Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?

Modern Christianity has proven itself ineffective against combatting virtually every point of the leftist agenda. Whether the issue is defending the family against divorce, opposing same-sex marriage, fighting feminism, or protecting religious liberty, the Christian churches are always on the losing side. Why is modern Christianity so weak?

But Isn’t All Religion Irrelevant?

im-an-atheist

Before I begin, let me anticipate one objection. If you are an atheist or an agnostic, you may be asking, “why should I care about Christianity? Isn’t all religion irrelevant?”

It’s a fair question. The answer is that religion is always part of the human experience. If a society loses its faith in its predominant religion, something else replaces it. In ancient Rome, a loss of faith in the Roman gods led to the spread of various cults.

In modern civilization, a loss of faith in Christianity has not resulted in a society where people have adopted pure logic as the sole rule of their lives. Instead, after they lose their faith most people adopt leftist causes with a religious fervor that makes a snake-handling Christian Pentecostal seem like a paragon of reason.

If you don’t believe me, try gently suggesting to the average SJW that global warming does not have an anthropogenic cause or that Caitlyn Jenner is really a man, and see what their reaction is.

Regardless of whether we like it or not, Christianity is the religion of the West. If it were healthy, our culture would never have reached this degenerate state of affairs. To make any headway against the current decline, we’ll need to understand how Christianity arrived at this point.

The Age Of Aquarius

th-4

The 1960s represent a watershed for Christianity. At the time, communism was spreading throughout the world, and it appeared to be impregnable. There were many voices predicting that it would be communism, not the capitalist West, that would own the future. Christian leaders were not unaffected by the idea that communism would be triumphant. Many of them came to see communism, with its focus on equality, economic fairness, and solidarity, as the fulfillment of Christianity.

It is difficult for us to grasp how anyone could have held such a wrongheaded view. We know that Soviet and Chinese-style communism was a brutal, godless, ineffective system that crushed both the body and soul of its people. But these misguided Christian leaders strongly believed that the success of communism was an indictment of traditional Christianity’s emphasis on salvation and holiness.

To correct what they saw as a defect in Christianity, they reoriented the Christian message away from teaching personal morality and instead focused on teaching social justice—things like eradicating racism, oppression of women, economic redistribution, and the equality of all religions. In other words, they shifted the goal of Christianity from being a heavenly kingdom to striving for a utopia in this world. Does any of this sound familiar?

Of course, not all Christian groups were affected by this nonsense. The biggest effect was on the large, mainstream denominations. Some mainline Protestant churches were almost completely taken over. The Catholic Church suffered major incursions of this philosophy resulting in a rift between the old guard traditional Catholics and the new social justice wing that persists to this day.

Softness

Rapture_banner

The Rapture

It is easy to blame Christian leaders for the wimpiness of modern Christianity, but the fact is that rank and file believers also share the blame. Frequently, Christians do not demonstrate any changes in their lives that flow from their belief. They’ve become soft Christians: they are Christian up to the point where they are asked to sacrifice something because of their belief. At that point, they simply capitulate.

This softness manifests in lots of different ways. There is the example of the conservative Christian mommy blogger Jenny Erikson who appears to have divorced her husband for no good reason. But it also shows up in theology. For example, the embrace of doctrine of “the rapture” seems to be nothing more than a way for Christians to lull themselves into thinking that they can never be victims of persecution. I’m afraid these Christians might be in for a rude shock in the next decade or two.

Ignorance

joel-osteen-0

Christian pastors, like Joel Osteen, find it more lucrative to leave out the more difficult parts of the Christian message.

Most Christians are woefully ignorant of the reasons for their beliefs. Most of the blame can be laid at the feet of the clergymen who fail to teach anything during their sermons, but lay people are guilty too. After all, how hard is it to pick up a book to understand what you believe and why you believe it?

This means that most believers are getting their theology from the New York Times and the Daily Show. They are getting caricatures of Christian doctrine instead of the real thing. Is it any wonder that they are suckers for the SJW point of view?

But the ignorance of Christian doctrine also presents a big opportunity. I was recently at a party where a woman was attacking some point of Catholic doctrine, but her understanding was completely wrong. Because I happen to know a bit of Catholic theology I felt obligated to correct her misunderstanding.

I did it rather sharply (shame on me) because I thought she was deliberately distorting things. She surprised me because she actually reversed herself when she learned what the Catholic Church really taught. We chatted for a long time and at the end of the conversation, she thanked me and said that this was the first time anyone had explained things to her.

Real Christianity

statue-of-godfrey-in-brussels

Godfrey of Bouillon

In our day, Christianity has a reputation for being wimpy and liberal. There are even men who think that it is intrinsically weak, and that it is Christianity that is the actual cause of the decline of Western civilization. They propose that Christianity be replaced by some other religion. The usual suggestion is a religion that involves Odin, Thor, and runes.

But modern Christianity is an aberration. In most epochs, Christians were cut from a stronger cloth. For example, St. Nicholas (we know him as Santa Claus) was so opposed to false teaching that he punched the heretical bishop Arius in the face during the council of Nicea.

Knights, such as the crusader Godfrey of Bouillon, and the great military orders of the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller demonstrate that there is no opposition between being a Christian and being a warrior. And a whole host of martyrs from St. Stephen to Jim Eliot and the Copts beheaded by ISIS prove that weakness is not Christianity’s default condition.

Conclusion

Ultimately, it is up to individual Christians to choose whether they will swim against the current or become increasingly irrelevant. Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, I am optimistic that a significant number of believers will choose the former option.

If you like this article and are concerned about the future of the Western world, check out Roosh’s book Free Speech Isn’t Free. It gives an inside look to how the globalist establishment is attempting to marginalize masculine men with a leftist agenda that promotes censorship, feminism, and sterility. It also shares key knowledge and tools that you can use to defend yourself against social justice attacks. Click here to learn more about the book. Your support will help maintain our operation.

Read More: College Showed Me The Cultish Nature Of Feminized Christianity

695 thoughts on “Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?”

    1. And you know the redhead thinks she looks good because she’s so much slimmer than her friends

  1. This website has officially become the “return of the white republican kings”…
    When the entire world has moved in the mordern world, this website is now brain-washing people in believing in crusades, christianity and other 16th century things…

      1. You’re not liberal enough until you dream about pleasuring brown men. Looks like Sam is ready and willing.

    1. Funny enough I bet you’ll find more of a diversity here than most places. ROKers are generally more conservative yes… but then again most intelligent people are. I was young and stupid once… therefore I was a liberal once. When I started actually working and paying taxes… that changed. It will change for you someday too.
      What you don’t find though… is pandering… or apologizing for things that we aren’t responsible for or didn’t do. That’s not called being a “white republican king”… that’s called being a man.
      Oh and in case you haven’t opened your eyes in the last 30 years… the “modern world” is an abomination of humanity. Cheers

  2. Christianity to me seems to have sold out it’s real beliefs to cater to progressives, Feminists and SJW types. A religion should hold onto it’s beliefs regardless of it makes them less or more popular In the modern world. I’m not talking about ignoring facts or science but they shouldn’t sell out beliefs to appease progressives.

    1. Christianity was never a wimpy religion. At the time of the Roman Empire, Christians fought through a tide of terrible persecution, for most of the time that Christianity has existed, homosexuality, feminism, sexual liberation, and other degenerate “isms” were a big no no.It’s just in the modern world that Christians have become so soft, and we’ve seen the emergence of homosexual Churches, and church going people, men and women alike, who actually believe in the feminist “equality”.
      I know some Christians who believe that God wants men and women
      to have an equal say in marriage. Little to they know that according to the Bible the man is the “head” of the family, and wives are told to “submit to their husbands, as they submit to the “Lord”. I guess they, haven’t really read a Bible. All they learn is from the modern flawed interpretation of religion.
      Never has Christianity been interpreted in such a flawed way. Today we have females preaching at the pulpit, where as the Bible says that women should “keep quiet” in the Church. This is glaring hypocrisy. You come to praise God in the Church, but simultaneously disobey his word?
      The Roman Catholic Church is perhaps the best organized yet, to keep opposing leftism, and being a Catholic, I’m glad it’s still doing so. I just hope it doesn’t give in.

      1. Going by what Pope Francis has been saying recently The Catholic Church is pandering to progressives aswell. I’ve considered going to Church in the past because I respect its core beliefs but I can’t bring myself to do it because as I said they are now trying to make themselves appeal to Progressives and SJWs. A real religion holds onto its beliefs, it doesn’t subvert them just because Liberals tell them they are behind the times.

        1. Yes, I’ve been hearing that the cracks are beginning to show. I just hope, these cracks don’t lead to a breakdown but the Church holds strong.

        2. “Yes, I’ve been hearing that the cracks are beginning to show. I just hope, these cracks don’t lead to a breakdown but the Church holds strong.”
          The Roman church fell away from the Orthodox Church in 1054, they embraced Pan-Heresy with Vatican II.
          http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/para/841.htm
          Catechism of the [Roman] Catholic Church
          841 The Church’s relationship with the Muslims. “The plan of salvation also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God, mankind’s judge on the last day.”

        3. the pope spreading a message about environmentalism / climate may be pandering to more than progressives. International environmentalist agreements etc are also potentially an instrument of globalism

        4. Opposition to usury and economic injustice is a Christian belief. Even JC lost it with the money lenders.

        5. Pope Francis is playing an odd game. He’s obviously pandering to progressives, but he’s doing it in such a way as to avoid directly addressing inflexible doctrinal issues…as if he’s attempting to undermine them without fighting a losing battle to change them.
          He’s doing it so well that a lot of libs now think the church has changed its teachings on homosexuality, divorce, and evolution.

        6. Yea I understand he’s trying to pander to progressives but doing it in a subtle way, but he shouldn’t pander to them at all. Your belief and doctrine are what you should stand by even if that makes you unpopular.

      2. The Catholic Church, at least the visible hierarchy was fatally wounded more than a hundred years ago, and the rot metastasized in 1958 when the last real Pope died and heretics started occupying the Vatican sit. You can check for yourself, there are prophesies (starting with the Bible itself) as well as written documentation that not only suggest but prove that dogmatically the conciliar “Popes” are farther away from the Christian dogma than any ignorant hillbilly heretic pastor from the Mississippi.
        The truth is the Catholic Church still exists, however it´s eclipsed, just a small group of people know its tenets, let alone live by them. As soon as the hierarchy and the laity embraced the idea that there is salvation outside the church and heresy started sneaking into books, declarations etcetera, the whole edifice was doomed to fall. Bergoglio is just the most blatant of the heretics in charge, which unlike Ratzinger and Wojtyla, doesn´t bother with keeping the appearances since no “Catholic” would bother to check his beliefs, let alone criticize him, even now that has proven his allegiances to the movers and shakers of the World.

        1. You are correct that the visible hierarchy is gone, however, the rot goes back further than 1958. The last Pope we may have had was Gregory XVI in the 1800’s. The “Popes” since then have embraced heresy and progressive liberal thinking. The rabbit hole goes very far. Don’t stop searching for and studying about The One True Faith.

      3. A real Catholic would know it’s the job of the Ecclesiarchy to read and interpret the text in conjunction with other sources and tradition, and that your literalist personal interpretation is the sort of flawed thinking that started the reformation.

    2. Especially pastors preaching that if you give money, god will make you rich.
      Why do you think Islam is growing much faster? Because Islam stays strong they don’t care about progressive ideas.

  3. Christianity is weakness. Its been given to the poor and slave classes throughout history for a reason. “The meek shall inherit the earth” isn’t a slogan for self improvement, its the motto of the lazy and entitled. It teaches people to rely on other beings for their happiness or “salvation”, it doesn’t get any weaker than that. The Bible is a manual on how to control the weak minded people that take it seriously.

    1. You sound well read. I think they teach that shit on sesame Street these days.

    2. And that, my friend, is exactly the kind of order and control that most people need.

    3. Many are taught that meek implies submission when it implies controlled strength. This same Jesus was a carpenter / stone mason who routinely rebuked the religious authorities and prophesied the destruction of Jerusalem.
      The beatitudes are great words of comfort and encouragement. The sermon does not end there.

    4. tidbit: why do you want to be altruistic? so that you can go to heaven. YOU.
      would it not be more altruistic, then, to be a swine now and let all the suckers go to heaven?

    5. If Christianity is weakness, then why did both the secular and religious government kill Jesus? It is because they could not control him. Jesus was a trouble-maker, a rebel, that went around exposing the evil deeds of the institutions of his time and the evil hearts of men in general. It makes no sense to devise a religion where the hero is a rebel against the very people that allegedly created it to control the population. Christianity explicitly states to work with your hands so that you do not have to rely on people. The irony in your statements is that the weak-minded are usually those that believe as you state above, which is more Marxist garbage to eradicate Christianity since it is the very thing that can stop it. This is why Christianity is so hated in atheist hellholes where they actually do try to control every aspect of people’s lives, places like China and North Korea, where Christians face the threat of death for their faith alone. Besides, aren’t most homos devout atheists? Show me a man that likes a dick in his ass and I’ll show you an atheist.

        1. You’re confusing priests with your atheist public school teachers. Moreover, try debunking the message of Christ, not Catholicism, which is basically anti-christianity.

        2. The “message of Christ” is so vague, weak and meaningless that you “believers” on this thread cannot even agree about what is Christian.

        3. “The ‘message of Christ’ is so vague, weak and meaningless that you ‘believers’ on this thread cannot even agree about what is Christian.”
          Pretty simple: I’m God incarnate, believe in Me, repent of your sins, or burn in the Lake of Fire for eternity.

        4. That’s what Catholics believe, and they are not Christians, according to many posting here

        5. “That’s what Catholics believe, and they are not Christians, according to many here”
          That’s what both Orthodox and Heterodox (Roman Catholics and Reformed/Protesting sects that broke away from Rome) believe. Or, rather, used to believe until recently, Heterodoxy is in pretty awful shape.

        6. If Catholics are only reading the Sermon on the Mount, they are missing almost everything of what is actually being taught in the Bible for a civil and functioning society. It is uneducated, emotional Catholicism devoid of sacrifice, rationality, or what God commands from us for a healthy person and society.
          You are not a moral person just because Jesus loves you (and he does). Now find out what is actually expected from you.

        7. Oh please the whole child molestation scandal thing was so fake. Suddenly you have all these liars coming forth saying they had their wieners touched 50 years ago and demanding huge sums of money meanwhile the media reports on every single one as gospel truth and every idiot watching TV believes it without question. It was an orchestrated attack on the Catholic Church spearheaded by the lying mainstream media and a bunch of losers looking for big payouts. I’m not a Christian and I don’t really care for the Catholic Church but even all the stories in the Bible combined are easier to believe than the shit that comes out of the mainstream media.

    6. You speak the truth. Christianity is worthless, and the believers on this thread can’t even agree amongst themselves about who is a true Christian or not.

      1. Sort of like an atheist speaking about morality. One of the best comedy skits around.

    7. The Bible also promises the Kingdom of Heaven, which is not of this earth or consisting of earthly things.
      Consequently, “The meek shall inherit the earth” may be a generous, roundabout way of suggesting, “You will not find the Kingdom of Heaven, you sissy” without being too direct or crude about it.

  4. The golden age of European Christianity existed before we forgot the lessons of our pagan ancestors. As a Christian and an avid enthusiast of Norse pagan theology, I can honestly say we can learn a lot from Odin’s wisdom. Even as Christians.

  5. I think you are mistaking Christianity with the Medieval Catholic church. Christianity itself is a religion of weakness. Meek, no earthly power, other cheek turning is the very core of its teachings. Christianity is a religion born of impotence in the face of mighty Roman persecution. Christianity itself is the religion of sissy boys.
    Thinking of the Medieval Catholic Church as a christian institution is a mistake. Rather the RCC in the middle ages was a reorganization and recreation of the Roman Empire.
    In many ways it (the RCC in middle ages) achieved the unstated, but painfully obvious, goal of Christians….to have the power and influence of their noble roman persecutors. But even if this is the underpinning heart of Christianity (a religion of hatred born of impotence, rage and weakness) it’s philosophical core was simply resentment against earthly powers — not much different than the geeky resentment of jocks or the blue collar resentment of hedge fund managers. Mind you, I am making no moral claims here and certainly not giving my opinion on right and wrong, but simply pointing out the painfully obvious.
    I think your article is actually very good and necessary but I think that Christianity should be replaced with the rigid structure of absolute monarchy. The weakness is not in the christians and the leaders of the church nor is it in the rank and file members, but in a society where the individual can’t recognize a power greater than itself. Yes, Catholics called this power god but that was not what they were worshiping….they worshiped the church. This is no different than your average Flavius Six Pack worshiping Cesar, Ivan Six Pack worshiping the Romanovs, etc, et. al.
    So again, I think this article is doing a good job at conveying an important message but misses the mark, even if only marginally, by mistaking religion with proper autocratic rule.

      1. I see what you are saying and have seen these arguments, but look…this is from the fathers of the church. That is a specifically catholic title for certain saints that created the basic dogma of the RCC as it would exist in the middle ages…as a form of Monarchy, gods will on earth….not very different from the Roman’s who the christians were born in response to.
        The Fathers of the church had this material to work with and they were savvy enough to manipulate it in a way that created an earthly empire.
        Again, I am in full agreement here but you are still mistaking Christianity with the Medieval Church. The first is a religion which advocates earthly meekness for spiritual rewards in the kingdom of heaven, the later is an absolute dictatorship that conquered the world using creative interpretations, murder and terror.
        Again, no value judgment one whether one or both is right or wrong…just the facts.

        1. Again, I am in full agreement here but you are still mistaking
          Christianity with the Medieval Church. The first is a religion which
          advocates earthly meekness for spiritual rewards in the kingdom of
          heaven, the later is an absolute dictatorship that conquered the world
          using creative interpretations, murder and terror.

          I have to disagree with you on this. What’s next, don’t tell us you believe millions were burnt during the “Dark Ages” (R) for their religion and other related bullshit.

        2. no….simply that the catholic church is a hierarchical monarchy on earth which, especially during the middle ages, possessed incredible political power and exercised that power the way it deemed best (for better or worse) while the original tenants of Christianity seem to have eschewed such earthly power, monarchy and, indeed, masculinity.
          Christianity is, quite simply, a system of pussifying men into unrelenting faggot wussys and in the process criminializing the roman empire and its earthly pomps and powers whereas the Medieval church was simply the newly victorious Christians turning all that impotent rage that said that it was evil to be like the romans into what all people who have impotent rage from a life time of bullying want….recapitulating the roman empire.
          Notice here that I think that the Church had the right idea…at least more so than the early Christians

        3. also, I think if you see my posts here on the topic you will know that I am all in favor of monarchy over BS democracy and my beef is and has never been with the middle ages. That is someone elses PC bullshit, not mine. The only problem with the monarchical structure of the middle ages was that they weren’t nearly solid enough to withstand the onslaught against their way of life that technology brought….

        4. I get what you are saying. Apologies, normally historical BS beliefs come in packages (ie. someone believes the Dark Ages was the worst time in history, I know what cookie cutter argument comes after that when it comes from a woman: Men burnt millions of women through the inquisition because they were empowered and threatened the patriarchy. If it’s a man: Catholic church stifled science and nothing was done until a perverted monk and a bunch leftist philosophers that wore wigs and used make up came along).
          My beef with your argument is that you seem to believe that the Church was essentially different. However when one gets to history one sees that only the medium was changed. Ancient churchmen understood they had to either adapt or die in the world they were in post-Roman collapse, ie. Vikings that used books from burnt monasteries as fuel for bonfires require warrior monks and Knight orders for conversion; Muslims hellbent on conquering Europe can only convert or die, that’s the kind of ecumenism I can join.
          I get your point about technological advancement, however technology was not the cause of the fall of Monarchies, was the spread of a set of beliefs that stated people no longer needed hierarchies…cos Technology, cos Marx, cos there is no objective truth et al.

        5. no….simply that the catholic church is a hierarchical monarchy on
          earth which, especially during the middle ages, possessed incredible
          political power and exercised that power the way it deemed best (for
          better or worse) while the original tenants of Christianity seem to have
          eschewed such earthly power, monarchy and, indeed, masculinity.

          As I said before you seem to confuse the medium with the message. Moreover you fail to recognize that Jesus recognized Earthly powers ( “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”) as well as the need for conflict (“Do not think that I came to bring peace on the earth; I did not come to bring peace, but a sword. …)
          Moreover, to become a Christian in the pagan world was not something for pussies, so I don’t get how you infer that Christianity wants to inhibit masculinity.

          Christianity is, quite simply, a system of pussifying men into
          unrelenting faggot wussys and in the process criminializing the roman
          empire and its earthly pomps and powers whereas the Medieval church was
          simply the newly victorious Christians turning all that impotent rage
          that said that it was evil to be like the romans into what all people
          who have impotent rage from a life time of bullying
          want….recapitulating the roman empire.

          You seem to confuse various heretic sects within Christendom which held views similar to those (Gnostics, Nestorians et al) with mainstream Christianity back then. The only “beef” early Christians had with the empire was the fact that it was pagan and whole lot of customs arose from this fact (infanticide, gladiator games, Throw-Christians-and-other-undesireable-shows in the arena etc). Were it not for the Christians nothing would be known of the Romans beside some legends here and there.

      2. also, just a heads up, the def of meek “praus” given as strength or root is simply incorrect. It is a certain type of strength but is making the classical linguist “mistake” or rather logical fallacy. It is saying that the pra- root is indicative of, with it’s mildness, strength. But it is not taking into account that you also can’t use, while making this jump, the modern idea of strength. It is strength indeed, but not the type of strength that this pseudo research would have you believe. It is the kind of strength that one finds in god to forget about the worldly pain they are taking as they get their ass kicked and stick to their morals.

  6. So, shouldn’t the rise of the modern secular state, multi-faith societies, and popular democracy maybe get an ‘honorable mention’ somewhere?

  7. It is easy to blame Christian leaders for the wimpiness of modern Christianity, but the fact is that rank and file believers also share the blame.

    I could not agree more. The Bible is there and Christians are expected to read it. God doesn’t let us off the hook if we are willfully ignorant of His word.

    Most Christians are woefully ignorant of the reasons for their beliefs.

    Look at the recent BS to come out of the Vatican with regards to man-made global warming and firearms. The secular left is cumming all over itself thinking that it now has a “religious imprimatur” for its garbage politics.

    1. The Vatican is probably being blackmailed. “You better do what we say or we’ll say you molested more boys.”

      1. Possibly, but keep in mind that as a sovereign and very rich state, it is very easy for the Vatican to “run out the clock” on accusations and even worse, recall suspect RCC bigwigs to the Vatican where they cannot be touched.

        1. This is exactly what they did with the old Pope, who requested immunity from the Italian government regarding the paedophilia prosecutions. He was denied, so now he’s confined to the vatican.

  8. Modern Christianity is not Christian. The SJW progressive type ‘Christianity’ has simply subverted the symbols and status of Christianity to tear down society in the name of envy.
    I know churches like this and members are oblivious. There are still Christian churches out there— and they are not liked by the ‘popular’ culture. But that’s not really new.

      1. You listen to some of the sermons in these “churches” and you’d walk out with the impression Jesus was a liberal crossdressing homosexual communist.
        Pardon me, but we honor Our Savior by abstaining from stoning to death these self-righteous freaks, perverts, and thieves.

        1. http://www.theblaze.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/cooper-e1428524124296.jpg
          Brittney Cooper — who teaches women’s and gender studies and Africana studies and calls herself a next generation black intellectual — used Indiana‘s religious freedom law as a springboard, saying:
          http://www.salon.com/2015/04/01/the_rights_made_up_god_how_bigots_invented_a_white_supremacist_jesus/
          “This God isn’t the God that I serve. There is nothing holy, loving, righteous, inclusive, liberatory or theologically sound about him,” she added. “He might be ‘biblical’ but he’s also an ass***e.”
          She didn’t stop there: “The Jesus I know, love, talk about and choose to retain was a radical, freedom-loving, justice-seeking, potentially queer (because he was either asexual or a priest married to a prostitute), feminist healer, unimpressed by scripture-quoters and religious law-keepers, seduced neither by power nor evil.”
          Cooper urged her readers to “reclaim the narrative of Jesus’ life and death from the evangelical right” and to “mark this Holy Week by declaring the death to the unholy trinity of white supremacist, capitalist, heteropatriarchy. And once these systems die, may they die once and for all, never to be resurrected.”

        2. Hung around with prostitutes and lepers, said to give all you have to the poor and follow him, turn the other cheek, the meek shall inherit the earth, love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you.
          Sounds pretty hippy-dippy to me.

        3. It’s as valid as the Jesus who blesses warriors and intervenes in football games.

        4. What was Jesus’ preferred method of execution for those make the little ones stumble?

        5. This woman is ridiculous beyond undertanding. How can she say those things without respect of other people believes and then they want to respect their believes?

        6. If this is the mill stone thing you’re reading it wrong. “It would be better” is a reference to your benefit, not a prescribed punishment.

        7. Yep. I am sure they missed the fact that the pre incarnate christ is the manifested god of the old testament. The one who threw out the moneychangers with a whip and will in future time destroy his foes with the sword of his mouth.

        8. Black preachers can say moronic things and as long as they say it with conviction, their stupid followers just keep nodding and saying amen with raised hands. They fall into a trance easily and do not “test each statement to see if it is from God” – which it obviously is not. Obama’s Rev. Wright does it, Louis Farrakhan does it, Rev. Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson do it.
          A few good blacks call them out – but nobody listens and nothing changes. Oh, and by the way, Scripture forbids any woman from teaching or having authority over a man….

        9. I’m glad you reviewed the passage, Kaine. The Good Book states everything so simply, so eloquently and with such command. There is no need to spar discussion over it, as it states everything correctly and we both know exactly what it means. It brings all people together in understanding our responsibilities because we’re both human and we both want to serve God and follow His commands so there is peace on earth, among ourselves, and within our hearts.

        10. Strangely enough, there is plenty of need for discussion, as three millennia of theological debate demonstrates.

        11. Not even close. Blessing football games is bullshit for sure, but SJW permavirgin autism like yours is a recent phenomenon. Meanwhile traditional Christianity has nearly two thousand years of philosophy and theology behind it. So take your fedora tipping faggotry elsewhere.

        12. Pope Frankie seems to agree with me. The Bishop of Rome outranks you darling. X

        13. The only thing worse than having to read her bs is having to look at a picture of her.
          I feel like shoving diabetic testing strips in my eyeballs until the aqueous humor drips out.
          She is so huge her bowel movements over the course of a year could probably fill the grand canyon to capacity. (groan)

        14. You wrote, “Jesus hung out with prostitutes”. Debate requires education and if you have people who have not read the texts simply interpreting individual passages that’s more of a practice of personal heresy, an inferior re-speaking of the written word by your own opinion and for your personal agenda.
          If you want to learn what world-class theological debate looks like read the Talmud. It will blow your puny, simplistic mind and sophomoric understanding.

        15. Wait, weren’t you just arguing that the bible is clearly written so we can all understand it without discussion? So then even someone with a “simplistic mind” should get it shouldn’t they?
          You appear to be as contrary as your story book.

        16. Modern Progressive Christianity has very little to do with the Bible.
          The Christians of old were not soft weaklings like you usually find in churches today. Men like Martin Luther, Augustine, Athanasius, John Knox, John Bunyan, etc. were actually men of strength and character. The Biblical men of old were not soft wimps – Abraham/Isaac/Jacob/Moses/Joshua, the Judges, Kings like David/Solomon/Josiah, the Apostles Paul/Peter/James/John etc. were strong men of conviction. Above all, the Lord Jesus Christ, the God Man, was a real man.
          Even conservative “Bible believing” Evangelical and Fundamentalists churches are full of soft weak effeminate men these days. The mainline liberal churches are beyond that. They are pretty much hopeless, having completely abandoned the Bible.
          I’m a Protestant, so I don’t have much to say about the Catholic church. They have a whole ton of problems.
          Women are great, and I love them (especially my wonderful wife), but they should never be pastors or leaders of men in the church. The Bible is very clear about this. Any church that compromises on this will soon compromise on other important doctrines.
          The Bible is clearly patriarchal in nature. God is Head over us. A man is head over his family.
          In addition, the Bible clearly allows men to have more than one wife at the same time (polygamy). The Bible never explicitly prohibits polygamy. The Bible never calls it sin. It never calls it evil. It never says that it defiles or corrupts. There is no punishment listed for it. God never directly condemns it in any way.
          This is TOTALLY different than the way the Bible treats homosexuality/incest/sexual immorality/adultery.
          The Hebrew word for adultery (Na’aph – Strong’s concordance word 5003) clearly refers to a man having sex with another man’s wife. The Bible never calls polygamy adultery, and never treats it as adultery. According to the Bible, adultery is when a married woman has sex with a man other than her husband, or a man has sex with another man’s wife (or betrothed woman).
          Many of the Godly men of old had more than one wife at the same time. God never punished, corrected, or chastised these men in any way for having more than one wife (because it is not a sin), but did punish and correct them when they committed real sins (like when King David committed real adultery with Bathsheba (2nd Samuel 12) or when Solomon married tons of idolatrous foreign women and turned away from the LORD). Moses, Abraham, Jacob, David, Gideon, Josiah and many many more godly men were polygamists. God Himself even uses polygamous marriage as an analogy of His relationship with the Northern and Southern Kingdoms of Israel in Ezekiel, and Jeremiah. God says He is like a man who is married to two unfaithful sisters (Judah and Samaria). God wouldn’t compare Himself to a bigamous man if polygamy was fundamentally evil.
          The Church’s idea that polygamy is adultery comes not from the Bible, but rather from the Greco-Roman pagan culture and was accepted by medieval Roman Catholic church.
          Augustine, Martin Luther, Philip Melanchthon, Martin Bucer, and many other notable Christians have observed than Polygamy does not violate God’s Laws regarding marriage.
          Polygamy isn’t really that important, but it is misunderstood by most Christians, so I had to bring it up. It is also important for maintaining male headship in marriage.
          A man is not truly head if his wife can say “I’ll just cut you off from sex if you don’t do what I want”.
          Where polygamy even exists as a hypothetical option, the husband regains veto power. He can then say back to his wife: “Fine, if you cut me off from sex, then I’ll take a second wife and have sex with her”. Thus we see that even the theoretical possibility of polygamy helps maintain male headship in marriage.
          For more info on the Bible and polygamy, check out the following books:
          Thelyphthora or A Treatise on Female Ruin Volumes 1,2,3 by Martin Madan (books from 1700’s – all available for free on internet)
          and/or
          Man and Woman in Biblical Law – volumes 1 and 2 – by Tom Shipley – (modern book available on Amazon and elsewhere – maybe still free on internet.)
          Man and wom
          The Bible is absolutely clear from beginning to end in teaching that the husband is head of the wife, like God/Christ is Head of His people.
          Let me also make clear, that I am a Christian. I believe the Christian Faith to be true. I believe the Bible to be the word of God, not of man. I believe that Jesus Christ is King of Kings and Lord of Lords. He will return one day to judge the living and the dead, and rescue all who trust in Him.

        17. ”leaders of men in the church”
          I think that passage refers to the prohibition of authority of women over men in general due to the created order. In addition women ruling over men according to Isaiah is a sign of judgment.
          Isaiah 3:12
          As for my people children are your oppressors and women rule over them.
          And polygamy is not good for social stability. It is not a good idea. Likewise polygamy is in the old testament and seemed that kings are most commonly polygamous however the downside is that the king’s heart is lead astray.
          Then there is the artificial shortage of women for men to marry as the apex males snatch up the females.
          This will create a longer list of bachelors than nowadays and such disenfranchised men will be fodder for criminal gangs and rebellions.

        18. Here you go. Several references in the text. I suppose a Senior Research Fellow in Rabbinics and the New Testament from Cambridge will do to justify the interpretations?
          http://www.bethinking.org/bible/bible-scandals/4-prostitutes
          If you don’t find this accept able, considering his credentials, you have to conceded that the text is open to many different interpretations and therefore is not clear and unambiguous.

        19. Remember again, that my primary point is that the Bible treated polygamous marriages as lawful marital unions, and not adultery or sexual immorality. Everybody always wants to deny this obvious and indesputable fact.
          Also the Bible explicitly states that David followed the Lord with all his heart, and that he did not turn aside from anything the Lord commanded except in the matter of Uriah’s wife (1st Kings 15 I think). Polygamy did not turn David away from the Lord, but REAL adultery nearly destroyed him. Clearly David did not violate Deut. 17:17, but Solomon did, and we see that because the Bible specifically says his (Solomon) heart turned away from the Lord, just like Deut. said it would. Solomon also married many women from the specific nations which God had forbidden Israelites to marry. Deut. 17:17 no more prohibited kings from having more than one wife than it prohibited them from having more than one horse. The exact same language is used for both “multiply unto himself”.

        20. My point wasn’t that polygamy was beneficial. It was that the Bible clearly treats it as lawful marriage, not adultery or sexual immortality.
          Polygamy does not seem to be God’s general plan for marriage, but the fact the He never prohibited it, while simultaneously prohibiting adultery/homosexuality/sexual immorality strongly indicates that He in some sense allows it in this present fallen world .

        21. Certainly but such circumstances include high male mortality in combat and the dangers of life in general. The prophet muhammed proposed that men marry widows whose husbands have died in battle so that they do not want.
          Certainly though the social instability and increased fodder for criminality and rebellions that polygamy creates especially in modernity certainly is anti-thetical to the 2nd commandment. We have a duty therefore to propose a healthy functional and stable society in order to benefit mankind as a whole.

        22. It does seem that one of the main functions of polygyny historically was to serve as a safety net for widows. Our modern society puts the State in the position of protector and provider rather than the husband/father that God primarily ordained for that role.
          I am not a Statist, but rather a Chrisitian, and a man who loves the U.S. Constitution. I believe that God’s Law is wiser than man’s law. I’m actually crazy enough to believe that the Bible is True, and that the Fundamental Moral Law applies to all people in all places, and at all times.
          Also, polygyny is usually relatively rare in those societies that permit it. Most women prefer having their own husband to sharing one. From what I’ve heard, in traditionally polygamous societies usually 90% or so of marriages are monogamous and that is the normal form of marriage. Maybe 5% or so of guys are bums and slackers who spend all their time fapping and playing video games and don’t deserve a wife. Then another 5% or so have more than one wife.
          Remember my primary argument is not practical, but a matter of Biblical exposition. God has made His Law perfectly clear, and His Law does not prohibit a man from having more than one wife. I will not presume to add to or subtract from God’s Law. (Though as a Christian, I am under grace not law)

        23. If you are searching for extra cash of about $50 to $300 every day for freelancing from your couch at home for several hrs daily then read more here…

        24. Jesus is coequal with the Father. The Father, Son, and Holy Ghost are all God. Saying that Christ is a lesser being than the Father is actually Arianism, a heresy.

        25. (#Joh 1: 1-4) speaks of “the Word” the thought and content of something. It deals about the imaginable, that which can be pronounced and that can be written down. John wants to emphasize that it is precisely Jesus Christ who fulfils the types that are written down in the Old Testament. He means exactly that Jesus Christ is the fulfillment of those words as well as the fulfillment of the Word of God.
          He does not say Jesus is The God but talks about Jesus being the fulfilment of God His speaking (in the Garden of Eden and later) and being an important figure or a god, like Pharaoh, angels, zeus, apollo are also called god, but are not The God, the Elohim El Shaddai Jehovah.

        26. So you believe Jesus himself was presenting ‘heresy’?
          Joh 14:28 KJV-1611 Ye haue heard how I saide vnto you, I goe away, and come againe vnto you. If ye loued mee, yee would reioyce, because I said, I go vnto the Father: for my Father is greater then I.
          Jesus very well knew his lower position and that he was sent by God to make things clear, but had to go back to his heavenly Father to hand over the Kingdom which belongs to the Most High Divine Creator.
          Please think also about following verses:
          Joh 5:17-27 KJ2000 But Jesus answered them, My Father works still, and I work. (18) Therefore the Jews sought the more to kill him, because he not only had broken the sabbath, but said also that God was his Father, making himself equal with God. (19) Then answered Jesus and said unto them, Verily, verily, I say unto you, The Son can do nothing of himself, but what he sees the Father do: for whatsoever things he does, these also does the Son likewise. (20) For the Father loves the Son, and shows him all things that he himself does: and he will show him greater works than these, that you may marvel. (21) For as the Father raises up the dead, and gives them life; even so the Son gives life to whom he will. (22) For the Father judges no man, but has committed all judgment unto the Son: (23) That all men should honor the Son, even as they honor the Father. He that honors not the Son honors not the Father who has sent him. (24) Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that hears my word, and believes on him that sent me, has everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life. (25) Verily, verily, I say unto you, The hour is coming, and now is, when the dead shall hear the voice of the Son of God: and they that hear shall live. (26) For as the Father has life in himself; so has he given to the Son to have life in himself; (27) And has given him authority to execute judgment also, because he is the Son of man.

        27. Yes today Christianity is similar to communism, and modern Christianity has become a liability for the western world, as every other culture in the world can see how weak we have become. Europe would not be in the position it is today with Islam had they just be a little more strong.

        28. And when it comes to “good” Blacks it’s ALWAYS just a FEW.
          Because among Americans Blacks, the majority are bottom-feeding, dishonest, evil, sociopathic scum.

        29. Even while allowing polygamy, the Bible presents monogamy as the plan which conforms most closely to God’s ideal for marriage. The Bible says that God’s original intention was for one man to be married to only one woman: “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife [not wives], and they will become one flesh [not fleshes]” (Genesis 2:24). While Genesis 2:24 is describing what marriage is, rather than how many people are involved, the consistent use of the singular should be noted. In Deuteronomy 17:14-20, God says that the kings were not supposed to multiply wives (or horses or gold). While this cannot be interpreted as a command that the kings must be monogamous, it can be understood as declaring that having multiple wives causes problems. This can be clearly seen in the life of Solomon (1 Kings 11:3-4).

        30. It does seem that one of the main functions of polygyny historically was to serve as a safety net for widows.

          I thought that’s what the “Levirate marriage” was for?
          Seems to me that, even without a Levirate arrangement, a desirable widow would have no trouble landing a man without polygamy, leading me to the thought that the real purpose of polygamy was to prodigiously produce progeny.

        31. Where is the evidence to that? A narration made up over 250 years after his death to let the pedo rulers marry little girls.

        32. That actually sounds about right.
          The community my parents come from was polygamous for several thousand years, and from what I understood, while men could have more than one wife, it was rare and usually discouraged.

        33. Not a Christian, but what you wrote reminds me of the “evil vicar” skit from Mitchel and Web
          What’s funny about it is that in the comments section you can see people from many different religions absolutely love the vicar and agree with him.

        34. Polygamy only works when men are expected to die in droves and women aren’t. Otherwise you get the Middle East and all the social wonders of those societies (Extreme sexual competition, rampant homosexuality, incest, extremely low social trust despite racial homogeneity, etcetera).

        35. Pardon me, but we honor Our Savior by abstaining from stoning to death these self-righteous freaks, perverts, and thieves.
          Actually, the way things are going now, we may actually be dishonoring Him.

        36. You should abandon your idolatry for the US Constitution. It is not God, or of God. It either allows for the current abominable situation we have, or is powerless to stop it. Either way, although it had a great positive impact for a time, it’s dead and gone. His Kingdom is NOT of this world, btw…

        37. Once someone disconnects from logic, reason and fact (e.g. Cultural Marxism) then anything at all goes. Totally unhinged, like all extreme leftism. Pathetic indeed.

        38. The Master’s reference to the ‘millstone’ is in regard to the future punishment awaiting them when final judgement will be executed. It’s in His hands, and it is delayed (not denied) until the end has been fully reached. The wheat and tares grow up together until the final harvest… so it’s not in our hands now to hand out punishment or judgment in that sense. Much as we may feel the justified urge….

        39. hahaha apparently you have a serious problem with pedohilia, I wonder what you do in russia? freaking animals…

        40. wrong, the concept of monogamy is a Jewish concept not a christian concept, and was established by the Jews and adopted by christians..but so far monogamy is just a social practice regulated by laws….the rest of your crap is pure bs…

        41. hahhaha mira quien habla..un pendejo racista..avisame cuando quieras que vaya a russia y te ponga en tu madre guey de porqueria….

        42. Vente a Rusia, hijueyputa!
          Comunistas nunca tienen ek valor de respaldar sus mentiras, sólo hablan MIERDA como las ratas de cloaca que son.

        43. Most of the Evangelical and Born Agains ARE weak, they’ve opted for a mind-control process that does away with their ability to tell right from wrong, and think clearly about building a life.
          True Christianity was about being strong. The earliest Christians and Greek thinkers realized that both systems went together. In true Christianity, self-deception and acting without thinking were the causes of sin. And accepting that you, yourself, are a process and need to keep improving yourself physically and mentally.

      2. If you are searching for extra profit on the side of about 50-300 dollars daily for doing basic work over internet at your home for 3-4 hrs each day then try this…

      3. COMMUNISM….NOT progressivism or Liberalism, or Leftist….it’s called COMMUNISM and it’s followers are communists, although scumbags is also a good name for them.

    1. I think 90%-95% of people are programmed to have some kind of religion to follow. That’s why religion has been so common throughout history, naturally recurring again and again independently of each other.
      In effect a tribe bonded through a shared religion will find it easier to defeat those neighbouring tribes that are not united around anything.
      In a discussion with a friend we defined religion as a belief that is followed through faith and not reasoning.
      Because Christianity has withdrawn and weakened in the West there is a vacuum. Because the vast majority of people are naturally susceptible to believe in something this vacuum has been filled with a new religion. A ‘religion’ with different saints and sects and wings but one where generally if someone signs up to one set of beliefs they tend to sign up to all of them. Unquestioningly and therefore unable to explain rationally why they believe what they believe.
      This new religion is Social Marxism/Modern Day Political Correctness. And just like former religions they will not even discuss topics where science tends to prove some of their believes incorrect or at least hangs a question mark over them. So there is no discussion of the genetic and behavioural differences between races, the differences between sexes and the differences between religions.
      As this new religion was founded in the West the first rule is that it’s always the whites fault, and this is closely followed by heterosexual males as an identifier of natural guilt.
      Crimes and attacks on whites and white males and white heterosexuals are often ignored or belittled, while those at the top of the victimhood tree (blacks, Muslims, homosexuals, women, children) are free to blame whites, males and heterosexuals at will.
      But as in any religion there is a hierarchy of victim groups that is easy to find if you look closely enough.
      Do you ever hear the feminist movement attack the high rate of black sexual crimes on women – no! The high rate of Muslim sex crimes against women? – no. Do you hear feminists speaking out about the enslavement of Yazidi women and their treatment as sex slaves by the Muslims?No. Do they campaign against the underage marriage of girls in Muslim countries? no!
      This is because feminism ranks lower than the higher ranking victim groups – blacks and Muslims. Muslim rank higher than Yazidi girls even when they’re under age. Muslim girls unfortunately are abused and forced into marriage by Muslim adults who have a strong victim status.
      Blacks are the experts on victimhood and in my belief started the whole movement. the best rule to follow is that it is never ever their fault. If they commit more crime its the whites fault. If their IQ is lower it’s the IQ tests fault for being culturally biased – although I am still waiting for one that is culturally biased in the blacks favour. If they knife each other its their fault because the whites dont take black crime seriously. If the whites take it seriously and clamp down on black crime its then deemed racist. Despite the unfortunate recent case of the 9 being killed in the church, every day far more whites are attacked and killed in race hate crimes by blacks. If blacks didn’t do so much crime the US police wouldn’t be shooting so many either.
      Why is this new religion a religion and not just a logical set of beliefs?
      Well the reason why, is that these people cannot argue and debate their points without closing down the arguments and debate by declaring someone racist, sexist, islamophobic or what ever other ist/bic they can find. Why not debate with the scientist who has found evidence for lower black IQ and the link to lower earnings? Why not debate the black propensity to commit more crime? Why not discuss Muslim aggression against every other religion and their paedophile tendancies with under age girls?
      (Religions have always closed down arguments by labelling people ‘Infidels’, ‘Heretics’. ‘Blasphemous’ the new terms are ‘Racist’, ‘Islamophobe’ and ‘Misogynist’.)
      The reason is, that their belief is not based on logical reasoning – but blind faith. And that makes Cultural Marxism/Political Correctness a religion.

      1. I have to agree- believing in a “man in the clouds” or “YOLO’ing”- which one will hold a civilization together?

      2. I am an atheist but I see the value of religion. Whatever you may think of religion, there is no denying that it has played a significant role in human history. Religion was important the success of many empires from ancient Egypt to Rome to the Ottomans. Christianity played a role in the rise of Western Civilization.
        Religions may not necessarily be the best thing to put one’s faith in, but it’s better than a lot of other things. Most people today worship pussy, money, drugs, athletes/celebrities, fictional superheros, attention whores and NASCAR.
        The truth is that most people in the world don’t actually think for themselves. They need a source of order and guidance….a Patriarch maybe? For the average human being, traditional religion offers better answers than the SJW Agenda. This is the reason why religion is the world’s oldest institution.

    2. think the only christian churches you mean are those orthodox christian churches in egypt.
      But no idealogy is immune, you even get the pc behaviour in mosques too to avoid scrutiny and appeal to the young millenials.
      ex: This was off a tv show, a western born muslim girl asks why she has to do the dishes and not her brother, the imam gave the traditional response “he is boy you are girl”. The girl gets disappointed, then he quickly says “the prophet did help with chore if your brother wants to be a good muslim he must help”.
      The girl becoome happy to hear it.
      Theres even islamic feminsim I shit you not and worse yet “Mipsters”, muslim hipsters….fucking weird.
      seems like a soviet thing of control every institution, can anyone report a change in other religons like hinduism skihism judaism or buddhism?

      1. The Copts are still real Christians, but so are a hundred million orthodox Russians, Serbs, Greeks, Lebanese, Bulgarians etc.

    3. Copied from the online book Theological Vignettes
      “Progressive Christianity is a term describing a new movement emerging. Largely it arises from reverends in the United and other protestant churches. What they have in common is their loss of faith, and the desire to retain their ministries and a church. They don’t believe in Jesus’ resurrection, miracles, the truth of the Bible or even the power of prayer, but seek to retain the idea of living a life of good works. James when he said he shows his faith through his works meant the two are together. Because of faith he helped the poor, because of faith he preached the gospel and did other good works. But without faith the works are another attempt by us at self justification.
      In the Progressive church their method is to cherry pick religious texts, selecting only what suits their wishes, but remember that is what the wicked also do to justify evil.
      In reality then, progressive Christianity is not progressive at all, but similar to a mishmash of other modern religions such as the newer Judaism, Unitarianism and contemporary Paganism. An accurate description would be to say it is secular humanism with a minor religious gloss. It is not the Christian faith as it requires belief in Jesus as the way to God. Mostly these are people who couldn’t find God’s answers in the modern world and have institutionalized their loss of faith.”

    4. Christianity hasn’t been Christian since the Apostle Paul wrote his version of the way he wanted it.

    5. There is no such thing as “real” Christianity. It’s made up. It’s like telling me the real Santa Claus has a bigger sleigh or more reindeer. All religions are whatever their followers say they are.

      1. Real Christianity is Christianity as it was until a few generations ago, and as it still is in the Orthodox church (and some traditionalist catholic groups).

        1. No it isn’t. Nothing about any religion is real. Religions are whatever the person practicing it says it is. There is no real reference, it’s all made up and faith.

        2. Hey, fucktard, first of all, you have no arguments for the reality of the christian God, second, even if he didn’t exist, christianity is a set of rules and beliefs, just as an IKEA manual will tell you how to build your closet, you cannot build the closet without those instructions, just as you cannot be a real Christian without the proper criteria.

        3. The bible is not instructions. It’s self contradictory and allegorical. Do you turn the other cheek or take an eye for an eye? The bible says both. These books, not being based on reality, are infinitely interpretable. This is why we have catholics killing Protestants, and Sunni vs Shia, and Old Testament vs New Testament. There are no actual “instructions”, as you claim. So there is no “real” religion, no actual rules or beliefs.

    6. You better make the difference between Christianity and Christendom. In Christianity you would have those who follow the teachings of Jeshua, the Nazarene Jew who is called the son of man and the son of God and who those Christians consider to be the sent one from God and the Messiah.

    7. But Jesus accepted and reveled in his crucifixion. Sounds like a weirdo to me. Would you trust others who reveled in a religion that celebrated some long haired hippy being whipped and spiked until death?

      1. Jesus stated clearly that such was his fate and it was predetermined and prophesied. Not something everyone should look forward, after all he predicted he came not to bring peace but war.

  9. Modern Christianity has proven itself ineffective against combatting virtually every point of the leftist agenda.

    It’s far worse. Modern Christianity _is_ leftist agenda.
    Nowadays Christians support every demand and every claim that feminists make. From alimony to age of consent laws, from anti-prostitution to “women and men are equal”. There’s only 1 topic left where they differ: Abortion. That’s all.
    Just look at the current pope, just a few days ago he warned us against global warming and against guns.
    And it’s not only Christians, it’s also the Christian parties. They reliably vote with leftists. They supported women’s quotas in the EU parliament and they support other things that the leftists support, here’s a recent example: http://i.imgbox.com/bxqDXkoW.png
    (ECR = conservatives, EPP = Christians, S&D = Leftists)
    Conservative =/= Christian.
    Christian =/= Conservative.
    Conservatism is actually the pretty opposite of the current state of Christianity.

    1. ”to age of consent laws”
      The erroneously high age of consent coincided with the increasing infantilization of humans in general:
      https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/200703/trashing-teens
      In ages past the age of adulthood for young men is 13-15(after they have passed the trials of manhood) and for the transition to adulthood for young women is menarche.
      Perhaps this is due to longer lifespan. However it has detrimental effects on ”teenagers” who are often infantilized instead of having their potential realized and starting to make their way in the world. This phenomenon is quite modern and seems to have come after the industrial era as well as the egalitarian and women’s movements at the same time.
      Now we have adult diaper parties:
      http://www.vice.com/read/london-adult-baby-party-305

    2. ”From alimony to age of consent laws, from anti-prostitution to “women
      and men are equal”. There’s only 1 topic left where they differ:
      Abortion. That’s all.”
      If such things aren’t derived from scripture then they are talking out their asses about being Christian.
      Including the retarded reading of Galatians 3:28 as egalitarianism.

    3. Fem, you’re confusing catholics for Christians. The two are not the same. I do agree that Christianity has been watered down thanks to gospel con artists like Losteen and others, but to blame the faith itself for the failure and treachery of those who purport to represent it is highly dubious.
      I’m an old school kind of Christian, the kind that puts teeth into his faith. I don’t support any of the SJC causes you or the author mentioned, and indeed i am not the only one. I’m surrounding myself with Alpha faith Men who will help me usher in a new era of patriarchial standard once the Alpha of Alphas returns to take his rightful place as king of this corrupted world.

      1. Fem, you’re confusing catholics for Christians.

        No, I am not. Catholics are still one of the more right-wing denominations. Wherever else you look (Christianity in South America, Church of England, Protestants in Germany) they are even more left-wing than the Catholics.
        Modern Christianity is left, lefter, feminist. It’s only the Evangelicals in America that are slightly less left. But they are dying out.

        1. Are you kidding me? If anything the opposite is true. The pope has become a darling of the left precisely because he’s moved orthodox understanding of faiths towards a greater acceptance of homosexuals, environmental issues aka eco communism, income redistribution, gun confiscations and so forth. You must not go to many churches period if you think that catholicism and Christianity are one and the same. They are only similar on the surface like a diamond is with a cubic zirconium. Anyone with a trained eye however can spot the fundamental differences.
          Your latter remarks confuse the faith itself for the watered down version that exists in America.
          This ROK article is enough to show you that the two are not the same. The teachings remain constant even if the teachers sold out to progressivism.

          The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible

        2. If anything the opposite is true. The pope has become a darling of the left

          And yet the Catholic Church is still one of the rightest Christian denominations. That’s all I am saying. The pope is left and yet he is still more right than Christians in other denominations.
          I don’t doubt that there are extremely right-wing Christians somewhere, but they are
          1. dying out
          2. or not really organized as a religion.
          If you can name a Christian denomination that is
          1. rrrreally right-wing
          2. and thriving and expanding
          then please name it.

          You must not go to many churches period if you think that catholicism and Christianity are one and the same.

          I claimed the opposite. I said that Catholicism is not like other denominations. Catholicism is still more right-wing than most other denominations. And yet Catholicism is left-wing and gets lefter by the minute.

        3. Protestantism is far away from Traditional Christianity, that Luther himself would have burned the lot to death. Only heretic Bergoglio and his followers are farther in the Spectrum and since at least 1958, there has been no Pope in the Vatican.
          Protestant ethos paved the way to Feminism and rest of the BS we have to suffer today.

        4. Dude just because it’s “considered” a Christian denomination doesn’t mean it actually is. I think the confusion here is your belief that the term “Christian” is the equivalent of “Christianity” when all evidence indicates the two are not the same. We will just have to agree to disagree here.
          I really wish you wouldn’t use the words “extreme right wing” in describing right leaning Christians, because of the negativity it implies. It’s like saying the Founding Fathers were “extremely classic libertarians” because of the beliefs they had. Mind you, Washington drummed out a homo for open homosexuality and Jefferson called for the public dismemberment of anyone engaging in the practice and yet they are much beloved by many Christian conservatives today.
          I’m not going to name a “right wing” Church because political affiliations are the extension of faith, not the other way around.
          That being said, there are Churches who can be considered “right wing” because their beliefs are also supported by conservative philosophy.
          This article speaks to the growth (and references supporting material) of orthodox Christian Churches at the expense of liberal ones. It won’t be enough to combat the growing secularization in the US, but it is noteable nonetheless.
          http://www.christianheadlines.com/columnists/al-mohler/a-new-exodus-americans-are-exiting-liberal-churches-1333899.html
          I just can’t fathom how you can claim a false faith that is led by a darling of the left is more “right” than most of the other denominations who don’t support the kind of left wing views Francis does. While there are examples of Churches having sold out, it doesn’t mean they all have.
          Again, we will just have to agree to disagree on this, unless you can prove it here.

        5. “If you can name a Christian denomination that is
          1. rrrreally right-wing
          2. and thriving and expanding
          “then please name it.”
          Orthodoxy.

        6. I don’t care for the terms themselves, i’m speaking about those Churches who adhere to Christian tenets more often than not.
          The existence of Laodicean Churches today does not mean that ALL Churches are therefore Laodicean.
          My Church is one such example. I go to a Black church and my pastor speaks out against obama and his prog policies, so there you go.

        7. Dude just because it’s “considered” a Christian denomination doesn’t mean it actually is.

          This is not a discussion of what “the real faith is”. If someone calls himself a Christian, he is. If someone calls himself a Muslim, he is. And if a political party calls itself Christian, it is. Anything else is the No True Scotsman fallacy.

        8. ” If someone calls himself a Christian, he is”
          No…you’re wrong on this brother. Simply using a title does not mean that one represents the title or does so legitimately. If that was the case every person calling themselves a “republican” would actually be one and not a pseudoleftist aka a RINO.
          This is a specious remark on your part. It’s only true on the surface.

        9. No…you’re wrong on this brother. Simply using a title does not mean that one represents the title or does so legitimately.

          Since there is no “World Institute For The Definition Of A Proper Christian”, you are mistaken.

          If that was the case every person calling themselves a “republican”

          A Republican is someone who is a member of the GOP or who voted for them. There is no such qualification when it comes to Christianity. Only when it comes to denominations there is a club membership, e.g. the Catholic Church can excommunicate you and therefore you cease to be a Catholic. There is no such governing body regarding Christianity itself, and that’s one of the reasons why there are religious wars and why Jehova’s Witnesses are considered Christians by some and not by others.
          If you go by cardinal doctrines of Christianity
          http://www.religioustolerance.org/chrcarddoc1.htm
          then only a minuscule number of people (something like 1%) would be Christians.
          However, such definitions and these 1% of people are not what this article is about.

        10. “Since there is no “World Institute For The Definition Of A Proper Christian”, you are mistaken.”
          There doesn’t have to be. The inviolable standard is found in scripture. Anything that deviates from the orthodox teaching is considered apostasy and not representative of the actual faith.
          “A Republican is someone who is a member of the GOP or who voted for them. ”
          Exactly, just as a Christian can be considered someone who is an official member of a clergy or simply someone who goes to church. This doesn’t make it the official standard, but merely what it’s been watered down to represent nowadays. If going to church or being involved with the Church was enough to guarantee salvation, what would we need Jesus for?
          If you have read scripture you know what the standard is, what you are seeing nowadays is anything but a representative of Christ. Indeed, the very article we are commenting on is a testament to what i am saying, in that the author is contrasting the “wimp” christianity of today with the stronger and legitimate version of centuries past.
          “then only a minuscule number of people (something like 1%) would be Christians.”
          Now you’re getting it.
          “However, such definitions and these 1% of people are not what this article is about.”
          The article is talking about wimp Christians, but it’s not saying that this is what Christianity is, just what it has COME to represent.
          Therein lies the difference.

      2. Rather ignoring the fact that Jesus said he was the Alpha and the Omega.

    4. Good stats that support the idea that modern Christianity is on the whole leftist. As Daniel Ramos points out, there are some exceptions. My argument is that there is something wrong with modern Christianity, not Christianity itself.

      1. “My argument is that there is something wrong with modern Christianity, not Christianity itself.”
        I couldn’t have said it better my friend. Traditional Christianity isn’t leftist in any way. It’s just that the leftists have hijacked Christianity. Thus, in this day and age it’s important that true Christians read the Bible, to learn about their faith, and not merely depend on their Church leaders to tell them everything. As somebody else said, God wouldn’t let us off the hook for woeful ignorance.

        1. But you can’t look at ancient Christianity in a bubble. It’s 2015 and science has disproven a lot of the fallacies that the medieval church took as gospel (pun intended). The church had to evolve (again) as our understanding of science and the real world did. The Catholics seemed to do the best job of this of any of the Christian sects (for example, my Catholic aunt in her 60s recently told me she didn’t understand all the debate about evolution–she was taught by nuns decades ago that there is no controversy with evolution–as long as you believe that humans are imbued with a soul then evolution just becomes the mechanism God uses to effect change, just as gravity is the mechanism God uses to make things stay on the ground.
          The problem is so many of the Christian sects that can’t correlate their religious beliefs with facts of the modern world we live in, and so they end up with this mixup of superstition that turns off thinking people.

        2. For a long time in my life I too struggled, wandering between evolution and creation. And through my independent study, I’ve come to believe that the two can co exist. While I’m not sure of it, I too, do think that evolution could be a mechanism used by God.
          The fact is that I believe in God, and I believe that God has given us humans the brain to study the wonders of his hand, and through it discover his intelligence, through the complexity of his creation. For me science is what makes my belief in God stronger. And yes, as scientific discoveries, takes place, I believe that we should keep our minds open about new ideas, and incorporate it with our religious beliefs. That’s how exactly religion evolves.
          However there are somethings that are the tenets of a particular religion. For example in Christianity, homosexuality is a big no. It’s stated very clearly in the Bible that God hates this sin. It’s things like these that Christians should hold fast to, despite the world accusing them of refusing to move on with times.

    5. You’re talking about Catholicism, which is an apostate denomination. The Pope’s jargon doesn’t mean much to me.

    6. The Catholics are being blackmailed. If they don’t follow the leftist agenda the media will spread more made up stories about child molestation and everyone will believe it even when the liars demand a million dollars in court.

  10. More White men will be converting to Islam in the West as it will become the last refuge to hold onto Red Pill truths. This will happen for a variety of reasons: More unmarried/unchurched white men (who are not otherwise thus, obligated to stay “in the church”); the continued bashing of “Straight White Christian/Anglo-oriented” men; the ability to utilize the identity of Islam to counter the effects of Feminism and PC in the work place, by making counter-complaints, all the the backing of CAIR and other Islamic Support groups (things Christianity does not have or will not do for any given individual); the ability to find and marry foreign Muslim women with Red Pill blessings of their father (and mother for that matter), to build an actual family, exempt from the regular bashing American men face.

    1. Islam is Third World liberation theology nothing more. If you think that Islam is red pill, well so is the Devil, you’ll just be selling your soul for a temporary reprieve from liberalism.

      1. It ALLOWS for Red Pill actions, that’s the key, also, in case you haven’t noticed, it inoculates people (read: white men in particular) from the run-of-the-mill attacks, in the work place and academia. The bottom line is, if you are a Revert to Islam, you might as well be a black female lesbian, because you will be untouchable in traditional areas of American culture that are becoming increasingly antagonistic to regular White Men. I converted 20 years ago, and don’t normally make an issue of it (I am white as hell, with a beard), but whenever it comes up (to someone or group that didn’t know) or someone (like a bitchy white woman in a position of power [WWPOP]) finds out, you should see the immediate deference I am shown, even apologetic language, respect, etc. No one wants to be called an Islamophobe, and CAIR and other groups will attack any company, government department, or special interest group that bothers a Muslim. It’s game theory, I don’t even have to tell people now, others mention it for me as if to warn people not to bother me. I mention this because I work in a very PC industry, and it’s hilarious how I am treated compared to other WM.

        1. gosh, mate, that must be so funny.
          would like to experience that once in my life as a contrast to the ‘you owe me!’ look.

        2. What’s so amazing is how truly different it feels (it must have been like this for regular Don Draper dudes back up until the late 60s). I’ve literally had one bitchy WW completely do a 180 and start doing what WM do for WW (White Knighting)…all the sudden, she loved my ideas, was wishing me a Blessed Ramadan, etc. It was hilarious. Part of it isn’t just fear of being labeled a “racist” Islamophobe (yes, I know, we aren’t a race, but you get the idea: I adopt the same tactics as the Left and refer to Islamophobes as “racist”, LOL), it’s the same reality Hijab women realize, regular White People (SJWs and even others), RESPECT that which they perceive as EXOTIC or “SPECIAL” (a WW in Hijab is going to be treated with respect by more men, including WM). Once people find out I am Muslim, there’s a “hands off” attitude that I receive, that must be what Black Women walk around with all day in some work places and academia.

        3. that makes perfect sense.
          call me crazy, but how can one conclude anything else than that a strong culture should hold in highest respect those who are NOT exotic? it’s like respecting anything but yourself.
          and it also shows how much perceived dominance depends on the image people have of you. bravo.

  11. Sam Childers is a good modern example of a warrior Christian. He may not be the most holy person, but he appears to be fighting for the orphans of Southern Sudan and Northern Uganda.

  12. We mustn’t confuse Mary worshipping Catholic child fuckers with real biblical christians.

    1. The Jesuits and Black Pope Illuminati run the Vatican. They do black Masses and sacrifice humans to Lucifer. They are working together with the Zionists, who are also Satan-worshipers. They have been busy infiltrating Catholic and christian seminaries for over 100 years. They are GONE. Only the shell remains. The darkness is spreading rapidly. This pope is the last one. The age of the RFID chip and reign of Antichrist are here NOW. False signs and wonders will appear in the chemtrailed skies shortly and there will be a great “falling away.” The monsters who did 911 (CIA/Mossad) got away with it. What comes next will be FAR worse than even Fukashima (Mossad op). Their goal is to depopulated the earth down to 1/2 billion humans. We are approaching 7.5 billion now. That means killing 7 billion. Their underground cities have already been built and stocked with food.

  13. The same reason anybody gets pushed around
    Because they’re afraid to get militant

  14. If Christians stopped being soft, we shouldn’t have trash like Rapture waiting and televangelism which manipulates people into making pastors rich. Christianity nowadays is like a cancer patient awaiting death.

  15. Like all good institutions and ideologies from the past, Christianity has been affected and corrupted by the modern world.
    Jesus is now a liberal hippy, not a man who showed tough love, laid the verbal smack down on the leaders of the time, and prepared the men closest to Him to be noble, honorable and good so they could face the nature of the world (sin and evil) and pass on his teachings.
    Today, there’s little-to-no accountability for sin (bad behavior). God loves you regardless. And how dare anyone tell you otherwise, despite the gifts He has given you to use your free will to do good, you choose to do otherwise.
    Modern churches minimize or emasculate men. Most of the pastor’s jokes will be about how men “don’t listen” or are the spouse who makes the bad decisions, while the wife is always there saying “I told you so.” You’ll also hear a lot of stories about men in the Bible who were part of the “Temple Model” of old thinking and ruling. That’s where Jesus came along and changed all of that. He will, of course, be emphasized, but not as a hardass, rather a free lover. It’s rarely emphasized that it was MEN who continued this new type of approach and thinking to life.
    (Aside for those who are into the women part of Game – Every time a sad beta who loves God tells you of his latest rejection, tell him it’s in women’s nature to be corrupted and to corrupt. When his mouth drops and he’s aghast at such an incorrect statement about women (!), simply tell him to look no further than Eve to understand a woman’s nature.)
    If you’re lucky, a local church will have a community group program for men where they can grow together through fellowship, study, volunteering and just hanging out. I recommend this.
    I’ve found “The Jesus I Never Knew” and “Mere Christianity” to be great books to understand much more deeply our Lord and His religion.
    I’m all over the place here, I know, as I’ve not had my morning coffee, but my point is that Jesus, Christianity and God do not and have not ever been wimpy. It is the modern teachings, corrupted by and kowtowed to political correctness, that have severely pussified this great man.

    1. Shit, c’mon Mel, you and I know your religion has been Jewed like everything else. Like our women, our media, our education system, our banking system, it all is infested with pulling Jews. I’m an anti-semite and I love it.
      Maybe that Icke guy is right. They are some kind of hyper-dimensional Reptoid.

  16. For starters, Christ was the ultimate “white knight”, not just dying for one Special Snowflake, but for All The Sinners of the World. Fuck, man. That and all the “turn the other cheek” stuff. Plus the “Let he who is without sin cast the first stone at this high N-count cock carousel rider!” Plus the “Give away all your money!” bit….shut up you fuckin’ hippie!
    Now God the Father, OTOH, is the reddest of Red Pill Motherfuckers!
    1. He did build hit himself.
    2. Satan giving him shit? GTFO, and don’t let the Pearly Gates hit you on the ass on your way out.
    3. Pro-death penalty.
    4. Death penalty….for WHORES!
    5. 10% flat tax.
    6. Son turns out to be a pussy? “You love those Snowflakes so much you want to die for them? Time for some ‘tough love’, dumbass.”
    7. “Won’t let my people go? Here, have some plagues, motherfucker. Tell me when you’ve had enough.”
    8. Underlings suck? Drown the company and rebuild.
    And the beat goes on…..

    1. What did he tell the cock carousel rider? “Go and sin no more.”
      He came to call the unrighteous to repent (literally, to turn away from) their sins. It is a gift of mercy upon the weak, not an encouragement to remain weak or engage in sin.
      As for the money bit, I’m guessing a combination of “ego death” and focus shift was necessary for those he encouraged to sell what they had.

    2. Yes, Jesus died for our sins. Though necessary but not sufficient.
      Matthew 7:13-14New International Version (NIV)
      The Narrow and Wide Gates
      13 “Enter through the narrow gate. For wide is the gate and broad is the road that leads to destruction, and many enter through it. 14 But small is the gate and narrow the road that leads to life, and only a few find it.

  17. The choice of belief in the Judeo-Christian God or any other deity (deities) is the right of all men, however the Bible read as a book of thought and considered as allegory and metaphor still holds valuable life-lessons and cautions for the male in general. It is up to the well-rounded man to make his own choices on what to take away and what to leave as scraps. Personally, I’ll take the Bible (along with a few dozen other texts) over Rules for Radicals or the Communist Manifesto, any day.
    Christianity, as a belief can be as corrupt (and corruptible) as the “believer/follower”, and the institution is sick in modern day. The answer for those who do not want to see it whither and die is not to retreat and leave it to the jackals, but to stay and attend their local meetings to fight for those things they treasure. This is true in any situation where a man finds his territory threatened. Complain if you like, only don’t be surprised when doing so is as ineffectual as inaction.
    Of course, those who don’t care can watch it burn, but know: something always fills the void and what follows may be even harder to discredit/ignore.

  18. Having the Pope involved in the politics of questionable science like man made climate change doesn’t help matters much either.

  19. It’s interesting, the same thing happened in 19th century Germany. Many NT scholars of the time (the First Quest for the Historical Jesus) portrayed Jesus as a moral teacher, with none of the eschatological claims (i.e. the Kingdom of God is at hand). That all changed in 1896, when Schweitzer published his The Quest for the Historical Jesus, in which he described the historical Jesus as an apocalyptic prophet.
    A similar thing is happening today. Christianity is, as some have said, becoming moralistic, therapeutic deism. It has nothing to do with Christ on the cross or any of the other theological ideas. No wonder people are abandoning the Christian message; it’s become so watered down.

    1. C.S. Lewis didn’t think much of that notion. If Jesus was just a teacher, then he was a teacher who believed himself to be God. And that means he was either a liar, a lunatic, or that he actually was God incarnate.

      1. Yes, I know of Lewis’ trilemma. Most scholars would disagree with it. You could claim that Jesus’ divinity was legend, and that he never actually claimed it. On another level, most scholarship doesn’t really care about the truth claims of Christianity. It often will reach conclusions that are favorable to Christianity (i.e. the empty tomb tradition dates from within months, if not days of the Resurrection), but it’s largely (but not always) theologically neutral.
        The historical Jesus is not the real Jesus. The historical Jesus is an outline of the man, based on what we can recover from the gospels, Pauline epistles, and traditions. The historical Jesus was likely seen as a miracle worker and exorcist. The historical Jesus preached about the kingdom of God, and saw himself as a prophet. The real Jesus, however, was so much more.

  20. There are some Christian churches that seem to hold out. And stand strong at least in some issues. Case in point a minuscule group (2000 out of a church of millions) of female Mormons wanted to be ordained ministers. Church held strong and even had a decent message in a conference.
    https://www.lds.org/general-conference/2014/04/the-keys-and-authority-of-the-priesthood?lang=eng
    They are also the ones who spearheaded the fight against prop 8 in CA. Now not saying they are a total Red Pill church but they don’t seem to be as blue pill.

    1. Don’t follow the Mormons they may appear socially conservative but the movement for women Mormon preachers is growing and the “church” recently relented on suppressing homosexuals. Every time one of their stances becomes publicly controversial they back step, receive a convenient revelation from God and everything is OK (polygamy, darkies being cursed, black preachers, and now tolerating homosexuals)

  21. Hmmm. Maybe “the Faith Militant” is exactly what this corrupt modern society needs.

  22. Part of the reason for this is that many people, including many on this site, now place their faith in their new god: “science.”
    Under this new religion, science provides all the answers to the mysteries that religion used to provide. Science provides the rationale for existence, and the comfort in trying times. Our new science adherents tell us that we should abandon our imaginary invisible God in the sky in favor of science because science has all the answers. But they overlook that there are things that science cannot know or explain any better than religion.
    That this is “faith” is easily demonstrable. For example, it is commonly accepted that the big bang is how the universe began (I understand that there is some criticism within the scientific community, but it is still the most generally accepted theory). So please tell me what happened prior to the big bang? Was there nothing? If so, how could the big bang be possible? How did the “singularity” form, and why? If it had been sitting there, what compelled it to explode in the big bang? Science cannot answer these questions, and it is unlikely that we ever will. But science adherents place their unflinching faith in science for these answers instead of in religion as they would have in the past. They will say, “yes, but science evolves, while religion does not.” This demonstrates a complete ignorance of religion. Religion evolves all the time. There are two Testaments in the Bible, and God’s approach to things is vastly different between them. The Abrahamic religions are all evolutions in theological thought. Religion changes as God reveals himself, so it is simply not true that religion is written in stone. Nor is it true that science has the market cornered on the evolution of thought on profound questions of existence.
    On of the real cons that SJWs have pulled is to convince people that it is impossible to be a religious man and a scientist simultaneously. The new fad is to posit that this is an either/or proposition, and if you believe in religion, you can’t be a scientist, while if you’re a scientist, you can’t believe in religion. Aside from being laughably easy to defeat – why, can’t I believe that science is just the study of the way that God has set the universe in motion to accomplish his ends? – this is simply a faith argument proselytizing for converts. Look at the coded language: you can’t be a “true” or “real” scientist if you believe in the Christian God, only if you believe fully and unflinchingly in the science god (where have I heard this before? “Thou shalt have no other Gods before me.”). Never mind that the science God can’t answer any more of the fundamental questions than the old Christian one could. Georges Lemaitre (developed the theory of the expansion of the universe), Galileo Galilei (the father of modern physics), Sir Isaac Newton (the developer of calculus), Nicholas Copernicus (the father of the Copernican Revolution that said the earth was no longer center of the universe) and countless others ad nauseum, must be rolling in their graves. All were devout Christians who built the foundations of modern science and saw absolutely no conflict between science and religion. Our new science-god adherents bastardize both science and religion by pitting them against each other instead of using them as tools to understand one another.
    Make no mistake, this is an intentional distortion. There is one important difference between the science god and the other theological Gods – the science God does not care about his disciples. The science god is a cold and uncaring entity that asks you to abandon hope and surrender your will to “scientists,” who happen to have lots of theories about how it is better for you to live your life, and all of the sacrifices you must make at their beck and call. Coincidentally, most of these ideas fall right in line with every plank in the liberal platform. To be sure, priests, rabbis and imams also want to control your actions, but at least they promise you salvation in exchange for the social sacrifice they ask you to make. Science-god asks your faith and sacrifice, and provides nothing in return, just a cold, dark end with no answers to the profound questions. For those who would counter the hope in religion by saying that atrocity is committed in the name of religion, I would point out that the worst atrocities of the last century were committed by decidedly non-religious people in the Soviet Union and China – something on the order of 110 million killed during peacetime in the name of “progress.”
    Moreover, science offers no moral underpinning for sacrifice and faith, in fact, these ideas are contrary to science. Take murder – scientifically, we all know that every creature on this planet kills others, and many kill members of their own species. There are lots of scientific reasons for this. Our moral code, inherited from religion, tells us that it is not OK to kill your spouse’s children from another man. Science says this happens all the time, and is actually beneficial because it ensures that the strongest genes survive. I have yet to hear an atheist offer a rational explanation as to how science provides a moral framework for life. In truth, fully embracing science should lead you to the opposite conclusion. The hucksters who argue that science and religion cannot coexist are perfectly aware of this, and this abandonment of morality is exactly what they want. Then they can force you to do whatever they want without objection, and they can use the force of the state (which administers science these days) to control you.

    1. why, can’t I believe that science is just the study of the way that God has set the universe in motion to accomplish his ends?

      you can and it is absolutely reasonable. the interesting question is the source of the belief into one god. why not simply say ‘it’?
      i think the science god is misunderstood. scientists – those who deserve the name – are clever folks who are disciplined in their methods and merely find answers to very concise questions, seldom is any of them ‘moral’.
      it’s the media that extrapolates often ambivalent research into political agenda-approving half-truths.
      for me the interesting question is: what should be religion’s role today?
      morals? contemplating the origin of everything?
      but considering the vast variety of religions all over the earth, i think it’s fair to say that religion is guess-work. what measures did christians take to find out that it is one god? that he is man-like?
      what about cultures where airplanes are gods, cause they bring the food?

      1. I agree with much of what you say, but an important function of religion beyond guesswork about profound questions is to provide the moral framework for life. that religions conflict on this, to me, only seems to further the idea that religious thought develops in the same way that scientific thought does, albeit on different subjects.

        1. seems plausible.
          englishbob suggested the division between morals and ethics, the latter as being derived from logic. an ethic framework makes sense.
          i like the idea of it being basically a jungle of ethics/morals in competition with each other. the ‘right’ one is always the one who is winning at any particular moment in time.
          evolution, somewhat ineptly applied to religion.
          by the way, there is a team of scientists who created an algorithm that used evolutionary competition principles to come up with a good model of a certain observed behavior, i think it was the growth of a plant. through intermingling and competing, they finally, after many cycles, got the perfect explanation.
          only that in real life, the environment constantly changes. so i don’t think there will ever be the one forever-valid set of rules anyway.

      2. “you can and it is absolutely reasonable. the interesting question is the
        source of the belief into one god. why not simply say ‘it’?”
        It’s not reasonable to believe this. Nature is red in tooth and claw. Evolution has served the interests, in the human species, of men, who have, over generations, chosen the more submissive and easily controlled women, the more beautiful women over the more intelligent. Men have driven human evolution, far more so than women have. For a long time women were even denied evolutionary agency and were simply paired off with the male other males found superior, and in many cultures this is still the case.
        I cannot believe this wishy washy Christian belief that God has a plan for us all. This tedious rationalisation and constant “oh but now this is God’s plan, now this is God’s plan!”
        It’s nonsense. Religion is about faith. It requires no rationalisation. Belief does not require enunciation or explanation, except to the weak who do not feel and need explaining. Healthy men can feel the God inside them. It is something you feel. It does not require words.
        Religions are, in my view, just different ways of ordering our existence around this inner feeling. The fact that so few people feel like this is an indication of the severely degraded nutritional status of humans after generations of eating fertiliser grown, mineral and nutrient devoid crap, especially in the West. Eat right and make sure you supplement minerals that are missing from the soil and after some years you will FEEL INSIDE what it is to be holy, to seek truth, love and beauty in this world.
        No texts or rationalisations can substitute for this.

        1. if you want to call that kind of feeling god, we are somewhat on the same page. i would call it a healthy body and subconscious with the self-interest to pursue greatness and avoid suffering. the feeling that makes me want to stand up, move and create something.

        2. It is the feeling of looking up at the sky when you are conflicted and whispering “Give me strength.” and feeling peace wash over you. Or the feeling of being conflicted about the confusing state of modern society and how one acts within it and seeking God’s truth, the natural beauty of this world, and feeling resolute and determined that one has made the correct decisions.
          Have a read through this: http://www.health-science-spirit.com/borax.htm It talks about the importance of one mineral for certain types of health, but I believe there is much more to it.
          I found that boron supplementation helped to rekindled this sensation – I was unhealthy and a junk food eating liberal/communist for many years, and eating right helped me to the Good Way. There’s lots of stuff on conspiracy sites about boron’s importance for accessing the “third eye” and accessing God. I don’t really know about that but in my experience boron was certainly useful in becoming healthy and godly. Obviously many other minerals and nutrients are important too, as is avoiding alcohol for it drains one’s body of most vital nutrients like a plague.
          Pursuing one’s interests is not really what I am talking about, btw.

        3. i am so bored of conspiracy theories. but i can imagine that the absence of a mineral can make you deficient in some ways; seems plausible.

        4. It’s a conspiracy theory because the science establishment most likely wouldn’t research the effect of nutrition on religiosity and political views, if only because it would show them that the most unhealthy people are the most irreligious and communistic. And such a finding would upset the fertiliser-based agricultural lobby and suggest serious realignment of various processes.
          We are biological machines. All the post-malthusians achieved was creating an ever growing stock of progressively more inferior humans.
          Ultimately, there is only so much top-soil to go around. As population increases, the amount of nutrition available per person decreases, even if more food is produced. Further so with current waste disposal techniques that do not deposit nutrients back into the soil. And we are destroying a lot of the topsoil with overfarming; growing food with fertilisers or GM crops cannot fix the problem because the problem is essentially unfixable. The soil contains millions of bacteria and dozens of minerals that interact in variegated ways which cannot be economically reproduced by a fertiliser plant. What results is food grown without nutrients. Even hydroponics cannot solve this.
          Read the introduction of this report if you wish: http://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCIQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.myhealthyhome.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F02%2FNutrientDepletionofourFoods.pdf&ei=7oWWVcKzL8u67gbQ57jwAg&usg=AFQjCNG2PHBkJpyci9MealClwRg0wail6Q&bvm=bv.96952980,d.ZGU
          Summary is that food today contains 50% to 10% of the nutrients it did in the 1930s, which was already several decades after the implementation of fertlisers in the West.

        5. Supplements, for now, are an imperfect and adequate amelioration but
          nothing is as good as eating nutrient rich food. Organic and
          unpasteurised is a must, I’ve found.
          This guy has a pretty good grasp of the situation for Americans: http://www.drlwilson.com. I learnt a lot from him. His ideas are radical and some things he says are not perfect, but the latter is the same with any health professional.
          He’s a constitutionalist Christian nutritionist so when I first started reading him he sounded ridiculous but looking up stuff he says regarding nutrition usually confirms it.

    2. Modern people will believe any outlandish nonsense you make up so long as you begin it with, “Scientists say,” or “There was a recent study that shows…”

    3. Those who worship at the altar of Science often make declarations beyond the scope of science. These include, but are not limited to, the origins of life, the origins of the universe, the proper way to live, and the nature of reality.
      These are philosophical and legal questions, as we cannot observe history, nor ethics, nor the nature of reality.
      It is this misuse of the name of Science that has allowed fraud to exist within the framework. The philosophy of the Science worshipper allows him to skew climate data, lie about nutrition, and mislead with regards to the safety and efficacy of medicines.

    4. What about the 90 million native americans or so that were exterminated or worked to death (over generations, I suppose) by Catholics?
      What about the hundreds of millions of Indian peasants who had their lives cut short by starvation taxes imposed by Protestants?

        1. My reply to smug frog below delves into more detail, but essentially Christianity lost it’s claim to morality through the practice of Empire, which would not have been possible under a Muslim theocracy (and, indeed, was explicitly rejected by the 14th Century Chinese, who were two hundred years ahead of the West at the time).
          Christianity has been a religion which has preached pacifism and tolerance yet has practiced Empire and intolerance.
          It would be fine if the religion and culture justified this (like early period Hinduism justified genocide and caste distinctions) because then the mechanisms of societal propaganda would be consistent with people’s actions and desires.
          Christianity, being a socialist SJW religion, proves to be utterly hypocritical when practice proves opposite to ideology. The Muslims have a religious mechanism for recognising and correcting this: “Decadence”, and the religion acknowledges and works to eliminate it, even if in recent years it has been often unsuccessful. However, Muslims have a set plan of action: a global caliphate that eventually converts everyone to Islam, largely through peaceful means (a Jizya tax) once s government is taken over (usually through violent means). Christianity’s raison d’etre was to help the Jews survive the Roman persecutions. That seems to be it. After that, it was used to justify whatever the state wanted it to justify, often for good reasons (creating Truth, Beauty and Love) but often for very bad reasons (starving Indians, working Amerindians to death). Fundamentally, because Christianity is an essentially baseless religion with primarily SJW morality at it’s core, it is really easy to bastardised and hereticise, and when the religion’s values seems to be in direct conflict with the actions of the practitioners of that religion, it is easy to reject it: “God is dead.” There would seem to be little other possibility, if one were to learn about the gulags of South America or the industrial capitalism of Europe: “exploitation” under Christian or SJW morality. Note that Hindus have no problem with some form of capitalism but Jesus was strongly a socialist: it is impossible for a Hindu to reject Dharma because he finds inequality to be degrading (Hinduism stresses the importance of following one’s place in society and receiving dignity in an afterlife or the next life), but it is easy for a Christian to reject capitalism on purely religious and altruistic grounds: if he wants the rich man to go to heaven, surely the Christian ought to make him poor? It’s no wonder that socialism, before Empire and Soviet meddling, was entirely restricted to Christian societies.
          Empire exposed Christians as little more than hypocritical moralists, and so the real SJWs found it incredibly easy to found their new heresy of Christianity – based on the same values but attempting to be more successful. No more equality of the soul (which justified real crimes, like using blacks to ‘help’ them or raping India to ‘civilise’ it) but equality in life. No other religion has at it’s core this kind of pervasive anti-rich socialism, and socialism is a disease that has a uniquely Western beginning. Like you say, there is no morality without religion, and the socialist religion thus came from socialist Christianity, without which socialism (and feminism) would have been impossible.
          Aurini’s video on YouTube titled AtheistKult provides some background to this, if you are interested, as does my post in response to Smug Frog.

  23. At first i believed this article was going to be a typical exercise in theophobic banality against Christian faith, but upon perusal i can clearly see the author has done his homework. Well done good sir.
    To address some of the points mentioned:
    “The 1960s represent a watershed for Christianity. At the time, communism was spreading throughout the world, and it appeared to be impregnable. There were many voices predicting that it would be communism, not the capitalist West, that would own the future. Christian leaders were not unaffected by the idea that communism would be triumphant. Many of them came to see communism, with its focus on equality, economic fairness, and solidarity, as the fulfillment of Christianity.”
    Perhaps the best known example of this could be Jim Jones. For a time he passed himself off as a Christian in order to gather to himself a flock of followers who would ostensibly help him establish true Christianity on earth. The problem is, Jim wasn’t actually a Christian. He might have been once upon a time but in the years between his rise and fall there were numerous examples (indeed, even an admission by Jones himself) that his purpose was to destroy Christianity and replace it with “something better” aka communism.
    Today the left (ignorantly) uses Jones as a means of demonstrating the so called fanaticism of modern day faith, when in fact Jones bore no more of a passing resemblance to TRUE faith than David Koresh during his heyday in the latter part of the 20th century. Jones was a registered democrat and a self confessed communist who used Christianity in order to destroy it (the saul akinsky method in effect) which makes his fanaticism and the ignorance of his followers yet another demonstration of the zealotry the left has become infamous for.
    “Most Christians are woefully ignorant of the reasons for their beliefs.”
    Absolutely. You call them soft but i think you are being too soft in your remarks there. I consider them feckless christians who lack the spiritual balls to take on the world and do so confidently and without flinching. The bible itself refers to these fair weather cookie cutter christians as “lukewarm” aka christians who’s beliefs waver with the breeze. In my life i’ve battled wimp lukewarm christians who try to chide me on being ‘too hard” on the (typically SJ) opposition i face during my virtual escapades. They will usually say “judge not or be judged yourself” if i am strongly condemning a theophobic atheist, homosexual militant, feminist, etc and essentially end up playing the devil’s advocate. I have to remind them of John 7:24 where Jesus himself says “judge not according to the surface, but judge with righteous judgement” aka Christians ARE allowed and even encouraged to judge right from wrong and to ergo stand up for their beliefs. I usually end up going off on them just as harshly if not moreso, because as followers of Christianity i hold them to a higher standard. I’ve been banned from christian groups, if that gives you any indication of how hardcore i go with it. And by the way, i’m no less direct or harsh in person. I use the internet as a tool and not a crutch to teach the accountability message.
    The moment that Christians stopped believing that they have a right to call bs on the world, thanks in no small part to the wimp leadership of false prophets like Losteen, Fakes, and Joke Meyer, is the moment these christians self castrated themselves and started behaving as if having faith was a thing of shame. “Joshua” Christians (the fighters of the Word) like myself have been trying to lead the p-whipped Christians back to proper understanding ever since.
    “In our day, Christianity has a reputation for being wimpy and liberal”
    Indeed. you can even find this perception from some of the faithful members of ROK. The problem with that is, it tends to blame the farce that is modern day Christianity on Christianity itself, as if the scriptures themselves supported it. The reality is, they don’t.
    The easiest way to dispel this canard is to cite Jesus Himself. The left takes him as some sort of cheech and chong type SJ pacifist hippy and some on our side tend to believe it. Nothing could be further from the truth.
    The REAL Jesus threw over tables, went flogging money lenders for their disrespect, called pharisee jews hypocrites and vipers, told a female that holiness shouldn’t be wasted on a dog, told people that scripture would be wasted on swine, went shopping for swords with his disciples, endured enough torture that would break Rambo, and so forth.
    How many of you all are more familiar with this Jesus, and not the other bizarro one? It’s because the left has tried to hijack him in order to dilute the message. To a large extent they have succeeded, which is why we have the piss poor watered down lukewarm so called christian coward that talks big online but when the rubber meets the road, folds faster than origami under the world’s pressure.
    I’ve spoken with real Christian leaders who all tend to say the same thing: real Christians are in short supply nowadays, and partly because of the corrupted church, which teaches the pre trib belief that we will all be whisked away to safety before the shit hits the fan, which ignores the reality that Christ Himself said we would suffer for keeping the faith and His life is evidence of just how bad it could get. I’ve heard them say that whenever they went to preach in the public square and were attacked viciously, so called christians would walk up to them afterwards, after the attacks would cease and tell them softly “i agree with you” as if that was something to be proud of. When you hide your thoughts from those who disagree with them you aren’t representing a belief in faith, but rather a cowardly shame in it. These people to put it mildly, make me sick. They are no better than Peter when he denied Jesus 3 times after boasting about his loyalty beforehand.
    Along with the pre trib rapture, you also have 2 other false gospels that the fake christian leadership tends to inculcate through didacticism:
    The prosperity gospel:
    The belief that God is a magic genie who will grant you riches and fame, so long as you believe in it and “speak” it. This borders on heresy, as the gospels themselves state not to love money because it can create all manner of evils. This false doctrine is especially emphasized in the megachurches of conniving scum like Losteen and TD Fakes, which is taught concomitantly with the next false gospel:
    The tithing initiative: Christians today are taught that they must give a tenth of their wealth (pre tax of course) in order to ensure that God will “bless” their household, as if God was the head of the spiritual version of the IRS who collected his dues anytime you go to church. The truth is, tithing was a necessity for the pre Jesus Christian, and it didn’t often involve money, sometimes it was something as simple as food, and it could be used to help out down on their luck members who had fallen on hard times. Do you think that Losteen or Jakes teach this? Of course not, if so they’d have to share in the millions they’ve fleeced from idiot so called christians in order to help those members who are less fortunate. Jesus’ examples during his life shows we are no longer bound letter and sentence by the old laws, because He has FULFILLED them aka his life is a representation of the law and as long as we follow it we follow it as we are now expected to. Today we are not expected to give a tenth, but to give of our hearts as we see fit (we should give generously however since charity is a Christian staple) again, does anyone think that these hucksters like Losteen or Fakes would teach this? Clearly not.
    I could go on and on but i believe I’ve demonstrated enough support for your article as well as enough proof that what passes for Christianity nowadays (the conundrum of 3/4 of self identified Christians in the US and more people than ever believing in homo marriage can therefore be explained) to show that modern day so called christians are a POOR EXCUSE AND STANDARD of the quality and integrity that came with claiming that title in the past.
    Real Christians are a verb and not a noun…when these pseudospiritual chaff scumbags start to realize this, the better off they will be.

    1. just was intercepted by two jehovah’s witnesses. one hot girl who looked like she wants it up the ass and her correct, nice, wimpy partner who seemed like he wanted to tell me how to get back in touch with my feelings.
      is it a coincidence or do they always pair them like this? effeminate guy and super sweet girl who craves the bad boy?
      god, i hope you are preparing some wonderful afterlife for this guy, because his earthly life is looking like hell right now.

      1. I studied with the JW for a time, back when i was trying to understand which faith had it “right.”
        I can say that their females are prim and proper, or at least give the appearance of such. The older females tend to be demure and understand their complementary role to the Man. The elders for their part seem to know what they are talking about.
        I usually don’t correlate JW females with “hot” so this girl you are speaking of must have been hot solely on the basis of her looks and not her accoutrements, right?
        I’ve never seen a public partnership like that, but then again i never got the chance to engage in it myself. Most of the elders for their part demonstrate Alpha tendencies of leadership. Were they millennials? That would explain it.
        What i DO now is that the rebellious nature of the female will come to the surface under the right conditions…regardless of the faith which holds it in check otherwise. Maybe she thought you were good looking enough for her to envision a quick plug on or off the bike 🙂
        Given what you said, he might do better converting to islam in order to get those rumored 72 virgins lol
        Sorry i couldn’t answer your question better.

        1. ah, yes, based on looks. i like the harmless princess dress, though. makes me want to spoil it.
          definitely millenials. he wasn’t exactly shy, though, as he had the fortitude to come after me asking for my name. it was more that he was rather small and looked so clean-licked in his mannered clothes.
          good idea, i’ll ask him what he thinks of islam next time i see him. are the 72 guaranteed, though?

        2. Yes they’re guaranteed, at least by islamic orthodoxy. He’d have to turn into a rampaging mass murderer first though. Given that betas tend to lash out when they finally get a taste of the red pill, it shouldn’t be too difficult a leap.

        3. On a related note, i always find it fascinating how the daughters of clergy (pastors especially) in Church have been some of the biggest sluts outside of it.
          During my 20’s, i dated this one 18 year old girl who was on the down low and her Dad was part of the clergy, and this early 20 something girl who didn’t bat an eyelash at undressing for me online. She was the biggest freak i’d ever come across and i probably could have gotten a 3some from her if i hadn’t been such a beta at the time. She also confided in me that her dad found out about her sleeping with another girl.
          Sometimes i’m tempted to pray to God NOT to give me a daughter if i ever establish my own Church (even if i don’t) but i’m too afraid i’ll get one anyway since i might piss off the almighty in doing so.
          I’ve taken to understanding more and more the mechanics of reproduction, in order to try and influence the results. There are ways to influence your chances of getting a boy during that fateful moment(s)
          I got a boy on my first try quite by serendipity, but next time i don’t want to leave it to a genetic “roll of the dice.”

        4. what ways are there?
          today, i absolutely understand any man who doesn’t want a daughter. why produce something that nature only created to be fucked and carry another man’s seed? what will i teach a daughter? how to be masculine?
          and yes, it has been my observation, too, although my sample size is very small. the more petite and orderly the surface, the more of a whore i automatically suspect below it.

        5. The times that you attempt to mate, her ovulation stage, and so forth.
          There is no perfect science to it, but any little bit that helps you increase your odds for a boy are always beneficial.
          This article lists some of them. You can research more.
          The sperm carrying the Y tends to move slower than the faster moving X, so we already have to take steps to make sure the right sperm get to the right egg if we want a boy.
          http://genetics.thetech.org/ask/ask76

        6. ah. so the girlies were the better athletes among the spermiums and when they got out, they felt like they can rest on this success. explains their meek nature.

    2. Paul says that it is through much tribulation that we enter the kingdom heaven and also, yea and all who are willing to live godly shall suffer persecution.
      If you aren’t suffering the persecution from your beliefs the bible itself says you are NOT a Christian!
      So sit down and shut the fuck up you sjw faggots.
      Btw Jim jones was employed by the CIA.
      I think that masculine men partial to biblical Christianity should be condemning the modern church, mocking it and inciting these liars and hypocrites to show their true colors much like Jesus did to the Pharisees.

      1. “Btw Jim jones was employed by the CIA.”
        I don’t doubt it. They used that prog cunt Gloria Steinem so why not that SJ pos Jones.
        Cosign on your latter remarks. You sound more like a Christian than some of the hippy scum i’ve come across in my life.

      2. I am a Catholic and I certainly condemn the modern church, not as an institution of faith (in that sense I revere it), but in how it is being used politically.
        I attend Mass at a traditional church (some remain) and support that church, but keep donations low and would never financially support the broader Catholic Church so long as they maintain the current PC nonsense.

        1. Have you considered the Orthodox church? I used to go to SSPX masses until I realised that in the Orthodox church, traditionalism is the norm.

    3. That money changer story is a myth. The Jewish temple had an army stationed onsite to prevent just that sort of trouble, and there is no way the events described could have happened.

      1. Unless you can prove the bible is wrong here that is strictly your belief and one that i will disagree with.

      2. Most critical scholars believe that Jesus caused a disturbance at the Temple. That was probably part of why Jesus was crucified.

      3. doesn’t mean he didn’t cause it and then subsequently get thrown out.

    4. “They will usually say “judge not or be judged yourself” if i am strongly
      condemning a theophobic atheist, homosexual militant, feminist, etc and
      essentially end up playing the devil’s advocate.”
      Yes they will say the “judge not…..” phrase while the irony of the fact that they have just judged the judgemental seems to escape them.

      1. You nailed it in that last remark.
        We are commanded to judge righteously, not superficially.
        If i say:
        “homosexuality is wrong” i am making a righteous judgement, because it is wrong. In no way am i condemning a homosexual per se as “evil” i am simply condemning the act itself.
        If however someone says to me: “you’re a bigot and jerk when your bible says not to judge” they are judging superficially, because they are only judging me by the appearance of my remarks and because of the bias they possess with regard to homosexuality. Their hypocrisy in judging me as a person over me judging an impersonal philosophy is also amply evident.

  24. Christianity is wimpy because it is a devotional religion. Any type of devotional spirituality requires its adherents to submit themselves to the object of their devotion. When the object of your worship lies outside yourself you have to be submissive and docile – like a housewife, or a servant.
    This is why Christianity is such a big hit with women in particular. It tailor-fits their natural plasmic character. Devotional spirituality is what you may call lunar and feminine. Not masculine in any respect.
    The type of man you would expect to be a truly devout christian is typically a bitch. Not all but most.
    I remember a line from Beowulf movie which i saw about 10 years ago:
    Beowulf – the time of heroes is dead, the Christ-god has killed it. Leaving humankind with nothing but weeping martyrs of fear and shame.
    While this is just a movie it echoed a sentiment I share. Christianity spread and opposed the Norse-Scandinavian masculine hero religions of yon – those of the old gods and an afterlife you had to earn entry into by virtue of being heroic in your character: embracing uncertainty and death, fearlessness, resolute, detached.
    Christianity and any devotional-type feminine religions can only thrive in an age where masculinity is truly dead and one seeks salvation outside oneself rather than within. One must be submissive and wimpy.
    My contribution

    1. Obviously you’ve never read the Bible, it calls for women’s submission to men, and is full of red pill truths. The fact that modern man has distorted the message isn’t God’s fault, it’s ours.

      1. I’m not disputing that it has red pill truths nor that messages can be distorted. I have read the Bible but Christianity is devotional – and its followers must submit.
        That said. There are innumerable contradictions in the Bible

        1. I’ll take Western Civilization as influenced by the Bible as opposed being a Viking, Thank You.

  25. There are still some traditional christian churches: Lutheran Church (Wisconsin synod), Orthodox and Free Presbyterians (mine), traditionalist Catholics, Independent Baptists, and most of the (eastern) Orthodox churches, just to name some. I’ll grant that most of the mainline protestant churches and Catholic Church have fallen into the social justice and economic socialist shtick (the Southern Baptist Convention Clergy, though hardly their lay, have taken up an open immigration policy though remain socially conservative.

    1. Lutheran Church Missouri Synod is usually traditional. You can also find it in the Presbyterian Church of America (in teachers like Sproul, especially).

  26. The author is referring to the average run of the mill so called Christian who doesn’t know the bible. This is why he lumps all of Christianity in with the Catholics and there breed Protestants , Lutherans, Anglicans. But the true church has always been small and overlooked. Who built the underground cities at capadocia, who where the catholics calling heretics, it wasn’t Martin Luther, he came after and he even hated these guys. The anabaptist, why do we piss people off so much. We keep the law just ask to be excused from immorality and to preach and everywhere we go we cause so called civilized people to come undone and bust out there lynch mob suits. Yes there was a church before Constantine forced the whole empire of Rome to convert but Christians are wimpy, no the Christians died for there beliefs. The empire converted from there’s. Why did all the pagan gods die away In the face of the Muslim horde no power. We shall see who stands the test of time. I can all ready see the counters coming but, people still worship the pagan gods, yes as an excuse to get together and have an orgy, ask them it’s all figurative not literall.

    1. It’s true when the German Peasant Rebellion broke out and attempted to turn Luther’s teachings into liberation theology he rebuked them and condoned the nobles following him to suppress the rebellion for it being revolutionary.

    2. Questions should end with- ? not a period.
      Learn when to use there, their, and they’re.
      Punctuation and grammar. Please use them.

      1. Is “Punctuation and Grammar.” a complete sentence? Seems like you have a subject with out a predicate or verb.
        At times I write in a conversational style on the internet, so save your criticism. You raised the formality of punctuation and grammar in a tight assed way only to screw the pooch.

  27. Ever listen to “modern” Christian music? With a very few exceptions such as Iona and some Phil Keaggy, and an occasional jewel here and there, most of it is milk-toast mush. I can name songs from “secular” artists that have more meat and meaning of a true Christian nature.
    For instance:
    “Joseph’s Coat” and “Pride of Man” by Quicksilver Messenger Service
    “The King Will Come” by Wishbone Ash
    “Byzantium” by Kansas
    “Sanctify Yourself” by Simple Minds
    “When Love Comes to Town” by U2 and BB King
    “There Is a Reason” by Allison Krauss & Union Station
    “Simple Man” by Lynyrd Skynyrd
    and many others.
    Sad state of affairs …

    1. “I wanna get down on my knees and start praising Jesus
      I wanna feel his salvation all over my face”
      – Faith +1, South Park “Christian Rock Hard”

  28. 2 Timothy 2:15 – Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth.
    1 Timothy 4:8 – For bodily exercise profiteth little: but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that now is, and of that which is to come.
    Several neomasculine commands and implications in these two verses alone.
    First, it is the duty of the Christian man to study the Word of Truth and discern the answers to the hard questions.
    Second, it is his duty to work in such a manner as brings him no shame, doing what he discerns must be done.
    Third, it is his expected of him to exercise his body (implication of 1Tim 4:8 that Timothy works out).
    Finally, it is important to put the spiritual things first, as everything else falls into line.
    If more Christians read their Bibles and applied it, we’d not have these problems.

  29. Christians apparently invented the idea that old religions have expiration dates, and that these aging faiths have to go away to make room for newer revelations.
    So why should Christians act so surprised that this will happen to their religion as well?

    For example, the embrace of doctrine of “the rapture” seems to be nothing more than a way for Christians to lull themselves into thinking that they can never be victims of persecution. I’m afraid these Christians might be in for a rude shock in the next decade or two.

    I guess these Christians haven’t paid attention to the news about the execution of Coptic Christians in areas controlled by the Islamic State. I know a couple of American converts to Orthodoxy Christianity, and they consider Coptic Christians part of the Orthodox community. These stories really bother them because they don’t buy into this rapture nonsense and they can see that god won’t magically protect them from persecution.

  30. For Catholics, the watershed was the Second Vatican Council which ran from 1962 to 1965. The French and German bishops conferences and their theological advisers, who ran the gamut from progressive to formally heretical, bum rushed the bewildered traditional and conservative bishops out the door before the poor bastards could put their shoes on.
    This is grossly simplified, but prior to 1965 the Catholic Church’s approach to spreading the Gospel was, “The RCC alone possesses the fullness of truth. All of you Godless heathens and heretics can take it or leave it. Become a soldier of Christ or remain a bitch of the devil, a whore of darkness, Satan’s concubine!”
    After the Council, her approach is mostly, “We would like to humbly propose what we believe using humanist phenomenology instead of traditional Christian pedagogy. Let us engage in mutually enriching, fruitful dialogue…”
    The world does not reject the Gospel because it has not been adequately explained. They reject it “because the light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than the light: for their works were evil” (John 3:19).

  31. Jesus Christ is a bigger faggot than Faggotor, God of Faggots.
    Why is Christianity so weak? Are you shitting me? Your god is a scrawny, virgin, jew boy who got massacred. Xianity is the religion of slaves; “Easier for a camel to pass through a needle than a rich man to enter heaven”, “The meek shall inherit is earth*”, “When you failed to do for the lest of your brother”. Then you get to the White Knight horse shit; “Forgive and forget”, “turn the other cheek”.
    Zeus fucked every hot piece of ass in Greece. Thor slayed frost gaints with a hammer. Jew boy was tacked to the wall like a Justin Bieber poster.
    *”The Meek Shall inherit the Earth” is true. It always has been. Jew boy just failed to elaborate. The “Earth” that he was referring to is a mass grave.

    1. “Forgive and forget” does not appear even once. In fact, without the Salvation by Christ, your sins will be remembered and brought before you on the day of Judgement. Even the forgiven have their sins remembered, but the sacrifice of Jesus is sufficient atonement for them.
      Also, I have no problems helping out my family. If God says he is my brother, I will treat him as such.

    2. You show God’s love and mercy by curb stomping the sinner/hetetic’s head until they repent. Better than eternal damnation.

        1. I posted a link to some archaeological evidence. I don’t claim it to be a smoking gun.
          Your overall argument would be more effective if you compared actual people.

  32. The OP talks like most women emoting confusing their feelings and limited observations as mentally overwhelming.
    To a women “every” and “all” usually means three times. For the author, a majority of Christians all the ones who fulfill his expectations.

  33. Christianity is a pagan religion from the arabian desert. It spread throughout the west because despotic leaders found it useful to obtain absolute power. The bible allowed these absolute leaders. They had to kill their way through Europe to obtain it. It is very readily criticized in my country as it has no appeal to our deeper feelings of what life is really about. It demands meekness.
    So when any idea arrives that appeals to the majority the church accepts it like an old whore, as long as it ‘allows all children to come to me’.
    Read Ashraf Ezzrat’s book on ‘Egypt knew no Pharaohs nor Israelites’ for a very interesting take on the myths and lies of the bible.

    1. The early Christian martyrs must have really been devoted to that long term plan.

    2. Yeah and your country is on the way down having abandoned Christianity long ago to worship cunts and social justice. What was your point again?

  34. You left out the part about where christianity is basically run by women for women. Thats why its gone to shit. “Christian” men threw in the towel and started letting women dictate how the church preaches its messages

  35. PLEASE!
    Cite a source on St Nicholas getting into a fist fight!
    Nice reference to The Council of Nicea. I insist that my History students make a timeline and Nicea is one of their milestones, along with The Magna Carta (1215) and The Declaration of Independence (1776).

    1. Sorry to disappoint. I got the punching incident from a website run by the Orthodox Church in America, but the incident may be apocryphal. The Catholic Encyclopedia states that there is no hard evidence that Nicholas was at the Council because he does not appear on any of the lists of bishops who attended.
      Despite this, the fact that the legend exists indicates that believers saw no problem with a saint getting physical with a heretic.

  36. I’m Christian and I totally believe this. Whenever I run into some another person of faith they are always wimpy and submissive as all hell. They can’t even stand up for themselves when someone goes up to them and bashes them for being faithful. It’s all very disgusting.

  37. Giving more thought to the OP’s thesis and wondering now which group of men are not wimpy.
    Atheists?
    Islamists?
    Liberals?
    Neo-cons?
    Go anywhere, bars, malls, restaurants, sporting events, queines mas macho?
    If we lined everyone here at ROK would we be wimps?
    Me? No. Christian? Yes.

  38. “Despite abundant evidence to the contrary, I am optimistic that a significant number of believers will choose the former option.”
    I’m one of them.
    The Leftist agenda is shifting into overdrive with the acceptance of marriage for those who practice and propogate a perverse, diseased lifestyle and the toleration of the Religion of Pieces, and it’s getting downright scary. I believe in the Rapture, but with the rapid moral decline of the West, I wouldn’t rule out the possibility of persecution making its way to our shores beforehand.
    Thankfully, the churches that I’ve frequented preached the Gospel in the same manner Christ did – take it or leave it, with no political agenda and no pretense.

    1. I hope y’all do get Raptured. It’s going to be Mad Max down here. Don’t worry. I’ll mount Charlize Thoren’s head to my death buggy on day one.
      Enjoy your harp.

  39. First, from a comparative religion standpoint, Yahweh was equated by the Romans to Caelus and Jupiter. The Phoenicians equated him to Saturn. They were all aspects of the same Sky-Father deity anyway.
    Any “Sky-Father” deity is symbolized by the follow: war, justice, death, kingship and nobility, the Sun, Wrath, etc. Essentially motherfucking patriarchy.
    One often dismissed aspect of the Biblical God is him being a god of war (Exodus 15:3)
    The problem is modern Christianity is too polluted with pacifist, peacenik hippie bullshit. In order to make modern Christianity to work again, we have to INVOKE old pagan symbols and archetypes, like god of war, god of justice, god of wrath and retribution.

  40. Also, let’s talk about what a giant piece of shit ‘God” is.
    Correct me if I’m wrong but Satan and 1/3 of god’s angels rebelled against him.
    1/3? 3% of Colonialist actively fought against the English. Less than 5% of the French actively resisted the Nazis. So god was such a steaming pile of shit despot that one out of every 3 of his ‘children’ wanted to destroy him. That makes me wonder about the other 2/3s. How many of them also hated god but choose not to side with Satan—‘cuz “The Devil you know…”

    1. interesting way to look at it.
      somebody i like reading suggested that not all angels are absolutely holy and not all demons are absolutely evil.

      1. Partially correct.
        Angels do not have free will; they are, literally, “Voice of Supreme One”.
        If they achieve/exert free will – they automatically fall…and gain sex in the process (among other things).
        Good and evil ARE relativistic cathegories in ALL but Divine aspects.
        Therefore, there can be no “bad” Angel…but, not all fallen Angels are inherently “evil” (except as to rejecting Divine Will).
        Hebrews got it quite right with their “shedim” and “nephilim” concepts. Hindus, as well. 🙂

        1. Interesting. But since god does not operate in terms of good / evil (everything is god), the work of some angels may appear good from a human perspective, while the work of others may appear bad from a human perspective. But both are just “Voice of Supreme One”.

        2. Everything IS God. Rejecting the Connection with the Divine (whatever the reason may be) is “bad/evil” as to Divine Will.
          What You wrote is correct. The WILL AND REASON of The One Who Is is unbeknownst to anybody…including Angels. They cannot do anything but obey.
          However, Demons can still choose…even though they removed themself from Divine Light permanently.
          Not all of them choose to (childishly) “spite” the Creator all the time… :)…and most of them stay “under the radar” MOST of the time…unless drawn out by their vanity, sadness, and/or anger.

        3. I don’t think anything can remove itself from Divine Light permanently. In my view, everything is made out of Divine Light. How else could it exist? What would it be made of? Some of it has just forgotten that it is that. Which is why I prefer Eastern philosophy, where Samsara (the equivalent of hell) is simply endless reincarnation. But the possibility of working off karma and going back to Grace is always and forever open.

        4. Removing oneself from the CONNECTION with Divine Light (not Divine Light itself) is an act of Volition.
          And this is not incompatible with Eastern Teachings at all….in fact, they are just another shining piece in mosaic of Universal Wisdom.
          Everything living in material realm MAY reincarnate…but must not – either due to spiritual perfection (joining the Divine), or Intervention of the Creator (often percieved as “punishment”…but it mustn`t necessarily be that…)
          Samsara is not Hell…it is “the Wheel of Reincarnation”…you can reincarnate into a higher being also…remember? 🙂
          Humans CAN “work off Karma” (see Christian concept of Purgatory….sadly removed from many of their doctrines)…but, alas, fallen Angels can`t.
          They reincarnate over and over and over…as humans, of course… refusing the Divine out of hurt pride…and being “stuck” in the vessels they consider GROSSLY inferior… and having to conform to the life in a society of “lesser beings” …well, that kind of humiliation truly pisses off a lot of them.
          They know that it IS for reason so…a Divine Reason…but refuse to learn and thus perpetuate their curse.
          Let`s say….that I do have some perspective on that.
          🙂
          Oṃ Amideva Hrīḥ to You, Tom…and may Your Arrow fly straight…))

        5. I did not say that you can not remove yourself from Divine Light. I just argued that such an act is likely not permanent.
          Yeah, the idea of purgatory makes more sense than eternal damnation. On a metaphysical level, it also reflects real life experience. A lot of Karma to work off can literally make your life hellish.
          As for angels and their ability to become angels again … no idea! Maybe you are right, maybe you aren’t. Maybe it is just the reality you choose to live in. 🙂
          Thanks for the wishes! For lack of creativity, same back to you.

    2. “Correct me if I’m wrong but Satan and 1/3 of god’s angels rebelled against him.”
      You’re wrong.
      The idea of Satan rebelling against God comes from Milton’s Paradise Lost. The reference of 1/3 of all angels falling from heaven comes from Revelation and is a (figurative) prophecy of a future event.

  41. Any religion that offers freedom from accountability by attending weekly meetings in a magic building will always be an issue.
    If you’re going to bash on science, log off and throw your modern appliances away. Communicate through prayer. Seek guidance in a book written by people angry that Romans didn’t give a fuck about them. Grow crops and be meek and bitter. Huddle up and hope that godless heathens spare your mud hut.
    Fact of the matter is that you can’t get shit done if you keep asking your invisible friend for permission. Get out and do something. If you want to give your friend credit, go ahead. Just don’t sit there and tell me that your friend is better than mine with nothing to show for it.
    Go ahead and quote things out of your musty tome. I can do the same with the Lord of the Rings series.
    Many that live deserve death. And some that die deserve life. Can you give it to them? Then do not be too eager to deal out death in judgement. For even the very wise cannot see all ends. – Gandalf FotR 11-73
    And can all you christians just pick one and go with it? Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, just fucking pick one. Then I’ll know you’re serious.
    My gods are Science and Nature. Both are terrible and unforgiving gods just like your old testament fellow. Both will reward you for diligence and respect. Both will not spare a glance at your corpse.

    1. I love science and technology. But sometimes you have to get away from that shit to feel human again, get those primal juices flowing by going out in the woods and killing something or just to enjoy the solitude and the silence. It’s Platonic asceticism.
      Also, anywhere sacred is “magic”. According to the Old Testament and other pagan sources, saying YHWH in its proper pronunciation and ritualistic context leads to great sorcery.

    2. Now that you have ranted against Christianity, the question really is, are you a wimp?
      Do you think I am a wimp? The OP does.

    3. BTW, been wondering for a long time what happened before the big bang. Any news from your gods?

      1. More than yours, seeing that yours arrived say what…6ooo years ago by biblical reckoning?

        1. Everybody knows the Universe is billions of years old.
          Seriously, what happened before the big bang?
          In the beginning…
          1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
          2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
          3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

        2. He made us in his own image, right?
          Where was he standing? A big ball of hyperdense hydrogen atoms? Tesseract watching Mathew McConaughey play with gravity?
          I can still quote books too.
          There was Eru, the One, who in Arda is called Ilúvatar; and he made first the Ainur, the Holy Ones, that were the offspring of his thought, and they were with him before aught else was made. And he spoke to them, propounding to them themes of music; and they sang before him, and he was glad. – Ainulindalë – Silmarillion

        3. Stop trying to justify your faith on an event that we both have insufficient knowledge of. We both know that I’m going to be able to pick apart your faith based points. I’ll be an asshole, you’ll be a zealot, and everyone will walk away because we’ve shit all over this discussion.
          As for the question of being weak? I’m going to say yes, you are weak for being unwilling or unable to let go of your christian security blanket.

        4. “He made us in his own image, right?”
          That’s what the instructions say.
          “Where was he standing? A big ball of hyperdense hydrogen atoms? Tesseract watching Mathew McConaughey play with gravity?”
          Is that your best? Shit bring your A game dude. You are thinking like a 3-D Terran.

        5. You want A game?
          You and I walk into a children’s cancer ward. I watch as you explain why your god wants them to have cancer and that if they kiss his smug ass enough they MIGHT get better.
          Then I’ll explain that it’s not their fault they got sick and that the bag of medicine hanging by their bedside WILL make them better but they’ll feel like crap for a bit.
          Before you post another shit pile, think for a moment why your god, merciful to the innocent and faithful, would allow children to suffer like that.

        6. I lost my wife to cancer. She fought it for 20 years. I fought with her and talked to God alot during that time. She had over 40 infusions -what do you want to know about “cancer wards”, ICU and bags of medicine? I’ve sat with people with no hair, in pain and in despair.
          Do you really think that if God actually existed in your mind, that the world would be like a Smurf’s cartoon? God means no bad things happen in this life? Grow up. This is our world. The next one is His.

        7. The best you have in response is “Man up and faith up that diety”?
          I lost my only daughter to a car accident. Stem cell therapy would have saved her if not for the moral outrage of christians.
          An injection. A solution containing fetal stem cells and a binding agent injected into her brain stem would have given her a chance.
          I’ll back the side that would have saved her, instead of the side that gives out pats on the back and “god has a plan”
          At best your god is an absentee landlord that won’t fix the faucet. At worst he’s the little kid with a magnifying glass next to an anthill.
          I’m done with this. During our discussion I’ve converted my office walls to buddhism and my car now follows Native American totem worship.

        8. We obviously disagree. Still, my best to you and your family. I disagree stridently with many people though very few do I wish ill upon.

    4. “My gods are Science and Nature.”
      This is a philosophical position, not one rooted in actual science.

  42. Godfrey of Bouillon is not a good example. The Knights of Templar were not real Christians but Cabalists. In their initiation rituals the candidate was required to spit on the cross. They became the original banksters, including banking based on interest.
    They were persecuted by the Inquisition later on they morphed into the Masons, the Illuminati, the Jesuits and others.

    1. The Templar confessions were extracted under torture. There is no evidence that they actually engaged in the rituals that they were accused of. Also, no scholar seriously considers the Masonic claims of being derived from the Templars as being credible.
      What’s wrong with Godfrey?

      1. In Morals And Dogma, one of Freemasonry’s most popular books, Grand Master Albert Pike (1809-1891) reveals the Templars’ true purpose:
        In 1118, nine Knights Crusaders in the East, among whom were Geoffroi de Saint-Omer and Hughes de Payens, consecrated themselves to religion, and took an oath between the hands of the Patriarch of Constantinople, a See always secretly or openly hostile to that of Rome from the time of Photius. The avowed object of the Templars was to protect the Christians who came to visit the Holy Places: their secret object was the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon on the model prophesied by Ezekiel..
        Albert Pike, Morals and Dogma, The Roberts Publishing Co., Washington, 1871.
        ————-
        Turkish Masonic source writes:
        The Grand Master’s abacus [staff of office] is evidence for the connection between the Templars and Freemasons. This staff is a symbol representing Aaron’s rod [mentioned in the Bible-a walking stick that sprouted leaves]. Its head is in the form of a temple, and along length of its body is carved measurements. This staff is a symbol of masonry.

        1. “their secret object was the rebuilding of the Temple of Solomon on the model prophesied by Ezekiel”
          What was Pike’s source? Are we sure he was reliable, and not spreading disinformation? And if the big masonic goal is to rebuild the second temple, is this a literal task or a metaphorical one. Is the temple Zion / Israel, or ‘within man / human society’.

      2. The templars are alive and well today, they even have their own country. Can you guess which one it is?

        1. I guess if you buy the Templar-Masonic connection, it would be the US. It’s possible that Pike had access to some secret information, but I am not aware of any reputable historians that would agree.

        2. Not USA, guess again.
          The English authors of The Hiram Key, Christopher Knight and Robert Lomas – both Masons – write about the Templars’ origin and purpose. According to them, the Templars discovered “a secret” in the ruins of the temple. This then changed their worldview; and from then on, they adopted un-Christian teachings. Their “protection for pilgrims” became a front behind which they hid their real intent and activities.

      3. I always got the impression the Franks were far more interested in acquiring territory and new fiefdoms for themselves than defeating Islam / or (re-)claiming land for Christendom – based mainly of reading the first volume of Runciman’s history. Can’t remember much about Godfrey himself though

      4. The Templar Knights were framed by Philip IV of France so he could rob them.

  43. Nature is busy creating absolutely unique individuals, whereas religious culture has invented a single mold to which all must conform. It is grotesque. Religions are the product of mind diseases.

  44. Christianity is an invention of a pagan Roman emperor, Constantine, as a method to keep the empire in order. Constantine himself deferred his own baptism and joining the state-sponsored faith until near his death so he could continue to rule in his typical ruthless, wicked ways before having to repent.
    Using the sheeple’s own internal fear of eternal damnation to keep them in line through a Pope and priesthood is much, much cheaper than trying to hold together a splintering empire through brought force with expensive military troops. We see the same thing happening today through the religion of ideologies and priesthood of politicians and social justice leaders.
    Truth is, Christianity is fabricated from borrowed early religions and mythologies and cultrual constructs going back as early as ancient Egypt and Sumer. Christians are largely ignorant of not only the Bible they base their faith on, but the entire tome of ancient history, literature, mythology, and georgraphy that shows how empty the Bible is of any credibility.
    I say all this having been raised Christian, and a former missionary who converted many to the true faith. However, it’s never too late to confront the truth and reality of all religions and their origins — that is to appease the masses’ need for meaning in a shitty existence, to provide justice for wicked kings and leaders and evil doers, if only in the afterlife, and providing teeth to enforce the moral code embodied a religion. I’ve seen the light, and it is neither in the Bible or in the millions of congregations who claim to have been enlightened by Christianity through their individually correct interpretation of the holy scriptures.

    1. This is the most unscientific, politically-correct crap that I’ve seen in this comment section. Look up Tacitus and Origen and you’ll be on your way to having a clue.

    2. This is news to me, and probably most scholars. What religion were Tacitus, Origen, and Celsus referring to then since it would be over a hundred years before Constantine entered the picture to “invent” Christianity?

      1. Fine, you want to bring in the the “fathers” of forgery? That’s good. But they were just the scribes behind the force that Constatine brought to forming Christianity. That’s what I’m talking about.
        None of the sources you mentioned formed shit. They were merely retellers of stories of wonder and supernatural events passed onto them. Without Constantine, you merely had a bunch of sects and their various teachers, scribes and holy men floating around hawking their version or versions of the gospel, or gospels by attributed to various apostles, prophets, etc. The first century situation from which these church “fathers” came from is fabulously portrayed by the Monty Python movie, Life of Brian.
        My point, which you missed, is that Constatine formed the religion we know as Christianity. Without him, the myriad sects of Judiasm, Gnostics, Essenes, Pharisees, Saducees, blah, blah, blah — not to mention all non-Judaic based religions (mono and polytheistic), cults and post-Hellenistic philosopical schools wandering around Jerusalem in the first century likely would have faded away into history, and as relevant today as the church of Isis or worshipers of Horus.
        So, nice try on the counterpoint, but it’s a fail IMNSHO.

        1. No critical scholar in the Western world believes this. And no, Christianity is not fabricated from earlier religions. There are some (limited) parallels, yes. Most of them are from Judaism, from which Christianity was birthed. The so-called “pagan mysteries” more often adapted to Christianity than the other way around.

  45. To correct what they saw as a defect in Christianity, they reoriented the Christian message away from teaching personal morality and instead focused on teaching social justice
    Bang on. Head of nail… meet hammer.

  46. In our day, Christianity has a reputation for being wimpy and liberal. There are even men who think that it is intrinsically weak
    Ya got that right. Check out the quote below from Adolf Hitler as quoted by Albert Speer in “Inside the Third Reich: Memoirs”:
    You see, it’s been our misfortune to have the wrong religion. Why didn’t we have the religion of the Japanese, who regard sacrifice for the Fatherland as the highest good? The Mohammedan religion [Islam] too would have been more compatible to us than Christianity. Why did it have to be Christianity with its meekness and flabbiness?

  47. Masculinity, freedom and responsibility are terrible burdens. Most men will happily allow themselves to be seduced by any doctrine that promises to meet their Earthly needs (ie., sex within marriage), while absolving them of having to scratch, claw, brawl or lead in this world.
    Most men will happily become women – obedient, submissive and cowardly – when given ideological cover to do so by the prevailing faith or morality. The problem is that women despise obedient, submissive and cowardly men on an instinctive, visceral, carnal level.

  48. In most epochs, Christians were cut from a stronger cloth.
    Damn straight they were. We need to stop apologizing for the Crusades and start taking pride in them. Dr. Bill Warner in the video clip below at the 30:13 mark…
    “The Crusades were one of the few times the Church put steel in its spine.”
    Church needs more fucking steel.

  49. I believe that Christianity isn’t weak, it’s the guilt trip that causes most Christians to go against there own ideals. Things like accepting homosexuals which is clearly something forbidden by their religion, makes everythihg else pointless.
    Most Christians are living off of a “when in Rome” system instead of trying to follow the ideals that make up Christianity. Christians today are afraid of being hated so they decide to reword things in the Bible to “fit today’s cultural understanding” (Yeah, someone explained that to me once.)
    I’d say Christianity isn’t weak but perverted. If you look hard enough you could find Christians who embody everything a Christian should be mainly wise enough to understand that fighting isn’t always the answer and that change can come in various ways.

    1. You see a lot of this in the Catholic Church in the United States. We’ve always been desperate to fit in, and that desire culminated in the election of JFK and Jesuit Father John Courtney Murray’s contribution to Vatican II’s declaration on religious freedom. Today we see it in the American Catholic bishops appealing to religious liberty in their fight against gay “marriage” as opposed to the traditional Catholic teaching that sodomy is one of the sins that cries out to heaven for vengeance.

  50. I’d love to be Christian, but there are just too many smokin’ hot cheerleaders I need to stick my dick into first

    1. A not uncommon problem, unfortunately.
      “Oh, Master, make me chaste – but not yet!” — St. Augustine

    2. I had the problem but the Church helped me. It seems that I can stick my dick wherever I want to as long as I go to confession.

  51. A few years ago, had a conversation with a Catholic priest from a church in my local area. I told him that I knew a great deal of facts in the horrifying history of sexual crimes against children committed by Catholic priests in our local area of southwestern Ontario (Canada) and elsewhere. I also told him that I knew a great deal about Church efforts to cover up said history (e.g. destruction of files) as well as the facts regarding the actions (or rather lack thereof) of the Church in not firing these criminal pedophile savages when their crimes came to the attention of the Church, as well as not seeing the motherfuckers prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, as well as moving these dangerous criminals to new communities where they found new innocent victims to prey upon. Frankly, I said, I hold the entire Church accountable, all the way up to the pope, as guilty for the all the crimes committed by all the criminal pedophile priest savages that occurred after the Church became aware that this was a systemic problem. And then I asked the poor hapless priest to help me understand the failure of the Church in this matter. Do you know what this poor bastard came up with? The priest said this…
    (Paraphrasing the priest’s argument here)
    It has only been recently that the psychiatric community has changed its opinion regarding the possibility of treatment of pedophilia. Until very recently, psychiatrists claimed that pedophilia was treatable, whereas now they say we should not consider it treatable. The Church is an employer, and therefore subject to employment law. Under the law, when an employer becomes aware of a particular medical condition suffered by an employee, such as alcoholism or drug addiction for example, it is incumbent upon the employer to make a reasonable effort to assist the employee in seeking treatment for the condition and to support the employee in his or her recovery and return to productive work. So, following this line of logic, as long as the Church took counsel from the psychiatric community that pedophilia was treatable, the Church had a duty to be try to “help” these evil bastards to “get better.” Ergo, the Church sent them for treatment and then moved them to new communities where they could “return to work.” Since the psychiatric community has reversed its determination on the possibility of treatment for pedophilia, the Church no longer provides support to priests “afflicted” with pedophilia and has offered its apologies and compensation to the victims of the pedophile priests (and tried to cover up the mess by destroying files and such.)
    (end of paraphrase of the priest’s argument)
    I told the priest that, although that was a very intellectually seductive argument, it was complete bullshit. I said that for him to expect me to accept that a 2,000 year old institution whose very reason for existence was to teach the difference between right and wrong, good and evil, should need advice from God-damned psychiatrists in order to do the right thing and protect innocent children from pure fucking evil was a motherfucking outrage. I said, if that was the case, then the Church had lost its reason to exist. The Church should then close up shop and post a map on the front door directing people to the nearest psychiatrist’s office for spiritual guidance because the Church had abdicated its authority.
    Now, the priest didn’t like my reaction, and so we haven’t spoken since. In fact, shortly after we had that conversation, he had himself relocated to a church in a different city. Guess I made an impression. But what is interesting about this story is I don’t think this poor little guy is alone in his thinking. I think this kind of cowardice and lack of steel in the spine permeates the Church.
    Church needs a rebuild without the “social justice” and more steel in the fucking spine.

    1. I know one of the attorneys who was involved in defending some of these cases. She confirmed that what the priest told you was the attitude of many Church authorities. They had substituted the “wisdom” of leftists for divine revelation with disastrous results.
      Spot on: “Church needs a rebuild without the “social justice” and more steel in the fucking spine.”

      1. That’s very enlightening, and it confirms my suspicions. Thank you for that.

    2. Before Vatican II, priests who were caught being pedophiles or having gay lovers were defrocked and sent to a monastery to do penance for the rest of their lives, and never let out.
      But of course, that’s not very “tolllerant” and “understaaaanding” of the poor fellows. After all, fags are simply people like us.
      Vatican II (or the election of John XXIII, who called the council in the first place) was quite simply when the SJWs took over the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the Vatican’s new SJW masters have also been very sneaky and have used a lot of weasel words to prevent the traditionalists from writing the Vatican institution off completely as compromised and leaving en masse.

      1. Interesting analysis. It would appear that Vatican II, taking place in the hedonistic early 60’s, was a big victory for “social justice” in taking over the Church. Thanks for that insight.
        I like the idea of using monasteries as prisons for criminal priests. That shifts the cost of imprisonment away from the taxpayer and onto the Church, holding the Church financially accountable for the crimes of its priests in an elegant way. The concept reminds me of James Clavell’s “Shogun” where the samurai were always telling guys who were too cowardly to slit open their own bellies in shame after screwing up to “shave your head and go to a monastery.” I think a lot of pedophiles would willingly choose the exile of a monastery if that option were promoted more. Church should get back to basics.

      2. But of course, that’s not very “tolllerant” and “understaaaanding” of the poor fellows. After all, fags are simply people like us.
        Is that you Michael Savage?

    3. “It were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and he cast into the sea, than that he should offend one of these little ones.” Luke 17:2
      Suppose they forgot about that.

    4. Any reasonably good orthopedic surgeon can help You get more steel in Your spine…)) If You break Your back first, that is… :)) Look….a parable ! ))

  52. Why is it wimpy? Because the pastors, reverends and priest only focus on the pacifist parts and judgement day. Those two areas alone controls them. That’s why when bad shit happens, instead of fighting back, they would rather sing and hold hands. They are brainwashed NOT to fight. And these churches purposely skips the passages and examples of sex defense and when it is legal to take another’s life.
    I’ve been in the church religiously for 19 years. They don’t teach the whole Bible. If they did, Christians would be out in the streets just like the Muslims when they get offended. But as of now, church is used to pacify groups of people.

  53. Those of you who are into Norse mythology or who believe Christianity is intrinsically feminized should know the story of St. Boniface. Boniface is to Germany what Patrick was to Ireland. One day in his missionary travels he encountered a village that still worshipped the Norse pantheon. In the village square was a giant oak tree they believed was sacred to Thor.
    So Boniface stripped off his shirt, took up an axe, and hacked the tree down to the horror of the onlooking villagers. He put his foot on the stump and bellowed, “Where is your god now, for mine is mightier than he!” The village was converted and the wood from the tree was used to build a church. Now that’s the proper way to engage in interreligious dialogue.

    1. St. Boniface is also a good role model when it comes to skewering SJW sacred cows.

    2. Tantum religio potuit suadere malorum.
      (To such heights of evil are men driven by religion.)
      -Lucretius, De Rerum Natura

      1. Dixit insipiens in corde suo: Non est Deus. Corrupti sunt, et abominabiles facti sunt in studiis suis; non est qui faciat bonum, non est usque ad unum.

        1. Nascitur omnis religio et quae germinant ex aegritudine animi, undecumque ipsum. Igitur qui dispersi morbus victimis homines utilitate probat.

        2. Aw nuts…I’ve wandered into that Doc Holiday / Johnny Ringo scene from “Tombstone” 😉

    3. That doesn’t make Christ any less of a limp wristed faggot.
      Also, I’ll call BS on that fable. So 100 people allowed 1 man to deface their sacred tree? People who worshiped a War God?

        1. Here’s your faggot god. I couldn’t invent a bigger pussy if I tried. Why don’t you hypocrites display him naked one the cross as it would have happened? Show what that 5’2” Arab jew in all his glory. [URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/biabeatriz/media/Jesus/passion_cross_crucificado.png.html][IMG]http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/biabeatriz/Jesus/passion_cross_crucificado.png[/IMG][/URL]

        2. “Here’s your faggot god. I couldn’t invent a bigger pussy if I tried. Why don’t you hypocrites display him naked one the cross as it would have happened? Show what that 5’2” Arab jew in all his glory”
          You have to die if you want to show you’re such a “badass” that you can beat death.
          It doesn’t really matter how tall or what His race and skin color was. All that matters is that Christ was/is God incarnate, the same God that has brought judgement and doom upon entire civilizations of men, and is going to do so again in the future.

        3. I don’t think he was a pussy. He drank the cup his Father gave him, and bravely faced death. How many people have the love and bravery today to die, and that also for sinners who do not deserve any sacrifice. And thus, God raised his from death, and gave him the name greater than any name. Everyone will be judged through him, my brave Lord who conquered death.

        4. “It doesn’t really matter how tall or what His race and skin color ”
          THan why is he always depicted as a tall white man instead of a 5’2” shit-skin? And why isn’t his micro-cock hanging out. The Romans didn’t give you a pair a panties to wear during crucifixion. Being naked was part of the humiliation.

        5. Ooooooooooooooooooooooooo… look at the edgy edge lord with his edgy posts. Draw Mohammed you fucking pussy.

        6. I think that move should have been called “The Jesus Chainsaw Massacre”…..

        7. I can’t draw well but here you go. THe only reason a bible was not along side it’s twin is because I did not own a bible. [URL=http://s1143.photobucket.com/user/assfuckislam/media/P1000022.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1143.photobucket.com/albums/n634/assfuckislam/P1000022.jpg[/IMG][/URL]

        8. OK, I liked that… but if you really want to impress me… post a youtube video like this…

        9. Buddy, if somebody brought you to see the tallest building in the world, you would measure the height of the grass at its base and point out that it was in violation of a local by-law. I congratulate you on your tenacity in obsessing over irrelevant details. You can’t see the forest for the trees.

        10. And being so…he is still more influential in this world then you..)) Makes you wonder…or, not. 🙂

        11. Oooh…All that harsh criticism (with a dash of C.Marx)) ….and just when I started to accept that this site is all about relevance of one`s dick…;)))

      1. Thor was a peace-time god, blacksmith and farmer. Tyr was the war god, lost his hand in battle. I like the fable. And it’s no so hard to believe. Plenty of Christian missionaries are documented throughout history showing precisely that degree of steel in their spines as they ventured into the lands of the pagans. We need more men like them.
        Oh yeah, and Christ was a badass. Let’s see YOU endure that kind of torture. Wimp.

        1. When you faced the devil, you obviously sucked his dick.
          The Big Guy? Turned his back and walked away.

        2. Jesus Christ endured carrying his own massive cross to his own place of crucifixion, scourging with vicious weapons, crown of thorns, excessive humiliation, and he survived for six hours hanging on the cross before he died. And then he even survived that. He endured and survived it all. You ignorant blasphemous fucking pussy.

        3. Listen you douche-bag… Jesus loves you… but I think you’re a fucking waste of oxygen.

        4. And all that for no sin of his own, but for the sins of mankind. Along with his bravery, his love, too is infinite.

      2. “Also, I’ll call BS on that fable. So 100 people allowed 1 man to deface their sacred tree? People who worshiped a War God?”
        The pagans were always a lot more impressed with Christians being willingly to die for their beliefs than say Muslims. The polytheistic pagan gods weren’t very convincing when it came down to it.
        Muslims historically have only been impressed with their own ability to behead people, rather than admire others for being willingly to be beheaded rather than convert.

      3. Thor wasn’t a war god. That was Tyr. And the Germans closest to the borders of Rome converted easily because they held Tyr as the primary god, not Odin. The god Tyr and the Jewish god had a lot in common.
        Even the ones that worshiped Odin as the most high saw similarity between him and Christ.
        Carl G. Jung even wrote about the psychological similarity between “Wotan”, Christ, and Dionysus.

        1. Wotan, Odin, Zeus, Yahweh, The Eternal Sky, Wakan Tanka, Vishnu…in all civilizations there is the belief in a “Sky-Father” above us who gives order and structure to the universe, beating back the chaos.

        2. Old C.G. was prone to finding similarity in EVERYTHING…:)))
          All those three deities experienced violence in their myths. So? Otherwise, all their attributes differ…unless You mean the “one-eyed-Essene-cut-out-of-his-father’s-thigh”…aah, THAT Jesus, You mean…yeah, sure… ;)))

      4. You will see what a limp wrist faggot Christ was the day you get thrown into the fiery pit of hell.
        You had better repent. Say that for your own good.
        Christ allowing them to kill him was overcoming fear of death. Not wimpy at all. That is why he was able to smash the devil and let sinners out of hell. He descended into hell, smashed the dominion of Satan. But now, you have free will to go back into hell. That is the second death.
        Christ will not throw you in. You will choose it yourself.
        It is in your interests to shut the fuck up.

        1. Hell is not a “fiery pit”…or “an icy waste”….what are you humans? A bunch of masochistic sauna fetishists???)))
          Hell is being removed from the Grace of Creator by your own choice. It is a state achievable during your lifetime, as well..but irrevocable upon your human death.
          Well, Hell to some…home-sweet -home to others… 🙂

        2. Hahahahahah…))…you managed to crack me up and compliment me at the same time..you, human, you….:))))
          (…guffaws and much knee-slappin’)
          For that… I give to You a “Free-out-of-Hell-Gift-Voucher” for two consequence-free deadly sins and one drunken stupor, for the good measure! 🙂
          (valid till 31.12.2016.)….

        3. You obviously need to study the Fatima visions ! You may not be happy with what you learn !

        4. When the Lord comes, don’t say you were not warned. Hank WIlliams said it best in this song.

        5. I knew a Fatima once…and she was a helluva cocktail-waitress…)) Her visions were mostly about meth and sex with bearded truck-drivers…which I dislike, indeed. 🙂

        6. you obviously did not listen Hank ! (Luke the Drifter). Singing songs of righteousness! Keeping those who love the Lord out of hell and listen. And providing the heathen scoffer ta belly laugh to enjoy before the Great Soul Harvest. Satanic Grapes of Wrath leaving the blood of the righteous on Earth, with the righteous going to meet their maker in the air.
          (Folks who interpret the rapture differently may see it differently, but it looks to me like in the book of Revolutions, it says the Beast will for a while conquer the saints before the 2nd coming. Well, that is happening now. Although the kingom of the conquering Christian has been very imperfect for the past 2000 years and men have been very imperfect Christian stewards, that order seems to be coming to and end as the NWO Horus takes over. It is hard to see. In it’s time, theHorus mythololgy was arguably answering the birth of Jesus. But as a regressive element, it announces the 666 Dragon. )
          Listen to Hank, my boy, listen to Hank.

        7. Oh, Skillet…with Your endearing earnestness, You make it so hard for me to dislike You :)))
          Kudos for Your decency…with a dedication:
          “But who prays for Satan? Who in eighteen centuries, has had the common humanity to pray for the one sinner that needed it most, our one fellow and brother who most needed a friend yet had not a single one, the one sinner among us all who had the highest and clearest right to every Christian’s daily and nightly prayers, for the plain and unassailable reason that his was the first and greatest need, he being among sinners the supremest?”
          – Mark Twain’s Autobiography-
          🙂

        8. Satan likely exists outside of time and has made his choices long ago. Deeds of decision remain frozen.
          However, there is another perspective. Rudolf Steiner spoke of seeveral principles of evil. Lucifer, a sort of god incarnated in the Chinese Yellow Emperor in pre-Christian times. Likley a principle of authoritarianism by a priest god as in ancient Egypt also. Satainism, among other things, is more like a matrix. Often presensting a facade of benevolence to leading one into perdition. Satan is often depicted with mirror principles of deception.
          Both of these principles could in theory be redeemed. Benevelent guides, information matrix put to use to help rather than hinder.
          And finally, a higher principle of evil, the Asuras. Unredeemable is it seems to be a more singleminded pursuit to destroy creation as opposed to Satan/Lucifer which I would consider more to be usurpers.
          But all three can be conveniently summarized by a devil withhorns. Which is why Ilike the hell-fire and brim stone preachers and country singers of the 40’s abd 50’s.
          Yes, mercy is real. But the reson modern Christianity is so wimpy is that there is no longer any fear of the almighty.
          All is feel good psychology that sees fear as a psychological issue to be healed. No, fear is a warning. If a tiger is about to attack you, the last thing you need is healing from the fear.
          Feel good modern Christianity has healed us from fear of Satan and of the Lord. But the queers who cower in “safe spaces” know deep down therre is smething they cannot escape.
          Modern Christianity is wimnpy because it cannot confront evil.

        9. Ok. Nice.) Now You start to bore me.
          BTW. “Satan” is not a name. It is a title.
          Horns are optional. Horniness is obligatory. ;))

      5. Also, I’ll call BS on that fable.
        So do I. It takes a lot of effort and time to chop down a large tree, even with modern chainsaws. It would have taken much longer for just one person with an axe. It’s hard to believe that an entire village would have stood by and watched as a wild-eyed Christian lunatic spent the entire day chopping their holy tree down.

    4. Good thing he didn’t try that stunt in a Muslim country! They would be using his head as a bowling ball.

    5. That story reminds me a lot of what Muslims do today, which isn’t surprising since Christianity and Islam have similar roots.

    6. Alternatively, the Old English poem, “The Dream of the Rood”, which changed my perception of Christ w and the Crucifixion…not a hippie being tortured to death, but a defiant warrior leaping to embrace the cross and redeem the world, essentially saying : “You can’t break me”. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dream_of_the_Rood

    7. The good luck of Bonnie-boy that the village lacked an Odin-filled Úlfheðinn to shove the axe’s handle up his holy ass, shouldn’t be confused with Wisdom and/or superiority of his beliefs, my good fellow.))
      Japanese Jesuites could tell you something about that…if they could just find their tongues, that is… ))))

  54. Any one of the established religions will give you partial or nearly total immunity from PC Leftism- especially the mystical core.

    1. Why would you need any religions to give you “immunity”? Aren’t you immune and strong enough by yourself alone? You can walk, throw away all those crutches!
      You are made to feel by others that you are handicapped so that they can sell you those crutches, but you are not really handicapped. Throw them away and you can walk!

      1. Nooo…nooo…!!! Look here! Nice crutches….FANCY crutches…conscience- unburdening-crutches …we have them with OLED SCREENS, too!!! :)))

  55. In the Communist Manifesto Carl Marx instructed that Even though Religion should be Removed from Society, Christians could Be used as Useful Idiots to promote Communism in its Infancy, and once Communism took over, it of course would remove religion and essentially screw over the Christians who helped Promote it. Marx thought he could sell Communism to Christians with the Ideas of Selflessness, and hard work for something Greater than one’s self, helping your Fellow man etc etc.
    I’m a Christian and I don’t consider Myself Wimpy, I read the Bible and it’s The Unfiltered word of God, but there are some “Christian”Denominations that definitely stray from the Bible, Essentially those Denominations Have turned Christianity into a “Feel Good Thing” where everything is Ok , you don’t have to believe in God, you Can worship other Gods (Jesus is cool with Buddha Dude Man Bro!!) , you can do whatever you want, and your still going to go to heaven , Nobody goes to Hell.
    Christianity hasn’t Become Wimpy, Men Have Become Wimpy….Christianity is the Word of God, its not a Wimpy thing, Some Men that Call themselves Christians have Altered and Changed Christianity to better suit their Cowardice, these Wimp Christians don’t have the courage to be the Leaders in their Family as the Bible instructs, they lack the Courage to disagree with Acts that God Finds Detestable, they Remain Silent and Embarrassed about their Faith if questioned, they Become Go Along to Get Along. Personally I recommend removing the Middle Man and Just Read your Bible.
    Luke 12:49-53
    Essentially Christ is saying his Word is bringing Division and if a Man stands for Christ he will be Persecuted because the teaching of Christ some people will disagree with,…the wimp Christian is afraid of persecution and conforms with ideas Contrary to Gods.

    1. Your comment is the very pussy shit the article is about. I suggest you make sure to own a rifle, get/stay in shape, learn any skill that involves self reliance growing and processing food, Water purification and testing equipment repair.

  56. I think as the public loses focus on personal morality they turn to enforcing their own moral values on others
    (trannies, fems, lgbqtdshjsd, hate whitey, whatever theyre told)
    At the end of the day the same amount of energy is expended and the “feel goods” are achieved without having to face the bane of the modern human——
    Personal Responsibility

    1. And again…”morality” beats personal ETHICS 10 to one in these primates` heads…it was never easier to keep winning this game, thanks to that. 🙂

  57. This really rings true.
    Christianity used to require strength, mental, physical, and emotional. you needed to be well rounded in your understanding of what we stood for. Now, you can be a willy-nilly panderer to liberalistic, debasing humanism. Even today, I saw an arguement on a forum from a “pan-sexual Christian who supports transexuality”
    Really?
    Where are the ones who would die for their faith? The ones who would not falter in standing against sin? These are the kind of people that are being beheaded in the Mid-East, Africa, China, Korea… and here the churches are preaching about how to “make money through faith” and “get your blessings with this booktape”.
    The other week my pastor made a comment about standing for traditional marriage, and against the Pride Parade that happens here annually. What happened? a few less people in the church. He was not at all worried. There are bigger fish to fry in this world than worrying about your feelings. There is right and true, and that is what we are to stand for.
    Eph 6:13 -Therefore put on the full armor of God, so that when the day of evil comes, you may be able to stand your ground, and after you have done everything, to stand.

    1. When the day comes that I am killed for my faith in Jesus, I will hold my head high, for God’s kingdom is my destination.

  58. it was not always like this.. .politics has entered the church about 40-50 years ago and slowly they removed any right leaning or conservative pastors,In the 70’s and 80’s the old guard died out or retired and that gave way to the soft version of what should have been front and center. Women in the church-check…Gay marriage – check or about to be check in moments..Then they wonder why the church pews are empty and christian churches are struggling to survive. This was a master plan to gut America from the inside out. The sermons are weak politically correct dribble so as not to offend anyone.., or they no longer capture the imagination of timeless biblical instruction. There is magic in this universe we live in and I have had several unconventional experiences that tell me do not disrespect Jesus, do not fk with God.. do so at your own peril.

  59. newsflash; there is no such thing as Christianity. Jesus wasn’t a Christian, Moses wasn’t a Christian, Paul wasn’t a Christian. these were all Hebrew Israelites following the way of Yah. This is why Christians go to church on SUNday because pagans worshipped the sun god, and roman emperors combined paganism and made up there own damn religion. That is why no Christian keeps the Sabbath holy, and they celebrate pagan holidays like Easter and Christmas, the worship of eggs and trees, which pagans did.

  60. As if there weren’t a thousand sects claiming the mantle of ‘real’ Christianity.
    It’s a religion of the oppressed to give them solace, flowers on the chain. The point is to break the chain, and pluck the living flower.

  61. Here’s your faggot god. I couldn’t invent a bigger pussy if I tried. Why don’t you hypocrites display him naked one the cross as it would have happened? Show what that 5’2” Arab jew in all his glory. [URL=http://media.photobucket.com/user/biabeatriz/media/Jesus/passion_cross_crucificado.png.html][IMG]http://i82.photobucket.com/albums/j242/biabeatriz/Jesus/passion_cross_crucificado.png[/IMG][/URL]

    1. And here’s to you, MOTHER FUCKER.
      QUEER. !!!!!!!!!!!
      As a born again Christian , I tell you, you can suck my dick !!!
      Jesus is coming back as a judge. Good luck, asshole.

      1. Hey faggot,
        You want want to read your bible. The Jew god doesn’t like ” I tell you, you can suck my dick !”
        Looks like you’ll have to get born-again, again.

        1. Rook of read the signs of the times. All in the book of revelations. Go get 666 micro-chipped on your hand or forehead. It’s coming.
          Do what the fuck you please. Listen to the damn devil if you like. Good book says merchants will make the world poor.
          It’s all in the secret pages of the TPP.

        2. Signs of the times? People have been saying that for as long as they have waited for Jesus to return, and yet the sun still rises every day. The world is not ending anytime soon, things are no worse now than they’ve ever been, in fact I could easily argue that things are better now. People like you go through your whole life being afraid and thinking that you are living through the end times, only to die, and leave the world to continue on. That’s the great thing about scripture, they wrote it to be vague enough that it can be applied to any situation.

        3. None of the stuff could come about until we had a world empire. An economic empire. With the power of merchants. It’s all there in the GOOD BOOK.
          Notice, the prince of peace became violent once in the gospels. Took a whip to the mOnEy changers. dROVE the mother fuckers out of the temple.
          But go ahead, dumbass. GET CHIPPED !
          (Will you be first in line to get your ticket to hell ?)

      2. Trying to insult somebody by calling him “queer”…and inviting him to engage in oral intercourse, in the next sentence??
        Those are truly some real words of inspiration to become “born again”, indeed…for a True Faggot, of course.
        :))))
        Judy is coming back as a judge, as well…at least till 2020. )))

    1. Oh, yeah. The words of the apostles “correcting” and “modulating” the words of Christ. How convenient and “educated”….))))

  62. Christianity is so fucked up, and so cowardly. First off, we have a WESTERN view of the times of Jesus and the apostles, these men were not CHRISTIANS, they were ISRAELITES, and they followed the commandments of Yah, the most high. If you think Yeshua was a fucking white skinny fool with brown straight hair you got it fucked up. No where in the new testament does it say invent your new religion and call it Christianity, Paul, the apostles, all of these men were Israelites and Hebrews. The roman empire absolved the Judaic faith and made there own pagan BS religion. This is why Christians go to church on SUNday, because the pagans also worshipped the sun on SUNday. Easter, Christmas, mother mary, this is all straight from a pagan ideology. No Christian keeps the full commandments, They eat pork, don’t keep the Sabbath holy, and haven’t even picked up the Torah. Cross worship is Idol worship, and that is just some of the few things I can say about Christianity right now.

      1. Everything he is writing is correct.
        The whole religion was taken over by Rome later on and changed.
        This is well known.

        1. “The Beast will arise out of the ruins of the Roman empire”.
          This was the economic order or merchant power supplanting political power. Even most fundamentalists are beginning to see this. Alex Jones and Hagman and Hagman are very much on top of this interpretation.
          Process began with the end of the middle ages. Rome (or Constantinople) finally fell in the 1400’s. Followed by the rise of the reign of economics.
          A flawed but (I will maintain) divinely inspired order continued under the Church. Christ said he would go away for a time and leave his servants in charge. Both the Eastern Church of Constantinople AND the Church of ROme have a legimate claim to Saint Peter being the 1st bishop. The rule of Christ on earth by means of his flawed lieutenants.
          This order is now collapsing. As godless economic overlords replace the tottering edifice Christ left behind. In Western Europe, Christianity is more or less abandoned.
          The return (which does not mean the end) is at hand.
          That does not mean the “beam me up” rapture. Or even the end. Apocalypse means the revelation of Jesus Christ. It may go just as unnoticed as the 1st coming in the beginning.
          Rudolf Steiner spoke of this as an ability of human beings to develop faculties (or eyes to see) the Christ. A sort of clairvoyance or consciousness shift.
          Rapture has often been used as an esoteric or meditative phenomenon. The “beam me up” view is rather new, I believe. We have traversed major epochs of Christianity charted by Saint John.
          1st horse of apocalypse-white horse-early Christianity spread largely according to proper impulses.
          2nd horse (red)-attempted spread through conquest and attacks such aS CRUSADES.
          3RD horse (black horse)-Continued advance of a form of Christianity. Carried by economic ccolonial conquest. See merchant symbolism in revelations.
          4th-Pale horse of death-Christian cultural impulse is exhausted and dying. AwAITING resurrection or renewal.
          Each successive horse seems to represent a degradation of Christian impulses in the church. But is accompanied by increase of spiritual potential of those who internalize the Christ consciousness whether in or outside the institutionalized church. (but preferably within in my opinion.)
          The Beast “knows his time is short”. He is aattempting to use the power of economics to freeze consciousness evolution by generating conflict, dumbing us down and especially, promoting materialism. Materialism both in forms of monetary greed and a Darwinistic materialism which denies the spirit.
          The church went wrong in 869. When the church abandoned the belief of the tripartite human. That is body, soul and spirit. And said that we were dualistic. (Body and soul only).
          Prior to 869, the soul was seen as a mediator between heaven and earth. With the purpose of carrying out a divine marriage of the two realms. This was the beginning of the fall into materialism when the highest faculty was denied.
          A subsequent fall is occuring as Darwinism spreads. Where man is seen simply as a material being that rose from monkey.
          It’s all about recognizing the seasons. The Bible and the Lord’s prophets reaveal themselves to those who seek.

        2. Council of Nicaea defined what was Christianity was and made heretics out of the Gnostics and Cathars who were driven out and/or slaughtered.

        3. Now, now…accepting “spirit” and “hieros gamos” would validate the truth of Shamanism..and obsolence of human “mediators” to access the Divine realm…)) And you didn’t want that..did you? ;))
          By the way, and for Your information: what You call “Darwinism” (Theory of Evolution), modern research in cosmogony and quantum physics… those are the MOST spiritual areas of human endeavour nowadays. 🙂 Every river has its source..and now talking apes of Earth started looking in that direction. Ts-ts-ts…
          Thus, we work hard to supress it, “geekify” it and oppose it at all levels. Some tools here and radical Islam are not among the worst horses we bet on. 🙂

  63. Viewing history of cristianity it seem catholicism and orthodox christianty where guardians of the europeans cristians against islam and other asiatic hordes.

  64. I have to agree, Christians should be radical, being “open” and “tolerant” has not increased membership in the church.

  65. I held out hope for Christianity. In part because the Catholic Church is an institution that has been in existence for not much less than 2000 years and I believed it would always take the long view. It has always appeared hopelessly anachronistic to contemporary progressives, and that is exactly what I liked about it.
    But destructive societal forces finally got their man on the inside with Pope Francis. Once he made a belief in global warming a part of official church doctrine, I knew all was lost.
    Christianity is in the process of deconstructing itself. Meanwhile, Islam is in the process of becoming more organized. While it may seem that chaos surrounds Islam, that is a side-effect of it becoming more organized. I’m no fan of Islam, but if one views these broad movements in human affairs through centuries long lenses, it is hard to deny that it is taking over.

  66. “Socialists and Christians have more in common than they know. Neither practice what they preach.”
    -George Orwell

  67. There were many voices predicting that it would be communism, not the capitalist West, that would own the future.
    That’s brilliant analysis. I suddenly realized what SJW’s are… they’re people who never got the memo that capitalism won the Cold War.

    1. Corporations support SJWs. Christianity is not compatible with modern capitalism. One promotes moderation and spiritualism, the other promotes greed and materialism. Edward Bernays, the father of propaganda, was hired by corporations to rid America of its puritan values because it was not compatible with the consumerist culture that was needed with the advent of mass production. This is not to say we should promote communism but letting the markets run everything will not work with religious values because most religions including Christianity are anti-materialistic. Jesus himself said the rich will go to hell or a Camel will have to go through the eye of needle.

      1. America is the ultimate capitalist country, and it is a Christian nation. So is England, where much of the modern capitalist financial system was born. So I fail to see how Christianity and capitalism are incompatible. It’s all in the application. Sure a lot of commies corrupted the system, particularly after the 1960’s, but that doesn’t mean they will win. Only if we let them. The success of #Gamergate shows that SJW propaganda CAN be countered. We are learning more about their tactics every day. To learn more, check out Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals.”

        1. America isn’t a christian nation. It use to be. Any place plagued with greed, materialism, fags and sluts is no longer a Christian nation. Wake up.

        2. It was a Christian nation, according to your more strict definition, when the capitalist engine of its economy ran the hottest. My point is that it needs to return to those real Christian values. You and I agree more than you realize.

  68. I am BAC who didn’t believe until I was in my mid 20’s. Practiced my faith until I was 35 then fell away, learned game and embraced a hedonistic lifestyle. After a season of this I was convicted that this was not the way I should be living in light of my faith. I then recommitted myself to following the Lord and at age 39 – married a very wholesome, feminine woman. We have had a pretty decent marriage. One of the reasons our marriage really works is that both of us are committed to the roles we have – as spelled out in the Bible. I am the leader of the home, she respects this and follows my lead. Its a a very traditional home. Truthfully even in the Christian community in which I mingle, I have found that we are sort of an anomaly. My wife made a comment recently how she notices that many of the Christian wives she sees in our church are aggressive and anxious. I responded by telling her that its because their men are weak, pedestalize their wives and dont really lead. Leading is not just reading scripture to your wife and praying with her. Its taking the bull by the horns in all areas – especially the ones where she needs her man to step in and tell her how it will be done. I can only think of one other Christian couple where out of dozens that I know of where this takes place. The husband is a close friend of mine . Their marriage is very traditional and the wife is always looking to always help and follow her husband. But they, remain an exception – not the rule.

  69. “In ancient Rome, a loss of faith in the Roman gods led to the spread of various cults.”
    Wasn’t Christianity one of them?

    1. Sort of. The “Jewish” god was already part of the Roman Pantheon, though, via interpretatio romana as Jupiter Optimus Maximus or Caelus.

  70. Being a western traditional institution, Christianity is on the verge of extinction. So it will be jews versus muslims. Brace yourselves.

  71. Fitting a religion into the whims of political correctness corrupts it entirely. If you want a church that won’t offend your red pill sensibilities, you have to go to a “bigoted” church in a rural area that puts men at the top of the family, excludes homosexual marriage/couples, and has other naughty reactionary ideas about how society should be run.
    Otherwise it’s just a coffee date with a bunch of faggy pajamaboys.

  72. Modern consumer capitalism is an enemy of Christianity. Consumer capitialism promotes greed and materialism which is the antithesis of Christian moral values. Once mass production hit the market and major corporations came to power they unleashed advertisements and propaganda to rid American of its puritan values which no longer served the interest of big business. During industrial capitalism when there were a lot of poor people working in factories and most money was spent on food and housing Christianity was there to humble them and it served the rich well. But now that we’ve moved into consumer capitalism the American people have been reprogrammed through advertising to buy buy buy and divulge in their every pleasure. The places with the strongest traditional values are in the country and small towns that still hold vestiges of the old agricultural world. It’s in the big cities where consumer capitalism runs rampant that traditionalism and religion has deteriorated the most.
    You speak of the astonishing blindness of Christians in the 60’s of not seeing the dangers of communism but even more astonishing to me is the blindness of those that do not see the current sickness that is today modern capitalism. There’s really no going back either because it was a technological shift that brought us into this new capitalist era of consumerism and material worship. Capitalism must die or we will continue to suffer the litany of brain dead celebrities and the promotion of liberalism that is destroying traditional values and replacing it with materialistic worship .

    1. “Consumer capitialism promotes greed and materialism which is the antithesis of Christian moral values.”
      Yeah sure… And the Pope is a beggar and the Vatican one of the poorest nation on Earth. Don’t make me laugh! The Church has always been about gathering as much wealth and power as it could!

      1. That’s the real reason why priests are not permitted to marry, which is a rule that has only been in force for roughly half the time of the Church’s existence. If a married priest dies, his estate goes to his family, but if a single priest dies, it goes to the Church. Ergo, Church prohibits priests from marrying. Evil genius, n’est-ce pas?

    2. I had you upvoted until I read: “Capitalism must die.”
      Capitalism is an economic format which has infiltrated it’s way into culture. We can culturally reject mindless consumerism if we please. Of course, the Church in all of it’s wimpyness hardly fights against consumerist culture.
      I haven’t fully rejected consumerism, as I still like the invigorating feel of a fast car, the thriving adventure of an exotic journey, and the occasional trip to the titty-bar. That being said, I have cut off all contact with mainstream cable television and social media. My advertising experience is limited to Kratom ads on ROK and billboards as I open-throttle on freeways.

    3. To paraphrase Sir Winston Churchill, our system is the worst system… except for all the other ones that have been tried. What’s your suggested alternative system?

  73. Modern technology and the advance of the sciences, initiated at the Reformation/Renaissance period, removed superstition as a limiting belief. Now that we “know” why ice freezes and beer ferments, it is not a “magical” world, but a logical, rational one. (Christian scientists, BTW, were among the first to point this out.)
    The assumption that all of Christianity is nothing but superstition is a common theme today, and therefore it should be eliminated and replaced with something more modern and less spiritual. Rational thought has become the authority, and therefore there is no need to abandon “reason,” (which can be “proved,”) for “faith,” (which by definition, cannot.)
    So radicals and leftists of the 18th and 19th centuries systematically removed faith from the religion and replaced it with practical thought and consideration. “Just be a good person,” is all anyone needs, and “I’m okay, you’re okay,” will see us through.
    And so it goes. The Bible, therefore, then becomes something not wholly God’s Word, but rather contains some of the words of (a) god.
    Jesus Christ is not THE Son of The Most High, but is rather just an “exalted messenger,” one of many amongst the world’s religions.
    Repenting of your sinfulness before the Lord and receiving the Lord Jesus Christ as the SOLE and ONLY means of obtaining eternal life gets changed into, “Everyone needs some of that in their life.”
    And so it continues.
    Interestingly, all of this is a direct fulfillment of a very specific Biblical prophecy, “Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition.”
    I am a Born Again Christian. I believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God and is my SOLE assurance of Everlasting Light – not because “I believe it,” but because it’s been personally confirmed to me by Jesus Christ Himself. Before, I was a rejector – now, I’m an acceptor. *I* took responsibility for my behavior before God and *I* admitted it to God, and *I* accepted Jesus Christ as my Savior. And accordingly, by my doing of these things, He SAVED me.
    That’s all I’m responsible for. I can’t answer for the choices and decisions of anyone else, and the battle for the minds of people has never been greater. Yes, there is indeed A DEVIL, and his work is made so much easier by all those who deny his existence. And so his work goes on very little opposed – preying on the hubris of those who think they are better than owning up for the same behavior they condemn in others.
    “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”
    Not much anyone can do about the Church or what it should be doing – (but it’s always nice to pawn off individual responsibility onto that which is abstract and disembodied. Who exactly is answerable for “the Church?” Me? You’ll demand a specific account from me for a “collective” behavior? Probably not.)
    If you’re wanting to go to the source, you’ll actually have to confront Jesus Christ Himself, as HE is “the chief cornerstone.” Anyone who claims to be a Christian is accountable primarily to follow and become a disciple of Him.
    And the words of Jesus are so foreign to so many Americans, (through systematic removal of them in common culture, schools, etc.,) that many are shocked to discover exactly what He does teach, (which is the exact same reaction from those who initially heard him 2000 years ago.)
    You want to pin something on the Church, you’ll need to take that up with the Church’s Originator, Jesus Himself. He is not confused or dismayed at contemporary culture, but has an answer and a practice sufficient for all. If some don’t want to listen or obey, is that His fault? “What is some didn’t believe? Will that destroy what comes from believing?”
    “Every man shall give an account of himself to God.” This post is, in itself,’ a presentation of the Gospel. If the Bible says, “Taste and see that the Lord is good,” and you personally refuse to do that, you therefore have no real basis of comparison. You can’t say the Lord’s grapes are sour if you’ve never personally tasted them. But if you will HUMBLE YOURSELF and REPENT of your hardness towards Him, and prove the sincerity of your repentance by accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior, you will experience the new birth yourself, and will have that which to say to anyone still in his sins.
    And if you choose not to decide, you still have made a choice.

    1. Let’s suppose Jesus did not actually exist. Would that really change anything? Or does the message still hold the same truth it always had? Metaphoric or literal fact, it doesn’t matter.

      1. Alas, He DID exist..and still hangs around…(sigh…and pun intended))..wasn’t blond, however… 🙂

      2. Without Jesus, there is no message because there is no Messenger. Jesus only lived sinless, and Jesus only died for all sins. Jesus ONLY is the key, and without Him God would’ve destroyed this world long ago.

    2. there is no such thing as accepting the Lord as an unbeliever. most people are made for destruction some are made to be sheep they will hear His voice the others won´t. that´s predestination.

    3. Even if cheerleading for the Little Brother…stop using the annoying pom poms when writing “*I*”…
      🙂
      True..I can’ t touch You any more. But only if You continue keeping Your shit together…ok? 😉
      Or…it’s ” hasta la vista, baby”…))))

  74. A rather interesting and not completely unfounded argument is that Christianity (and its predecessor Judaism) are the original SJWs. They, like the SJWs of today, took the people who were considered the scum of the earth and made them holy (blessed are the meek, etc.)

    1. Christianity seems to me to be the original White Knight religions. Judaism was a brutal crusader’s religion. Hinduism talks about the necessity of, in war, entirely exterminating one’s enemy, women, children, old, disabed and so on, so as to prevent future conflict and preserve the peace. Islam is well known in it’s absolutism. I won’t mention Buddhism and Jainism as they are obviously worthlessly pacifistic religions and have been deservedly almost totally converted out.
      While Arjun was recommended to massacre babies, Jews were taught to kill everyone in their quest for their land and Muslims were taught to convert the world, through violence if necessary, to their faith, Christians were taught to turn the other cheek and suffer persecution.
      I don’t really think throwing tables over at a temple or being upset with people for their views count as brave. These are brave actions for a pacifistic society or weak people. In contrast to the views of other religions, they are in comparison extremely timid.

      1. If you want the Sky Father god of violence, wrath and rule by iron fist, you’re talking about Cronus. Maybe the Christian God needs to be reinterpreted as Cronus. The ancient Greeks and the Phoenicians also equated the Israelite god YHWH as Cronus.

        1. Perhaps Jesus couldn’t really imagine a time in the future when the Romans weren’t effective at persecuting their overt enemies so he created his modern version of Samarian monotheism to work through the moral-outrage principle (e.g. used by Gandhi to show the British polity how awful their rule was, which would never have worked with, for example, the Nazis, who would simply have exterminated him). By appearing the victim, Jesus thought he could nauseate Roman civil society (it didn’t really work) into allowing greater religious freedom / Israel autonomy.
          I think as Christianity outlived the Roman empire, the lessons of this pacifistic birth became useless, but even so, I think the Christians never outgrew it. Their crusades eventually failed (except, notably, eastern Europe and Andalusia) and, worst of all, they sacked and looted the biggest defender of Christendom. If the Christians were like the Muslims, the Venetians would been universally excommunicated, the Holy Roman Empire would have invaded and burnt the city to the ground for worshipping false idols (the trade of Constantinople) and betraying their brothers, and slaughtered every Venetian in Europe.
          Later on, Empire allowed Christianity to spread to, until then, unChristian territories.
          Later, cultural marxists found it very easy to discredit the Christian world’s masculine and Imperial acts because these acts nauseated the public. Empire was, truly, according to Christianity, a sin. 90 million native Americans were killed through starvation, malnutrition and partially resultant disease. 300 million+ Indians were starved by punitive taxes and the country was rendered helplessly degraded by the time of independence, from being the richest in the world before Empire.
          Thus Christian leaders were hypocrites. Christianity, taken over as an agent of the state, became nothing more than a moral, rather than spiritual, philosophy. The distinction is important because a spiritual religion strives for achieving something in this world AND the next. Islam wants to create a global caliphate with strict gender roles so that everyone can go to heaven. Christianity, arguably from the outset, never really intended to improve the present condition of the people or to order society according to superior morals in a forceful way. It even suggested that people should be willing to suffer persecution for their faith. I am no expert on the Bible but the Koran and Hindu texts are rather clear on the importance of defending the faith and defending the society and social structure at all costs. Christianity seems to be prosletysing from a base of powerlessness and when it achieves power its pacifistic, “moral outrage” principles are useless (for Christians are no longer persecuted). Thus when it proselytises from a position of power it is being hypocritical – for it is clearly unjust according to the New Testament’s ideals to do the kind of Teutonic Crusading and Empire Christians later became famous for. Thus territorial conquest and any sort of “good society” seems incompatible with Christianity and hence instead people are recommended to practice good personal morals, while their society remains evil. This began with being a minority religion under the romans but extended to the practice of Empire and Christ at the same time – surely abject hypocrisy.
          I think that is the key weakness of Christianity, which has allowed SJWs to attack it quite effectively. The New Testament is not a winner’s gospel – it is a loser’s survival manual (survival meaning spiritual survival rather than actual survival) and when the losers become the winners, the manual becomes blatantly hypocritical, for no winner will act like the persecution-craving weakling of the New Testament. I think this could also partially support the argument that – notwithstanding the brainmelting twittersphere explosion of the last 10 years and feminism since the 1970s- this is why Hinduism and Islam have been so much more resilient, even in the face of Communism and Empire.

        2. Another Immortal…or even rarer: a reasonable human, You? 🙂 Fascinating.)
          Would You mind if I kindly ask You to breed with some of my concubines, please?
          I shall cherish Your progeny in a gilded cage in my zoo…right next to the pink unicorns and the leprechaun habitat… :))

        3. Although I must decline on the concubines (as I rather have my hands full), I am a Kshatriya and descended from the elite of my society so I always appreciate being admired. Thank you Pin.
          Unless that was an highly convoluted insult. In which case, fuck you.

        4. It WAS a compliment to Your rarity. And my Inner Female (if I only had one..) would gladly accept Your second offer, as well… ;)))
          Another proof to me that Hindus will be the toughest one to get; you folks seem to resist the power of my brother Mad better. 😉
          However, this brahmarakshasa (or, whatever you call my kind in your pantheon..) salutes You.
          )))

  75. I’d just like to point out that John Paul II was a huge part in the fight against Communism across the world. It’s true that today there are people who call themselves Catholic but they do not follow Catholic dogma. They have fallen into the relativism of the Protestants and are actively trying to change the Catholic church to accept these social justice ideas. The Catholic Church is a wonderful place to find truth about the world, about men and women, about life, and reality in general. It is a teacher. Just read Catholic writings by the saints, the popes, by people like C.S. Lewis and Chesterton. They reveal to us the unending truths about man and the world.

  76. Modern Christianity – your meek is on fleek, YOLObr my bae. (YOLOBR. Before Rapture).

  77. The Revelation message to the 7 churches from Jesus is not just a message to seven of the churches at that time, but for the present too, as it symbolizes that the church will go thru seven phases over the centuries. Negative phases were the Compromising Church, the Corrupt Church, the Dead Church, the Lukewarm church. Perhaps we are in one of those phases.
    The Revelation covers the final period on Earth as Jesus returns to earth to deliver judgement.
    Feminist Bible scholars now deny this saying the Revelation is about ancient times and lacks credibility. The main reason is they believe an early woman leader of the Church was persecuted through it. The message to the corrupt church condemns the Nicolatian prophetess, Jezebel, for sexual immorality involving church members with idols.
    Feminists believe Jezebel is more representative of the modern church, so they attempt to discredit the Revelation saying it was written by some other John and got included in the Bible improperly.
    Interestingly the Revelation itself condemns them as it says anyone who takes away from the prophecy will be added to the curses in it.
    It points to many current religions as false as well, as the Revelation is the final prophecy from God, and religions like Islam or Mormonism that try add to it saying their are new prophecies from God are condemned by it.

    1. I can’t stand “apocalyptic” shit that absolves people of responsibility to take action and idly sit by and watch the world burn. Waiting for Jesus to fix everything we willingly fucked up or ignored. Sorry, if that is the essence of modern Christianity I’m not interested.

      1. It is because of C hristianity people take action. There is a very powerful conservative Christian libertarian movement that is doing some cool stuff. Opposing GMO’s. There is a strong belief that there is a parallel between now and Noah’s time. Noah was “pure in his generations”. This refers to genetics and his stewardship of the genome.
        Many Christians are emulating Noah these days by safeguarding things such as heritage plant breeds on their farms. And opposing cloning and homosexuality. Homosexuality promotion is a form of social engineering. Once there are more gay couples, there will be a market for patented lab babies.
        And all sorts of Dr. Strnageloves creating genetic freak shows.
        If you oppose true Christianity, you are basically a corporatist who oppses free will.
        Islam opposes free will. It is all about “submission”. Koran reads with a very authoritarian tone.
        Christ is the only God who comes as your brother. First among equals as perfect representative of humanity. And the entity we should all emulate in striven for perfection.

        1. Younger brother. The one you’re supposed to beat the shit out of, sometimes…. 🙂
          (..but you still love the little creep…you’re brothers, after all…;))

  78. We need education in critical thinking and morals based on what is right to do rather than fear of punishment from skydaddy.
    But until that time comes we cannot dispense with religious control of society. Without some form of control we get the chaos we have now and that is not acceptable.

    1. That’s preposterous. Religion is like a teddy bear mankind has been carrying around for thousands of years (and god some sort of invisible friend). It’s time we grow up.

  79. (My post may be all over the place so please bear with me here).
    This “softness” isn’t a problem exclusive to the Christian community, nor does it arise from Christianity itself. If it was a Christianity problem, how did Christian-based, patriarchal Western nations advance ahead of other societies, or if it’s “soft” how did we have the Crusades, etc? I have heard of even Muslims accepting homosexuality and other pro-degenerate stances. This “softness” the author is speaking of, is part of a larger society being feminized and weakened from what it once was. Weak men and cunty women are everywhere — Christians, atheists, or otherwise. But where did this softness come from?
    Part of Communism’s plan in trying to weaken other nations was to infiltrate every part of life – this is known as subversion. Another tactic was de-moralization. You can certainly see both subversion and de-moralization in full effect today in Western countries, since many people are very easily-led and have little to no backbone. This is why you see people (Christians, Muslims, atheists etc.) that accept homosexuality or anti-biology feminist “facts” for example. “Those who stand for nothing fall for anything.” -Alexander Hamilton
    Even the younger Muslims are much more “progressive” and left-leaning than only one or two generations before them (ie. Muslims partying and drinking alcohol, feminist Muslim facebook groups, “Mipsters”=Muslim hipsters as someone else pointed out in the comments, etc). So “wimpiness” not just a phenomenon found in Christianity.
    Perhaps the single biggest issue of a weak society is allowing women to have authority over men, not just in religious circles, but in education, law, politics, the military, science, etc.
    So it doesn’t stop at religion. Science and any other occupational field has been infiltrated by leftists too (ie. a scientists’ shirt is more important than actual technological advancement, etc). Leftist infiltration and the resultant weakening of society is also found in education (pro-female anti-male classroom attitude, pedophilic sex-ed curriculum), the media (feminist bias, skewed stats, focus on SJW-friendly topics like Bruce->Caitlyn rather than eroding rights), politics (strong independent women “need” extra rights/protection), and everything else you can imagine.
    There’s also the issue that there may be less “weak” Christians today (and other groups) than one may think. I’m not discounting the obvious pro-PC mindset many Christians have today, but there are “rebels” that don’t tow the party line. For example, a while back there was a Christian bakery that refused to bake a cake for some faggots’ wedding. Despite facing a lawsuit and the very real possibility of closing down, many thousands of dollars were raised from many donations for that business owner…so there are more allies out there than we think. Like deleting non-PC newspaper comments, it seems like a left-wing tactic to trick people into thinking that they’re alone in their convictions, that everyone else is a homosexuality-accepting POS – lead to the dissenters’ alienation and eventual acceptance of the degeneracy they’re pushing (leftists hope). The illusion that society is PC is what’s important in this tactic.
    If the author of this article did not focus solely on soft Christians, and instead, addressed softness as a societal issue, maybe we would not have atheist trolls trying to derail the thread in desperate cries for attention rather than foster discussion. However, it’s worth noting that for various reasons, there’s probably nothing quite as vilified by the left as Christianity (being patriarchal, having standards, etc.) If leftists hate it so much that they spend so much time being butthurt about Christianity’s historical victories, you know it’s doing something right 🙂

    (personal anecdote) Speaking of “soft” Christians, a relative of mine was talking about a Facebook group run by a woman claiming to be a “Sister” and “Reverend” (luke 17:3 ministries or something). The “Sister” in question sells books talking crap about her father as a “survivor” of narcissistic abuse, then goes on to brag about sales. She claims she loves God but then accepts everything under the sun (single motherhood, witchcraft, homosexuality etc), shaming those for pointing out her hypocritical teachings. She also bans anyone who “embarrasses” her from the Facebook group, so there is no real discussion. The “Sister” admits to spending about $100 on towels from Amazon, that she uses as rags because the colour leaked and the white part isn’t as bright anymore. Stuff like this is why women shouldn’t have authority in the church…

  80. Christianity has always been wimpy. It’s nothing new. “The Antichrist” from this dear Friedrich N. is a spot on criticism about why Christianity is a terrible religion.

  81. I’d be tempted to admit Islam is more manly – there’s a clear warrior culture not to mention it’s okay to lie to infidels if it’s in your best interests.

  82. Its all bullshit guys. Fuck church and all religions. Now do whatever the fuck you wanna do!

  83. The knight templars eh? You mean this sect that has been exterminated by The Church out or pure power hunger (they were a threat) and greed?
    Sorry but as you pointed out: Christianity or SJW, same difference for me. At least SJW still allow me to do research, including on human embryos.

  84. Liberals are too full of themselves to have any room for God. They want an indulgence peddler which God is not. The Strict Martinet Father rules, Jesus only pleads with him on our behalf.

  85. Christianity was never meant to be a political ideology or a tool to control society. The “Christianity” advocated in this article is not Christianity at all.

  86. Political Christianity is unbiblical. Railing on about communists, leftists from the pulpit, hating other races, thinking that it’s okay to go and fight wars, and breaking many of God’s commandments on a daily basis exposes the raw hypocrisy of modern American Christians. They do not follow the teachings of the Bible. When prospective new members see this hypocrisy, they run in the other direction. The “new” nondenominational Christians, who truly follow the bible, are hated by most false Christians. After all, what use are they? They live modestly, don’t spend much money, don’t want to kill people for the government, and refuse to bow down to political correctness. The elite would love to do away with them and encourage society to mock them. Sounds a bit like Jesus, doesn’t it?

  87. There is a MAJOR problem – Churchianity is not Christianity – The Church has cherry picked and modified the bible and the members of Churchianity do not question – The Bible stated that only a few go through the narrow gate – the rest go on the broadway to destruction – Christianity should be exclaiming the news of God’s Kingdom and not accepting the desecration of God’s laws. Time will show that God is not to be mocked.

    1. A truly powerful God doesn’t need humans to “defend” Him, and His interests.
      It is by His WILL alone that you are ALLOWED to survive.

  88. ‘Real’ Catholicism
    I remember a quote from the TV show True Blood about how weak the modern version of Catholicism seemed when compared to past ages.
    I have notice that many of the more ‘religious types of people’ seem to be weak, and use the religion as a crutch, sometimes even to avoid making a decision on important items; or use it as justification for what they want to do in avoid making decisions.
    http://trueblood.wikia.com/wiki/Dead_Meat
    “What do you take me for? I grew up catholic and I’m not talking this
    modern world bullshit Catholicism, I’m talking badass medieval times
    Catholicism. See I’m the real fucking deal Jason, I believe in god and
    the sanctity of our union. If I say that you are mine then you are mine
    forever.”

  89. It’s 1 AM and I was going to sleep, but decided to stay a little longer. I’m going to show all of you some prophecies of past, present and future events, all of them written at the hands of Benjamin Solari Parravicini, AKA the argentinian Nostradamus. It’s not my purpose to convince you of my beliefs, but to make you think and re-think the way We see the life and the world. Here are some:
    “North America’s freedom will lose her light. Her torch will not light up as it did yesterday and the monument will be struck TWICE”
    “Power duel between Yankees and Russians. Duel for space and terrain conquest. Although it doesn’t seem, America will ascend the throne”
    “Women triumph over men, Judith will be back”
    “Hitler – Mussolini. With the same aim the same end”
    “Darwin’s theory will be no longer, because it will be known that the man descended from the planets”
    This will be all for tonight, but If some of you want to know a bit more of Benjamín Solari Parravicini, there are prophecies about Fidel Castro’ s arrival, the death of JFK, the man in the moon, the arrival of atheism and it’s very defeat at the end of days, among many others. Good night.

  90. To reawaken your Aryan soul ——- go East … in this case Persia aka Iran:

    1. There is a war taking place against Caucasians globally and we, being people of honor, expect words and oaths to be true. Our trust is violoated and used against us. The sword of unjust compassion and empathy ripping through our souls while lies are piled upon us, crushing our spirit.

    1. I can’t believe this is a real speech, it doesn’t cite if it was too the senate or to the Chamber of Deputies.

    1. But it also says, “Courage in speaking the truth, whatever the consequences, will be remembered and celebrated, just like His.”

      1. Why does a guy speaking the truth have to be a sacrifice. Why can’t a guy speaking the truth open up with an MG42 when people that don’t like the truth try and ill him.

        1. They can. Most manifestos have some degree of truth to them. The evil of the act always overshadows the truth of their sayings. Martyrs are able to take the evil of the opposing faction to shine light on their truth.

        1. Touché. 🙂
          Fortunately, the majority doesn’t feel that way.
          So, we keep status quo…or only hills, stacked high with dead martyrs, shall remember “humanity’s moral dilemmas”…)))
          Oh…wait…yes…the Rapture…everybody dies…that’s the point….
          🙂

  91. You should add a point about the anti-intellectualism of many contemporary conservative Christians’ to your section entitled “Ignorance,” and you should consider it in your own stance. You can’t espouse anti-intellectual views that are anti-science and against reason and then bemoan the ignorance of modern American Christians.

  92. I’ve been promoting two books amongst my church leadership: Why Men Hate Going to Church, by David Murrow and No More Christian Nice Guy, by Paul Coughlin.
    From a secular point of view, I’ve also been pushing Robert Moore’s and Douglas Gilette’s King, Warrior, Magician, Lover that I think is an excellent treatise on masculinity.

  93. Most churches have been hijacked by LGBTXYZ types and even so-called conservative churches are falling into this trap. Most to mention the ordination of women has waking the Gospel in many congregation as they tend to more sympathetic to the pro-gay agenda

  94. Jim Elliot?
    his wife was the most RP woman ever
    most Christian women would be scared to have asked her for advice…
    nowadays christians tell men to servant lead their households by doing domestic duties and mastering homemaking
    to show true love…!
    and the men happily follow it
    and the women love it , cas they get to live as they like…

  95. Christianity may as well be dead.
    A SCOTUS decision legalizing an action it (rightfully) outlaws has been made.
    Soon churches will be forced to marry homosexuals for fear of governmental backlash.
    And the christians in this country will probably do nothing.

  96. The problem with christianity is the existance of heaven and having obedience as the requierement for it; so people simply will not be willing to lose this religion because fear of losing heaven
    When you think of it heaven is an state where people get everything they want provided by the ruler… and thats basically welfare state; but haven is by definition something that makes people always happy and they all think they deserve heaven (because nobody follows a religion were they get nothing) so heaven and by extent religion cant be telling people how they are not getting what they want because then they will simply switch to another religion that actualy promises the heaven
    Some can argue that reading the bible will lead to the true undestanding of religion but that only made people fund their own religions with all the stuff they want because there is no way they are not getting a heaven, see my point?
    Heaven was a way to unify people in the past when they had shitty lives with little to live for but in today´s society heaven is just a way for people to feel they deserve everyhting becase after ll god is going to give them everything and as long as religions keep promising a heaven and using its lost as a way to control people then poeple will be able to control religion by always claiming to be worthy of heaven
    Just try to preach a religion that does not have a heaven and you will see how heaven has become the center of religion instead of morality, god, values of wathever people think religion is about

  97. just got banned from a christian blog called cripple gate for calling them out on constantly asking men to be homemakers
    and supporting women that advice younger women to look for men who are homemakers…
    he told me pointing, their wimpiness out was sin…

  98. Agreed with cecilhenry, below. The Catholic Church started out by adopting the beliefs of the Greek Stoics, who believed in God (Logos) and had teachings about how to behave and think in ways the preserved humanity. Stoic teachings are all through Catholicism, they just don’t talk about them, and they’re largely ignored today. Read Josef Pieper’s books on the Virtues. They’re exactly what they ancients were teaching. For example: “Prudence” is actually what the Greeks called “Sophrosyne”and doen’t mean what modern people say about it. They ancient meaning of “Prudence” was about thinking things through, making informed desicions, and not messing up your life with bad choices and emotionalism. Pope Benedict had good points; He was against what he called “Relativism” that has resulted in the problems mentioned in the article. He wanted the church to revive the ancient Stoic groundings of the church. And to prevent gays and women from beng priests, not on idiological grounds, but because they’re not sane and rational enough to lead congregtations. Solid Stoic reasoning.

  99. Godfearing Brethren of ROK :
    The atheists do not believe in God, simply because God has not bothered contacting them.
    And the reason God has not bothered contacting the atheists, is simply because all atheists SUCK.
    ********************************************************************************************************
    ********************************************************************************************************
    So the next time you encounter someone who describes himself as an “atheist” ;
    just keep in mind that what that person really is saying ;
    – is that his entire personality, – really and truly, – sucks so much ,
    that God never bothered to make His existence known to him.

      1. I didn’t say they need to be eliminated by government.
        They need to be eliminated in the same way that all primitive ideas do.
        For example, the bible tells of forgiveness through human sacrifice. You think that something we should keep around as a good idea? Human sacrifices?

        1. :For example, the bible tells of forgiveness through human sacrifice”. Where does the bible state this?!?

        2. God so loved the world he sacrificed his only son so that you could be forgiven. John 3:16, bro.

        3. Have you ever heard of something called context? That line is about dying for a cause, not human sacrifice. You are an illiterate lunatic.

        4. But that isn’t human sacrifice. Is it human sacrifice to die in a war under your reasoning?

        5. Yeah, and human sacrifice isn’t voluntary, you aren’t voluntarily being sacrificed. The bible does not advocate human sacrifice.

        6. Again, the bible claims that God sacrificed his own son in human form so that you and I could have our sins forgiven. It’s the most fundamental tenet of Christianity.

        7. Okay, well I disagree with the meaning of this. I think you are a lunatic. Godspeed with coming to your senses about reality…

        8. What part do you not understand, God so loved the world that he gave his only son.

        9. …yet, his sacrifice was unconditionally REQUIRED (along with absolute obedience, as well..)…and who knows if Dear Old Dad (by that, not meaning Abe) would supplement the proverbial mutton, if Abe felt reluctant and his hand faltered at that moment?…))
          And yeah… just to paraphrase Stanisław Jerzy Lec: “What do egyptian wives and babes think of God’s great mercy?” )))

        10. “yet, his sacrifice was unconditionally REQUIRED (along with absolute obedience, as well..)” It was as a test of faith, not as an actual sacrifice. Btw, I go with the interpretation that genesis/the earlier parts of the old testament is allegorical/metaphorical/not literal, just as a heads up.
          “What do egyptian wives and babes think of God’s great mercy?” Again, I don’t take the early parts of the old testament literal.

        11. “Reading the mind and intentions of One Who Is” and “interpreting…but not literally”… 🙂
          Wow…prepare to get the heat, Andy…but not from me. ))
          You and your fellows-in-faith are at the speartip of this article. In a very literal way.
          🙂

        12. “‘Reading the mind and intentions of One Who Is’ and ‘interpreting…but not literally’” Okay, well you have no sense of context. I am done with you, good day.

        13. And a very good night to You, good Sir.)
          May the flights of (a-bit-fallen-but-still-looking-almost-new) Angels take You to Your rest… 🙂

  100. Quite a few fedora-tipping Atheists being triggered here.
    pic related
    “Christian theology is the grandmother of Bolshevism,” — Oswald Spengler
    This I do agree with. Most especially modern Christianty.

    1. As opposed to the ” handsome Crusader”? Every time. 🙂
      P.s. …Even Josef G. here says that was a good attempt at propaganda… :))

  101. You still would find a true warrior spirit in Russian Orthodoxy. They stand firmly by their believes and ready for a fight if it comes to it.

    1. Absolutely. Just type “why we love Russia” on Youtube. Fierceless bunch those. :))

  102. Christendom in the West has never lost roots with pagan religion and kept to tree worshipping, pagan and heathen actions, like bowing down in front of statues, burning candles in front of graven images, holding feasts on the day of the goddess of light
    Those Christians who in Christianity wanted to keep to the Only One true God where worked against and considered sects by those from Christendom who preferred to keep to the Nicene creeds and a Three-une God instead of the God of the Bible.
    Time passing there have always been people who wanted to look into the Scriptures to find the Truth and keep to those infallible Words of God.

    1. “Christendom in the West has never lost roots with pagan” Define Pagan.
      “burning candles in front of graven images” What? Are you talking about Icons?
      “holding feasts on the day of the goddess of light” Enlighten me as to what you are talking about.

      1. Editing the Ten Commandments.
        Corsair-like appropriation of native deities and “identifiying” them as christian Saints. Symbolic ritual cannibalism (“my blood, my body”…). Statues of Saints. Cult of Mary. Worshipping of body parts of the dead (“reliquiae”).
        Feast of Sol Invictus. Birthday of Svarog.
        Etc., etc.
        Merry Christmas, Andrew! :))
        P.s. ..it was GOD of light, though…))

        1. “Editing the Ten Commandments.” What? When did this happen?
          “Corsair-like appropriation of native deities and “identifiying” them as christian Saints.” What saint do you speak of?
          “Symbolic ritual cannibalism (“my blood, my body”…).” *sigh* I am not even going to debate this.
          “Statues of Saints. ” So what? How is that “pagan”?
          “Cult of Mary.” What do you mean cult of mary?
          “Feast of Sol Invictus.” Now interestingly, the REVERSE of what you think is actually true. Roman Polytheists didn’t start celebrating Festival of Dies Natalis Solis Invicti, as it is on December 25th, until the 4th century, AFTER Christians put Christmas on that date. The real reason for putting the birth of Jesus on December 25 was following the tradition that Jewish prophets are all die on the same day they are conceived, and using march 25 as the date of his death (a whole different story), then 9 months from march 25 is December 25, and this is how we get December 25 as his birthday.
          “Birthday of Svarog.” I don’t know what you mean by this? When is his birth day? What was appropriated?

      2. Oh boy…read some, READ…))
        At least, Wikipedia under “Ten commandments”? Please?
        Appropriated deities? Too many to count, but here some: (“St.”)German (see under “slavic mythology”), Gamelion into “St.Valentine’s”, Sol Invictus (and newborn Svarog) into “baby Jesus”, etc., etc…
        Why use cannibalistic symbolism if “it whas not meant that way”?))) Couldn’t apostles just consume “Goodness of Christ” and imbibe “Love of Christ” instead? (true abstract symbolism)…))
        Cult of Mary….and Isis? ;)) Statues of saints? “Graven images” much?))
        Dear, dear Andrew… (tut-tut-tutting) ;))
        But, please…. continue teaching me, oh Wise One….
        )))))))))))

        1. “At least, Wikipedia under “Ten commandments”? Please?” My sect of Christianity just uses the original Jewish version, I honestly had no idea that this was ever done. Anyways, the difference is just how they are listed and shortened, the actual part of exodus is still the same for all christian sects and Judaism.
          “but here some: (‘St.’)German” Do you mean Germain? As in Germain of Paris? I have never heard of this Saint German, and they don’t appear on Wikipedia.
          “Gamelion into ‘St.Valentine’s’” Gamelion is a month, not a god. Anyways, here is the story of Saint Valentine: He was a Christian guy, he was executed for being such. The End. Anything else is legend and doesn’t actually appear in actual manuscripts of martyrs from that time, and being that the name was very common in late antiquity, it is highly probable he simply quite a bit of his “story” from other people. All of the other traditions surrounding his day were simply added in by people over time, not religious figures.
          “Sol Invictus (and newborn Svarog) into ‘baby Jesus’, etc” I already told you about Sol, but as for Svarog, that was a Slavic god, the Slavs didn’t even migrate into central and southern Europe until well after the development of Christianity. They never had any prominence in the roman empire, what would be your basis on his connection to Jesus?
          “Couldn’t apostles just consume ‘Goodness of Christ’ and imbibe ‘Love of Christ’ instead?” I don’t know, go back in time and ask the people who wrote early christian books?
          “Cult of Mary….and Isis?” See, you don’t even know what you are talking about. You just read about the “cult of mary = isis” somewhere and started parroting it. I asked you WHAT IS the cult of Mary, NOT where it came from. Anyways, why would Christians make appropriations for a religion that was only practiced by a small minority of Christians in one region? In fact, why can’t you find me any documents of early Christians saying “hey man, we need to get more converts, lets copy these aspects of the roman religion.” Why hasn’t anyone managed to find these documents?
          “Statues of saints?” Is that a catholic thingy? I don’t know, I’m not catholic.
          P.S. Can you have any more brackets in your comments?!?

        2. 1. Good for your sect…for many other versions of Bible edit/change the “graven Image prohibition” (e.g. catholic catechism), considering that “it is already contained within the first commandment”. (it is not…and flowers and candles – sacrifices – are regularly offered to the Images of the Saints…be it in Icon- or in a form of a statue;
          2. Gamelion is a mystic feast of marriage of Zeus and Hera, celebrated in February/March…as a feast of (marital) Love…and Church simply stole its meaning and its significance , by putting the label of “St. Valentine” on it…much earlier then the florists did. )) Better this way, ain`t it? ;=))
          3. St. Germano of Pola/Pula was an early Christian martyr-become-saint , also extensively celebrated in orthodoxy, as well as in catholic church.
          Much before his Ascension, German was the Name of a slavic Demon-Spirit of Rain, Hail and Fertility.
          Even though I never claimed that “Jesus was connected to them”…Slavs were very well in Europe (North-East of it) much PRIOR to the Great Migration in the 6th-7th century. They were present in Rome as slaves, bodyguards, gladiators, traders and common folk…true, firstly only as exotics and in small numbers at the time of beginning of Christianity…but not so anymore after 580s and the raid of Thessaloniki, where they were defeated by (look, another one! Yet, no saint…so,no cigar…)) Germanus. 🙂 However, look at the Christianity in slavic lands now! Irrelevant, You say?…;)) All of them simply “got convinced by irrefutable Thruths of the Faith”? ))) Or some sly “Fathers” baited-and-switched their Old Gods for a New One? ))
          4. As for Eucharist…again: why use the people-munching metaphors, when (supposedly) no similar contemporary context present? 😉 All 46 parables could do without it; and even “wicked tennants” didn`t eat anybody…)))
          Well, let it suffice to say that I (in particular)don`t need a time-machine to know what kind of blood-swilling hanky-panky got around between 90-126, when the (official) “god-spells” were written (compiled)…and why were those words put into the mouth of a JEWISH Rabbi (no black pudding for Hebrews….remember?))…
          5. Currently, my earthly vessel inhabits the land of staunch Catholics, second in their (medieval variety of ) faith only to Vatican itself, 🙂 I can tell You from the first-person-perspective that they put Maryam on the same-height pedestal, as her Son…if not even slightly higher, in fact…actually adorning the whole blasted land with religious Madam Tussaud`s of truly biblical proportions…with candles, flowers…and even gold offered at the altars)) Even though that nasty habit of theirs most likely stems from their interbreeding with aboriginal illyrian tribes…(and their imported varieties of Magna Mater/ Kubilya cult) other, more southern christian denominations, don`t lag much behind….))
          And was there anybody closer to Jesus…and Egyptians, as well…as the coptic church, old boy? )) No Saints there…but all-present, merciful “Theotokos” peeks from every altar….just like gentle Aset…crucial (oh, the puns today..))) to her husband-son`s ressurection. 🙂 Just like it was written “somewhere” where I could read it…Pyramid texts, for starters…))
          Also, Romans weren`t the first among followers of Jesus…even a glimpse of Your New Officially Approved and Apocrypha-Purified Testament Version`s chronology confirms that It writes about it.
          (oh, by the way…parrots I DO cherish…they remind me of what would humans look like…if they were smarter…))
          p.s. If You were smart and observant as a mere parrot, dear Andrew….You would know how to translate the abundance of my parentheses into snickers, laughs and frowns…and see within – the extent of my amusement here. )))

      3. pagan is having false gods and taking part in human attributes and festivals which are against God His Law.
        What has Christmas on the 25th of December to do with a man who was born in October. And what have Santa Claus and other pagan figures and attributes like the decorated tree to do with his birth or birthplace?

        1. “pagan is having false gods and taking part in human attributes and festivals which are against God His Law.”
          Well that is just absurd. Under your definition, pagan means literally any religion that isn’t my religion.
          “What has Christmas on the 25th of December to do with a man who was born in October.”
          Citation?
          “And what have Santa Claus and other pagan figures and attributes like the decorated tree to do with his birth or birthplace?”
          Absolutely nothing. Those aren’t Christians who have the whole Santa thing. Santa is a made up character, used for parents to… have fun I guess. I mean, I think Santa is also pretty absurd, but it doesn’t have anything to do with Christianity, its a completely separate tradition that exists parallel to “Christmas”.

  103. Santa Claus is a heathen figure and all the actions around this figure have nothing to do neither with the birth of Christ nor with God. And the bishop taking an action which is against the teachings of Christ Jesus reacted against somebody who wanted to follow the teachings of the man (Jeshua) who only had One God and no three-headed false god based on the Greek-Roman gods.

    1. “Santa Claus is a heathen figure and all the actions around this figure have nothing to do neither with the birth of Christ nor with God.” What? Santa Claus doesn’t fucking exist dipstick…
      “who only had One God and no three-headed false god based on the Greek-Roman gods.” Oh, you are talking about Saint Nicholas. Well in that case, you are still full of shit. Arians believe that Jesus was created by god the father at some point in time. Learn theology you stoop.

      1. Santa Claus does not exist. And Saint Nicholas, who did exist, is already long time dead.
        I do not see any reason why you use such ugly words against me. Is that your frustration taking part?

        1. “Santa Claus does not exist. And Saint Nicholas, who did exist, is already long time dead.
          I do not see any reason why you use such ugly words against me.” Let me get this straight you think 1) Santa exists? 2) You think at some point I said Saint Nicholas is dead, even though I never said that and well HE IS DEAD, 3) Somehow that is “ugly words against you”.
          I, I don’t even know what to say about this…

        2. You would not consider the word ‘fuck’ awful? And you do not see that calling some one a ‘dipstick’ is not polite? I wonder then where you learned your manners if you learned them..

        3. It is not because many uncivilised people do not mind to use vile language and/or to be unpolite that the majority should accept that. You perhaps may not mind you or your mother being raped or being fucked, or would like to have others f…d, but that are actions nor ways of speaking for (well) educated people. Naturally I do understand not all people do have the priviledge to receive a good education at a decent school, but that should not withold those who had no chance for a better education, to behave themselves and to learn proper manners as well as decent language.

        4. Adding to my reply of a few minutes ago I also would remind you and your readers that one shall be able to recognice areal Christian by his words, attitude and way of living.
          A real Christian should always take care that his language and actions are in the line of Christ.

        5. Where did you get that I am Christian from?
          “A real Christian should always take care that his language and actions are in the line of Christ.”
          Jesus didn’t speak English. English didn’t even exist at the time of Jesus. Why would Jesus be offended by the word fuck?

        6. “It is not because many uncivilised people do not mind to use vile language and/or to be unpolite that the majority should accept that.”
          How is it uncivilized?
          “You perhaps may not mind you or your mother being fucked”
          I mean, she has children… she had me… soooo…
          “but that are actions nor ways of speaking for (well) educated people.”
          Some of the best educated people I know, people who attend MIT, use the word fuck within informal discourse liberally.
          “Naturally I do understand not all people do have the priviledge to receive a good education at a decent school, but that should not withold those who had no chance for a better education, to behave themselves and to learn proper manners as well as decent language.”
          According to your profile, you live in Brabant, which 1) Explains why you think my use of fuck is literally and why you fail to grasp the informal use of the term, and 2) means English isn’t even your primary language, if you want to dictate how other people use their language, go complain to other Flemish that they aren’t speaking proper Dutch.

        7. I did not say you are Christian,because I myself am convinced you are not.
          The Hebrew word for fuck did exsist in Jesus’ time and at time it would certainly been consdered very awful whena person would say “penetrate your mother” or “get raped” or similar thing.
          You prefering to hold on such language clearly shows your background, and tells a lot about those who were responsible for your education (or perhaps you might sishonour them a lot, wich would add to the disgrace you are bringing over them).

  104. Religion may be the opiate of the masses, but for the freaks in ISIS, it’s more like crystal meth.

  105. Liberal Christian church have abandoned sexual purity. Basically they tell women they can be a slut then settle down and have a happy marriage.
    Conservative churches are obsessed with sexual purity. Young women make a commitment not to Christ but to sexual purity. The women don’t know anything about their faith except ‘No freebies ever’. Men got to pay the price(marriage, fairy tale wedding) to get anything.
    So the women are sluts and whores just like the rest of society.

    1. None of them are actually bible verses, and all of these statements are out of context.

        1. “The Sermon on the Mount never happened?” No, I know what bible verses you are referring to, but none of those statements were actually made, they were rough restatements of actual verses.
          “Jesus neverncommanded his slaves to feed the worthless?’Ummm… Where in the bible does it state he owned slaves?
          “Do for the lest of your brother” isnt in there?” Oh helping poor people, how is that SJW faggotry? Sounds more like you are an asshole…

        1. Yeah, what do you think is wrong with that statement? What is disagreeable about it?

        2. It’s more complex than that. After all, if people really put the other cheek, I think Christianity as a whole wouldn’t have lasted past the third century. So I see the primal instinct of defending oneself. On the other hand, it was my understanding that whatever the Bible says goes. So a wild interpretation would be, I kick you in the balls, so instead of retaliation, you have to turn around so I can kick you in the ass. I know, a wild interpretation, but it’s the best one I’ve got. I wonder what pro gun people like the NRA think about it. So for me, I never took it seriously, both as a Catholic and as a nonbeliever.

        3. “So a wild interpretation would be, I kick you in the balls, so instead of retaliation, you have to turn around so I can kick you in the ass.” I think the context of it is more that you shouldn’t try to exact revenge, I don’t think it was against defending oneself.

  106. It’s simple to understand how religion, not just Christianity has become weak.
    Religious faith fails in the face of evidence. When Christianity was powerful, it does what all powerful people did, it crushed opposition with violence. Islam does the same, it has to resort to violence, too, because there are no evidence based arguments for faith.
    There is no such thing as Christianity, by the way, since the thousands of sects all have their own flavor. If Christian meant following the teachings of Christ as illuminated in the KJV, as many denominations claim, then those denominations wouldnt be split.
    Piety may have been an asset in the past, but religious faith, of the medieval kind you lament in your article, only serves to hold a nation back in important area like science and technology. But its all been said before by others more eloquent than I; ears that choose to not hear the message won’t be unstopped by me.

  107. This wimpiness and ignorance must be why obvious conmen with left-of-center beliefs (eg: Lyin’ Ted Cruz, Mike “The Huckster” Huckabee) can successfully dupe, with “phoned-in” pandering, what is ostensibly the most Christian demographic in the USA

  108. “In our day, Christianity has a reputation for being wimpy and liberal. There are even men who think that it is intrinsically weak, and that it is Christianity that is the actual cause of the decline of Western civilization. They propose that Christianity be replaced by some other religion. The usual suggestion is a religion that involves Odin, Thor, and runes.”
    Yep. I’m right here.
    My problem with Christianity is it’s essentially a Jewish religion, and Jews are the biggest wimps in history. Actually, it’s a miracle beyond anything Moses ever did that they’re still alive.
    Christianity was carried to the West by bare-footed beggar monks who preached against masculine concepts such as glory-seeking, polygyny, and beating up people who you dislike. Westerners may’ve improved the religion somewhat from that original westward wandering Jewish infant it arrived as, but I won’t believe the West was better off without Zeus and Odin.
    Nowadays, it’s true that when people stop believing in “the invisible old man living in the clouds” then they all too often start believing in “the privileged white male hiding under the bed” which is scarcely any more palatable. However, the appearance of a new wimp in the playground who’s wimpier than anything we’ve seen before doesn’t automatically imply we should run back to yesterday’s king wimp and worship him in hope that this behavior will help restore wimpiness to the old standard.
    No. It’s time to do what our forefathers should’ve done a long time ago and sacrifice both wimps to Odin, then drink some beer, fuck our women, and punch each other for entertainment.

    1. Razor sharp edge…Odin, Thor? These guys were so powerful that their modern descendants are the biggest wimps in Europe. Meanwhile in the Eastern Europe which is still very Christian, there are still proper men. It’s all fairy tales, but without Christianity and their brave warriors troughout history Europe would be muslim. The problem lies with too comfortable life, if you never experienced hunger, cold and bitter struggle how can you compare yourself to your forefathers?

      1. Scandinavia is predominantly Christian. Like the rest of the West, modern degeneracy is birthed by the sons and daughters of living Christians, not a race of warriors who ceased over 800 years ago. Dump your shit on your own doorstep.

        1. There was no race of warriors you fool, they were peasant barbarians good at only destruction and death. Christianity build western civilization. Degeneracy began when sexual liberation kicked in spearheaded by filthy Woodstock festivals and rock music and the like.

        2. … and those Hippies were the sons and daughters of living Christians, as I said.
          No race of warriors? I’m not sure what else you’d call a warrior-race, but whatever.
          My point is, I find Christian teaching to be effeminate and unappealing. I could never convert because I’m too masculine, and I don’t believe in pussy concepts such as monogyny, non-violence, and being so afraid of death that I have to comfort myself with lies.
          LOL Heaven – the original safe-space!

        3. ..they were sons and daughters born after a devastating war, so by the help of growing economy and comfortness they went liberal and happy-happy, even if it mutated into shit we see today.
          I love visiting ROK for the sake of couch warriors as well. Everybody can be tough when there is plenty of food, comfort, healthcare and whatnot.

        4. So now you’re making excuses for how Christians failed to raise their own children and, through their negligence, birthed the modern era! LOL
          What’s your point, anyway? You just don’t like Vikings? Or are you trying to convey a sensible argument?
          Also, cut the SJW crap. I’m not a “privileged white male” and I’ve suffered poverty of the worst sort. I’m not the one making random assumptions about people I’ve never met, and your arrogance would earn you a punch in the face were YOU not hiding behind a monitor.

        5. I’m only going to say this. Christianity was always about meekness, it was times that were harsh! Men did what they had to do. Never before were such meek times as now (and I guess we can be happy about it, don’t we?), so how can meek times breed harsh men? They can’t.

        6. Christianity being meek was my point, though. Yes, times were harsh. Times now are indeed meek, also. Yes, most modern men are sissies. Just try not to follow suit.

        7. “Scandinavia is predominantly Christian.” Yeah, the same way Mitt Romney is conservative.
          “a race of warriors who ceased over 800 years ago. ” Who are these people you speak of? A whole race of warriors? Wow, I wonder how those people you know, produce food… I guess that is why they don’t exist anymore, oh well….

        8. “and I don’t believe in pussy concepts such as monogyny” Why?
          “non-violence” Why?
          “and being so afraid of death that I have to comfort myself with lies.” Earlier you said you are an odinist. Are you an Odinist or are you an atheist?

        9. Hippies were a statistical fluke. They didn’t represent every single person born to Christians at that time, and hippies represented the flaws of 50’s/60’s culture, not Christian culture.
          “Also, cut the SJW crap. I’m not a ‘privileged white male’” Being a white male is irrelevant. You have internet access, you are privileged.

        10. 1. Because I want to have more children than 1 wife can manage.
          2. Because I’m virile.
          3. I’m a human man.

        11. How does having a $50 smartphone make me privileged?! I’m in rural Thailand and most people here have one. Some of my Facebook friends are living in 3rd world poverty, as was I once. Are you asserting our $5 a day incomes actually make us rich and privileged?!
          You’re the biggest fucking idiot I’ve met in a long time. Stop trolling me.

        12. All of you are privileged. Even me. So far we don’t experience the hardships that other places experience.

        13. “How does having a $50 smartphone make me privileged?” Because, there are people who live on less than 1 dollar a day. A LOT of people.
          “I’m in rural Thailand and most people here have one.” So? Thailand isn’t that poor of a country.
          “Are you asserting our $5 a day incomes actually make us rich and privileged?!” The GDP per capita in Thailand is 5800 a year, That is way more than 5 dollars a day, which it’s self is still way higher than the poverty line, which is 1.90 USD. I call bluff on this bullshit, especial seeing that you were supposedly living in the rich country of New Zealand just a few weeks ago, where the median income is a healthy 35 thousand US dollars. Why have you suddenly decided to live a life of 5 dollars a day in Thailand?

        14. “1. Because I want to have more children than 1 wife can manage.” Here is what you are saying “weh! I want to have something i can’t have!” You aren’t the center of the universe. There is this agreement called civilization. Men can only have 1 wife so that all men will have the ability to take a wife. Isn’t in interesting btw, that polygamous societies have lower than average IQ’s?
          “2. Because I’m virile.”So you feel that because you are strong Society should let you go beat people up? Sorry, but have fun when someone pulls a gun on you.
          “3. I’m a human man.” What? How does this address my statement at all. Oh, you are just avoiding my other points because you don’t believe in reality.

        15. What. The. Fuck.
          I never agreed to the 1 wife per husband rule and neither did women – you know, geneticists have proved only 40% of past men reproduced as opposed to 80% of past women. I.e. polygyny is ancient, and your unspoken law of monogyny is ridiculous.
          I don’t “want something I can’t have”. Women like men like me and it’s not hard to find girls to join my family.
          Why are you so jealous? Do you honestly think I’m to blame for you not being able to get a girlfriend?!
          Also, I have a high IQ, so your comment there is quite unconnected to polygyny.
          Also, all countries are technically polygynous whilst still promoting monogamy – women in the West are STILL only reproducing with roughly the top 40% of men. It’s just that divorce is used for the same men to move from woman to woman, or in other cases women fall pregnant to these men out of wedlock. This is still polygynous behavior, even though you’re only allowed to be married to 1 woman at a time (but in many cases you can legally keep girlfriends).
          Polygyny is ancient in the West, actually. The one thing Christian noblemen were notorious for was fathering bastards on their peasant women!
          Your gun comment was even more pro-violence than anything I suggested! You’re a real coward if you’d pull a gun on somebody just for punching you. I don’t live in a cowardly society where people do that, anyway.
          My closing remark was I’m whatever the fuck I want to be. You asked me to choose between two labels. Er, no, you don’t get to force me to label myself. If I support the theory of evolution then I do, and if I support Odin then I do. I’ll do whatever I want.

        16. I apologize. If a $5 a day income makes me privileged then I’m indeed a privileged white man. I was wrong. Sorry.
          There’s income inequality in Thailand. The minimum wage is about $5 a day and most people live on that. The fact that some of the richest men in the world are Thai doesn’t help the rest of us.
          Also, I never said I was in NZ now. You misread. I’m moving there soon, though, to get out of this poverty.

        17. “What. The. Fuck. I never agreed to the 1 wife per husband rule and neither did women” And, I give a shit because???
          “you know, geneticists have proved only 40% of past men reproduced as opposed to 80% of past women.” And do you know WHY that is, because the mortality rate way higher than it is now. Most men died out hunting.
          “polygyny is ancient” *sarcasm* OOOOOH, it’s “ancient”, it has some sort of mystical and unexplainable power and importance because it’s old. *serious* You know what else is ancient – dog shit.
          “and your unspoken law of monogyny is ridiculous.” It’s not ridiculous, it’s a law (no, not unspoken law, I mean an ACTUAL LAW in all of the civilized world) so that all males have the ability to have a wife.
          “Why are you so jealous?” I’m not jealous. I am perfectly satisfied with one partner. You on the other hand apparently don’t feel satisfied with one partner.
          “Do you honestly think I’m to blame for you not being able to get a girlfriend?” I do have a girlfriend dipstick. I assume you aren’t actively practicing polygamy, as that is illegal in Thailand.
          “Also, I have a high IQ” Take me a picture of your test results please, just blur out your name and personal information…
          “so your comment there is quite unconnected to polygyny.” Oh, okay. So apparently you actually believe you overrule statistics. Even if you have a higher than average IQ, you are at best a statistical fluke – irrelevant to my actual statement, that SOCIETIES with polygamous marriage have lower average IQ’s. Look at this map, try to guess which countries have higher or lower IQ’s: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Legality_of_polygamy.svg
          “Also, all countries are technically polygynous whilst still promoting monogamy – women in the West are STILL only reproducing with roughly the top 40% of men. It’s just that divorce is used for the same men to move from woman to woman, or in other cases women fall pregnant to these men out of wedlock. This is still polygynous behavior, even though you’re only allowed to be married to 1 woman at a time (but in many cases you can legally keep girlfriends).” … Do you have an citation? This is a very complex scenario you are claiming to be quite common, which I just do not see happen in real life, but there isn’t any data backing it up.
          “Polygyny is ancient in the West, actually.” Why do you give so much importance to “ancient” shit? Who cares what dead people did?!
          “The one thing Christian noblemen were notorious for was fathering bastards on their peasant women!” … Citation?
          “Your gun comment was even more pro-violence than anything I suggested! You’re a real coward if you’d pull a gun on somebody just for punching you. I don’t live in a cowardly society where people do that, anyway.” 1) I am pacifist, I only support/find acceptable violence in self defense. 2) Don’t assault people in you don’t want to get shot. People like you who try to act tough end up in jail unharmed if they are lucky, or end up injured or even dead. Don’t try to be a tough guy dip stick… 3) You are cowardly for assaulting someone, hopefully someone will pull out a gun on you and teach you a lesson. Period. 3) How is that “cowardly” to guard your own life?!?!?!
          You and the rest of your degenerate culture really should not be allowed into New Zealand without reeducation, you fail to grasp basic western cultural norms. There is a reason why the west isn’t a third world region where people make 5 dollars a day…
          “My closing remark was I’m whatever the fuck I want to be.” Dead if you keep trying to punch people!
          “You asked me to choose between two labels. Er, no, you don’t get to force me to label myself. If I support the theory of evolution then I do, and if I support Odin then I do. I’ll do whatever I want.” So basically you are saying you like to deny reality, you both believe in Religion and find it to be lying to yourself? Da fÜck?

        18. “If a $5 a day income makes me privileged then I’m indeed a privileged white man.” You are a white man, native of thailand, and make 5 dollars a day… I call bullshit.
          Also, you don’t understand purchasing power parity and region inflation. A dollar in Thailand gets you WAY more than a dollar in the United States.

        19. LOL I know what buys what in Thailand. I’ve lived here for a decade. Yet $5 a day in no way comes close to the American minimum wage in purchasing power. You pretty much just proved your IQ is well under 90 for suggesting that.
          I never said I was a native Thai. This is your problem – instead of listening to what I really say you just make stuff up.

        20. Female preference for the top 40% of men has nothing to do with mortality rates. This is obvious because women still prefer top men today where mortality rates are more balanced. The reason for this is it’s an evolved preference – females are attracted to men with the best possible DNA they can secure for their offspring as a means of maximizing their reproductive success. This makes perfect sense and fully explains the statistic.
          Monogamy isn’t a social mechanism to ensure “every man gets a wife”. It’s invented by religious people and backed by feminists for ideological reasons of morality and equality. Nobody gives a fuck about men who are too pathetic to attract a bride.
          Are you actually implying that societies that allow polygynous marriage have inferior DNA or something? Because that’s some irrational racist bullshit!
          Whether polygyny is illegal in a country often comes down to the adultery laws. I. e. is a man allowed to keep a legal wife plus girlfriends in his house? The answer is often yes.
          However, polygyny is legal in my nation of New Zealand if the wedding occurred abroad, anyway. So I’ve been looking into where I might have an international wedding recently. Most likely, though, I’ll just end up with 1 legal wife and my concubines will legally only be girlfriends. It’s the same thing at heart, though. ♥

        21. “LOL I know what buys what in Thailand. I’ve lived here for a decade. Yet $5 a day in no way comes close to the American minimum wage in purchasing power.”I never said it was close. I said that it is more than you think. As you even said, people in Thailand have enough money to buy cell phones. You are also wrong about the conversion of baht to USD. The lowest minimum wage in Thailand is 300 Baht per day, which is about 9 dollars.
          “I never said I was a native Thai.” This sounds like an interesting story, how did you manage to get yourself stuck in poverty in Thailand, as you even said – “Are you asserting our $5 a day incomes actually make us rich and privileged?!”

        22. Another thing I forgot to mention: A high male mortality rate is exclusively a feature of a polygynous species. Go research species with disproportionately high male mortality rates and you’ll discover they’re all polygynous.
          This is because males only fight to compete for females (or the resources they must acquire in order to gain access to females), and they only need to do this when they aren’t a monogamous species. This is because polygynous species, by default, place greater pressure on males to impress females (who are the egg carrier and thus get to decide which males can or cannot breed), which drives the competition.
          It’s important to note that the male doesn’t have to be aware of the underlying causes of his behavior. The behavior is instinctive. I doubt male animals are conscious of the true reasons they’re ripping each others throats out, either. Reproduction that relies on conscious decision making, even in humans, typically has yet to evolve.
          Human or animal – it’s all instinctive, and human war is a direct symptom of a polygynous species.
          The problem with your arguments, Andrew, is they are utterly divorced from evolutionary psychology, which is the only existing scientific explanation of human behavior.

        23. “Female preference for the top 40% of men has nothing to do with mortality rates. This is obvious because women still prefer top men today where mortality rates are more balanced.” Evolution, it’s still ingrained into them.
          “The reason for this is it’s an evolved preference – females are attracted to men with the best possible DNA they can secure for their offspring as a means of maximizing their reproductive success.” Yes this is true, however, this is correlated with mortality. Those men with good genetics were the men who would survive.
          “This makes perfect sense and fully explains the statistic.” No it doesn’t. Because why would it be the top 40%, why not the top 20%, or top 1%?
          “Monogamy isn’t a social mechanism to ensure “every man gets a wife”. It’s invented by religious people and backed by feminists” Nope. Monogamy goes back WAY before feminism or Christianity. The Western policy of monogamy goes back to the Hellens and Romans.
          “Nobody gives a fuck about men who are too pathetic to attract a bride.” You mean YOU don’t give a fuck. On the other hand, most people do. If we had 80% of men not getting wife’s, those men will end up being criminals. The only other option is that you just send them off to war to die, but then again, that will probably piss them off to no end until they turn on your polygamous society, create a revolution and boom, you are back in monogamy.
          “Are you actually implying that societies that allow polygynous marriage have inferior DNA or something?” They don’t have inferior DNA because of polygamy, they are polygamous because of inferior DNA. But polygamy does have some effect on IQ two, because monogamy leads to more resources devoted by fathers to fewer children, five men and five women supporting 20 children rather than 1 man and five women supporting 20 children. With better access to food and healthcare because of more men supporting them, those children will thrive more and live longer.
          “Because that’s some irrational racist bullshit!” Racist?!?! No, this is surracial. White polygamous Muslims and Mormons both have lower IQ’s than their white counterparts who practice monogamy instead. Boiling this down to racism clearly shows you are incapable of abstract and complex cognition and thought.
          Question, what do you propose to do with the 80% of men who don’t get married? What if they start rebelling, or a crap tonne of them just are delinquents? If they can’t peruse sex, what if they peruse crime? Or are you one of those people who think they live in a magic bubble unaffected by society?

        24. I stand corrected on the minimum wage. I fucked up the conversion. However, a $5 per day income is the common pay for rubber farmers where I live.
          I originally came to Thailand to do Muay Thai, but I ended up living on my wife’s farm farming rice and rubber in about 2008. Back then, rubber sold for about 70 baht per kilo. It was good money and we were happy. Slowly, however, the Chinese economy slowed and the price of rubber dropped to where it is now – 12 baht per kilo. That’s an 85% slash in income or something.
          I tried to wait it out hoping the market would pick up. It didn’t. At my lowest, I was on about $1 per hour with only 3 hours per day to work. That’s 3rd world poverty, and I was utterly trapped in it.
          Luckily I do have 1 privilege. I was able to call my family overseas and ask for help. I’ll be out of this mess soon enough.
          I find a MacDonald meal is the best way to judge purchasing power. A Big Mac Meal costs about 100 baht here – $3. How much is it in the US?

        25. “Those men with good genetics were the men who would survive.”
          See my other post. They were only fighting because they were polygynous to begin with.
          “why would it be the top 40%, why not the top 20%, or top 1%?”
          Because women are looking not just for the best DNA but also access to their mate’s resources and protection. A woman will only be attracted to a man if she’s satisfied he fulfills these criteria.
          “they are polygamous because of inferior DNA.”
          It’s actually the opposite. Polygyny leads to greater male competition which is an immense selective pressure responsible for all human sexual dimorphism, such as increased male strength, drive, and intelligence. Monogamous species are typically much stupider and much less physically impressive.
          Humans will devolve under conditions of monogamy because there are fewer selective pressures on males.
          I’m guessing the inferior IQ you speak of is a direct result of TEMPORARY environmental disadvantages, such as poor education. It’s not genetic.
          You’re also now implying that only low IQ people practice polygyny. Can you please explain why this is untrue? That is, why do obviously above average IQ men such as myself not reject polygyny? There are also millions of high IQ Arab men who actively practice polygyny. In fact, in Muslim societies, successful, high IQ men are more likely to keep harems.
          “Question, what do you propose to do with the 80% of men who don’t get married? What if they start rebelling”
          Firstly, my stat was 40% of men, not 80.
          Secondly, I indeed suspect the sexual failures will indeed do as you suggest and become hugely discontent and dangerous. This is because this is what sexually failing males do in polygynous species. In fact, if you weren’t genetically equipped for polygyny then such a confrontational male-male aggression solution wouldn’t have occurred to you to begin with!
          Actually, it already occurs. Go research Young Male Syndrome.
          Actually! It’s been occurring since before we were even human. Rape is a direct behavioral product of this discontent, and rape only occurs in polygynous species.
          Now, Andrew, I’ve more than answered your questions. Please leave me alone at least for a month or so.
          If you’d like to learn more then I suggest you read:
          Evolutionary Perspectives On Human Sexual Psychology And Behavior
          Bye

        26. “They were only fighting because they were polygynous to begin with.” Have you heard of hunting?
          “It’s actually the opposite. Polygyny leads to greater male competition which is an immense selective pressure responsible for all human sexual dimorphism, such as increased male strength, drive, and intelligence. Monogamous species are typically much stupider and much less physically impressive.” Citation? Even from something on like Wikipedia?
          “I’m guessing the inferior IQ you speak of is a direct result of TEMPORARY environmental disadvantages, such as poor education. It’s not genetic.” Did you listen to what I said, I said that inferior genetics lead to polygamy, not visa versa. And no, that doesn’t have do to with race, don’t even try SJW.
          “You’re also now implying that only low IQ people practice polygyny. Can you please explain why this is untrue?” You want me to explain why I am wrong? No, fuck that, i’ll explain why I am right. Societies with lower average IQ’s are less egalitarian. By the way, I just want to point out that all non civilized societies (I mean like hunter gather type groups) practice polygamy with both females and males. If one woman has multiple men, all the men are considered the father of that child. Of course we know this is wrong scientifically, but that is how those groups operate, not your fantasy of you having five girls all to yourself.
          “That is, why do obviously above average IQ men such as myself not reject polygyny?” Again, you fail to cite your IQ test or show me any pictures of documents proving you have a high IQ. You haven’t even stated the number and you haven’t done a breakdown of what categories you scored high in. Also the relationship is casual, it isn’t 1:1.
          “In fact, in Muslim societies, successful, high IQ men are more likely to keep harems.” Again, the relationship is casual and on a Society wide scale, not individual. Higher IQ’d individuals are more likely to support monogamy.
          “Secondly, I indeed suspect the sexual failures will indeed… …Rape is a direct behavioral product of this discontent, and rape only occurs in polygynous species.” So basically your solution to this problem is to let rape, crime, and political/cultural/social violence be rampant and to not try to fix it? Well, fuck that.
          “Now, Andrew, I’ve more than answered your questions. Please leave me alone at least for a month or so.” 1) I am not follow you, we simply both happen to read ROK and have different opinions. 2) Finish the conversation… You failed to give any solution to my statement on what to do with these 60% of men.

        27. “How much is it in the US?” Depends on where you are, but it averages a little under five dollars. Good luck with getting out of Thailand, hopefully it works out.

        28. “Another thing I forgot to mention: A high male mortality rate is exclusively a feature of a polygynous species. Go research species with disproportionately high male mortality rates and you’ll discover they’re all polygynous.” Yes, and now that humans have lower mortality rates because they don’t hunt, go to war, etc. anymore, we move to monogamy. It makes perfect sense, and agrees with everything I have said thus so far.

        29. Anything is possible. However, do you realize that monogamy will make men smaller, weaker, less intelligent, and generally less distinguishable from females? We would lose our sexual dimorphism.
          It will require the overcoming of millions of years of evolved polygynous instinct before we’re monogamous, however. Not only will that take millennia, but by the time such a radical shift in human sexuality occurs then we won’t even be recognizable as human anymore.

        30. “monogamy will make men smaller, weaker, less intelligent, and generally less distinguishable from females?” Not necessarily. You are assuming those traits are the ones being passed in a polygynous society. But in fact, it’s simply the people with privilege/power that get wives. It isn’t the strongest man, it’s the Chieftain’s son who gets 3 wives. Anyways, if this was true, why do European Christian/Secular societies have such higher average I.Q.’s over Muslim societies?
          “but by the time such a radical shift in human sexuality occurs then we won’t even be recognizable as human anymore.” But we don’t need to do that, we just need people as a society to agree to not take more than 1 wife.

        31. You fail to understand that when a species becomes truly monogamous it has inevitable evolutionary repercussions. All you need to do to see this is look at monogamous species and you’ll see how indistinguishable the males are from the females.
          The reason this hasn’t happened yet in “monogamous” societies is:
          1. Those societies aren’t truly monogamous – the majority of children are ultimately being produced by a minority of men.
          2. It takes millennia for evolution to do this. Are you actually too stupid to know this?! Yet the transformation into sexual monomorphism is an inevitable consequence of monogamy – this is a scientific fact.
          “we just need people as a society to agree to not take more than 1 wife.”
          People will never agree to that. Besides, Christianity already tried and it doesn’t work.
          Also, the idea of forcing breeding regulations on a species that largely doesn’t want it is a polygynous behavior. If we were genetically compatible with monogamy then force wouldn’t be necessary to begin with