hes going somewhere, blinds him, 3 days later a saint begrudgingly goes and heals his eyesight. he then goes from being called Saul to Paul. seriously he makes a huge deal about it.
    Moses….perhaps the most iconic figure in all of history next to Jesus, kills a man and hides it and then hides out in the desert for 40 years….never mind what he may have done as a corrupt Egpytian priest that isnt listed in scripture.
    so ya know….let’s pull our head out of our asses, stop pretending that prophets are magically perfect….if Joseph Smith is by default a false prophet because he committed a crime then Paul isnt a prophet either. so rather than asking if Joseph SMith is perfect which is contradicting of christian doctrine as only Jesus is perfect….why not ask whether or not he actually did do Gods work….but I know why you wont ask…..99% of you couldnt get an answer to a prayer even if your life didnt depend on it. you’ve all lost your way….you are as JEsus was famous for saying in the new testament….you are hypocrites.
    and one last fun fact….Peter denies Christ 3 times to His Face….so ya know, let’s get off the high horse and stop saying prophets never fuck up.
    all this to say you are correct….I am pro-Christ….but I’ve stopped going to church for the above reasons in this article and oh so many more….but to sum it I am tired of hearing about JEsus the meek mild timid pussy boy and want to hear about Jesus the man and God that boldly stood up for something.

68. As a Christian for the past 40 years I commend you on this article. You have seen through so much of the nonsense that passes for Christianity in America today.
    Of course, you are also knocking over a straw man. But who cares. You will figure out what you need to figure out and hopefully you will find the mental satisfaction that comes with it.
    That said, I was amused by your comments regarding churches teaching that Jesus will make you happy. That is soooooo quintessentially American that I slap my forehead every time I hear it or anything like it. The only benefit I get from hearing it is that it reminds me of something C.S. Lewis said around 1958 in an interview with Billly Graham’s “Decision” magazine.
    Lewis was asked, “Which religion do you believe has the ability to make its followers happiest?” Can you believe someone actually asked the great CSL that question? LOL!! But Lewis was unfazed. He replied:
    “While it lasts, I consider the religion of worshipping oneself the best.” THAT is American Christianity in one sentence!
    It was what he said next, though, that has guided my theological search.
    “But I didn’t become a Christian to be happy. I always knew a good bottle of port could do that. I became a Christian because I was convinced Christianity was true.”
    That’s it really. In a nutshell. No matter what has happened to me in the Church throughout my life (and I no longer attend church and have not for years), I always come back to that. I am convinced Jesus was God incarnate and rose from the dead. Period. That’s it.
    God’s best to you.

69. Sounds like liberal Americans. Coincidence? Seeing this as a sort of American trait, my answer would be, not really.

70. “Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to the earth. I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. For I have come to turn “‘a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law–a man’s enemies will be the members of his own household.” – JC
    Yeah, Jesus isn’t here to make you happy.

71. “Should you throw away your marriage merely because the other made a mistake in a weak moment?” Damn… one of the things that pisses me off most is when someone does something they know they shouldn’t ( cheats on their spouse or SO as discussed above, commits a crime, whatever) and then tries to duck the consequences when they’re caught by sniveling that they made a mistake. Uh, no..you knew exactly what you were doing and intended to do it. It may have been a bad choice, but it was in no way a mistake.

Comments are closed.