356 thoughts on “Why Christianity Is Not An Enemy Of Neomasculinity”

1. Atheism means not believing in the existence of deities. Period. And this idea is several thousand years old, actually older than Christianity itself. It is completely independent from marxisms, socialisms and SJW American-produced crap.

   1. It’s not older than Christianity itself. Jesus is God, he appears in the Old Testament plenty of times. Adam and Eve were the first and they believed, so no, nothing is older than Christinanity.

      1. How adorable.

         1. http://i.imgur.com/XlvdWWs.jpg

         2. I’m not an Atheist though.

      2. Atheism predates the Christian religion (as a matter of history and by definition) but there are very few recorded individuals before the Christian era who would qualify, no recorded civilizations, and perhaps a few pygmy cultures that have survived as atheists for a few thousand years.

      3. Heh, technically, according to the Bible’s literal timeline, Adam and Eve did not follow God after leaving the Garden. The Bible tells of how Jared’s line was the ONLY one still following God… and Jared was the ancestor of Enoch, Methesula, Lamech and Noah, and Jared was contemporary with Adam… in fact, he was over 200 years old when Adam died… so, if Jared’s line was the ONLY one still following God, then Adam and Eve lost the faith before they died.
         Just some interesting Biblical trivia for ya, in case you play Jeopardy.

         1. Adam and Eve are not the authors of Christianity, it is God himself who is Jesus. That some fell off does not mean anything.

         2. The fact still remains, the Bible literally states that Adam and Eve did not die within God’s favour.
            Christianity, btw, did not exist until the coming of Christ, so all of the Old Testament is not “Christian,” but rather, “Judaic.” Jesus fulfilled the old covenant, releasing us from it, (which is why we don’t have to refrain from trimming the corners of our beards, nor do we send mentrual women to spend their seven unclean days with other women in a tent – although this is mightily good idea!) and then Jesus created a new covenant, which is called Christianity… so your point is rather moot.

         3. Negative, Christ always has been, he did not conjure up Christianity out of the blue. The New Testament although newer was prepared long ago by God himself.

         4. You are contradicting the Bible itself, sorry to say. You started this conversation based upon Adam and Eve being “true believers.” Absolutely nowhere in the Bible does it claim Adam and Eve were such… in fact, shortly after they were ejected from the Garden, the Bible stops speaking of them entirely, even though it continues to speak of those who followed God’s plan – for hundreds of years, while Adam was still alive (he lived 900+ years after being ejected from Paradise).
            All God did was fulfill his covenant he made with Adam, by making Jesus a direct descendendant of Adam, and a direct descendant of those who followed the old Covenenant.
            That is why there are so many “begats” in the Old Testament – to prove God fulfilled his covenant to Adam and Abraham and David and so forth. Sorry dude, but you are grasping at new age religious straws, rather than honestly examining the faith
            And btw, I offered this ONLY as an interesting bit of Bible trivia, not as a refutation of the faith itself. (Everyone simply assumes Adam and Eve followed God, when they didn’t). LITERALLY, if Jared’s line was the only one still following God, then Adam and Eve did not follow God and did not gain eternal salvation. It is factually correct, according to the Bible, but irrelevant according to “the faith.” Why argue about it? The Bible clearly indicates Adam and Eve lost their faith in God after being ejected from the Garden.
            (ie. Yes, God promised the messiah from the beginning… thus creating the three in one – that is his covenenant, which the Jews are still waiting to be fulfilled, btw – but ALL I am saying is that Adam and Eve were not true believers, which you clearly stated as a fact, when it is proveably NOT a fact according to the Bible itself. Adam and Eve clearly died not following in the ways of God – for only Jared’s line was following God in those days).
            The same thing happened after the flood – of the three lines of Noah’s sons that stepped off the Ark, Ham and Jaypeth strayed from God’s path, but only Shem remained true… who was the ancestor of Abram, who took with him the God of Noah and Shem when he fled into the wilderness… and this is the line that eventually bore King David, and later, Jesus (even though not ALL members of that line objectively followed God).
            This isn’t really hard to understand, you know.

         5. Makes sense seeing how Adam was the first beta blue pill bitch that got cuckolded by eve and the serpent and instead of slitting that whores throat from ear to ear he stayed with her!
            What a fucking chump.

   2. Individual men have believed or disbelieved or rejected or accepted various creeds or beliefs throughout time, but, in the modern sense, atheism refers to a fairly specific set of beliefs and values. Just as there is no longer any non-marxist Left, so, too, is there no longer any non-Leftist atheism.

      1. There is non-leftist atheism. Check libertarian environments and you’ll find us.

         1. Please forgive my apparent lack of clarity. I meant to imply the word “significant” or “noteworthy” following the word “any” in both instances, but just try to imagine it in parentheses.

   3. A dictionary or tautological definition of atheism – period – is what you mention. In practice, in the modern sense, atheism is the acceptance of philosophical/ontological naturalism/materialism/physicalism (pick one term from each group and combine for your descriptor of choice).
      .
      The largest modern camp is among Marxist and related ideas (on the left) while there are Objectivists and their antecedents, including Nietzsche, as well as the ideological adherents to evolutionary psychology collectively forming a minority (on the right).

   4. ‘Atheism means not believing in the existence of deities. Period. And
      this idea is several thousand years old, actually older than
      Christianity itself. It is completely independent from marxisms,
      socialisms and SJW American-produced crap.’
      I doubt that. In primitive times, denying the existence of the tribal gods could make an outcast out of you and decrease your chances of survival.
      Atheism is the by-product of modern society and IS part of the SJW package. Deal with it.

      1. SJW is almost an exclusive product of the Anglo world and scandinavian retards. Leave us the rest of the World in peace, we are not that fucked up yet, despite your cultural exports. You even have priests that promote faggots, that would be unbelievable in my country!

         1. SJW is a product of economic growth. Any country which experiences an increases of its GDP will see a rise of SJW. Since the ‘rest of the world’ is growing SJW will also grow there. Live with it

         2. SJW is a product of jews in politics. SJW only affects white countries. Japan has 0% of immigration and it is a developed country.

         3. – LGBT lifestyle is accepted in many Asian countries… even in Muslim countries like Malaysia. FYI, Jews don’t have much influence in Malaysian politics.
            – Actually, Japan has immigrants even though much less than Gulf countries or Western Europe.

         4. SJWs have infiltrated religious establishment. Ever heard of Vatican II? Oh, and also, Christianity made massive compromises from the original Nazarene faith, which was more akin to Judaism, prior to the founding of the Roman Catholic Church. Roman SJWs literally hijacked it and denounced it as being too legalistic, and then watered it down with different doctrines and idols from the pagan religions around them to adapt so that they could ‘grow’ their church.

   5. As a non-believer in any gods or deities myself, I feel it important to point out: when you take away the religion, you also take away the religious texts telling a populace how to conduct itself, and the only thing left is for them to ‘follow their hearts’.
      That’s the downside. It’s the most intellectual approach to existence, yet ironically leads to the most debased, emotional and primal behavior at the crowd level. Atheism leads to smarter individuals, and dumber civilizations.

      1. You are totally right. Religions are useful bullshit.

      2. Give me the hypothesis testing and statistical probability of life spontanously self-create from a rock (dead matter), without any divine intervention at all.
         Then show me all empirical data in the history where a language, information contained in that language and processes to read and effectuate the commands in that language/information, has been created just by itself. Just like that. As it is found in the DNA.
         Atheism is pure insanity with no deep understanding of science. Antony Flew was the leading atheist within philosophy for decades, until science forced him to ditch atheism. Read his book, ‘there is a God’.

      3. You are completely correct my friend. Having myself gone from religious believer, to outspoken atheist who ridiculed anyone with any faith, I now recognise the need for a society to adopt a faith. The population need to be accountable to a higher force, today that is “science”. But science doesn’t watch over people 24/7 guiding their actions like an all-seeing God does.
         With faith, a society will sacrifice and achieve for the betterment of that society. Without faith, individuals will only live for themselves.

   6. If atheism predates Christianity, then how come you godless haters never in the recorded history of mankind managed to build a a society based on atheism? Not even a village did you manage to create, built upon the retarded and utterly evil my-truth and your-truth found in atheism, as subjective morality and moral relativism are logically inherent within atheism.
      Compare that to Christianity, which produced Christendom, the greatest civilization the world has ever seen in every aspect.
      Atheism only gave us death and misery, from the reign of terror in France, to the killing fields in Cambodia and death camps in USSR/China.

      1. If atheism predates Christianity, then how come you godless haters never in the recorded history of mankind managed to build a a society based on atheism?

         A legitimate question no atheist can or will honestly answer.

      2. Why a society should be based on the absence of something? Kinda stupid, right? BTW, villages are built based on economic interests, not on religion. Take a quick look to urban economics.

         1. There has never been a civilization that existed without a religion at its base – not one – it is universal to human civilization because it is needed to coral large groups of people into following a moral code – much like how it doesn’t matter if you drive on the left or right hand side of the road (both are equally valid), but what does matter is that EVERYONE does it the same way, or else mass chaos will ensue.
            Atheists have been trying to be gods themselves, but always fail because they don’t have the ability to create cultural hegemony in any meaningful way.

         2. Read my comment one more time and pay extra attention to the subjective morality and moral relativism part.
            No, a village will also have a common moral system. Show me one village in the recorded history of mankind that rejected a common moral system and fully embraced subjective morality.

         3. Dude, you dont know what your talking about. European civilization is pre-Christian. In case you hadnt noticed both Classical Greece and Early/Middle Rome were non-Christian.
            This concept that Christianity somehow created Western Civilization is completely false. Yes, we did have villages abnd trade and literature before Christ. Christianity (as Islam and Zoroastrianism) simply allowed for a more unified cultural sphere in Europe and created political stability.

         4. But you didn’t have civilization before religion itself, did you? (Paganism is still a set of religious beliefs).
            Religion, no matter which one, is UNIVERSAL to human civilization… without exception. How is this so hard for atheists to understand? Greece and Rome both had religions, you know – they were loosely based upon the pantheon of gods established by the Sumerian religion, and Sumer was the First Civilization.
            Now, you get to decide which religion is best, which builds the strongest and most enduring civilization, etc. etc. (for example, when studying the various religions which have existed in the past, Christianity is FAR from the worst one) – but that there has never been a civilization based upon Atheism is a SCIENTIFIC FACT, fer cryin’ out loud! If I could claw the eyeballs out of every atheist who claims to believe in “science” while denying the Anthropologically scientific FACT of religion being universal to human civilization…. ARGH! Atheists certainly DON’T adhere to science because of this simple, recurring denial of scientific fucking fact! Get with the program!
            And, btw, I am NOT a self-identified Christian – I am just tired of this stupid fucking Atheist argument from self proclaimed science believers. Thomas Jefferson wasn’t a Christian either, you know, yet agreed that the constitution should be written in tandem with the Christian faith… ever ask yourself why he thought that?

         5. I would estimate that maximum 20-25% of our civilization has elements of the Greco-Roman heritage. Not more.
            Notable law, philosophy and some art, especially sculptures. The rest is originally from the Christian civilization.
            If you disagree, give examples and explain why.

         6. This is such a non-argument. Other than Law, culture etc what else is there? You telle what christianity brought other than stability (through the subordination of man under god)

         7. You speak like a moron. The English have common law, heavily influenced by Christianity. The German part of Europe, however, have an old-German (Christian) and Roman foundation for the law. Culpa is for example from Rome. But very much of the Roman law is ditched. All these formulas to learn by hearth to present a case etc.
            Christianity have a linear understanding of time (In the beginning God created…) and that we can find God in nature, and that God is a maker of natural laws and keeps them in place. Thus everything you need for empirical science. Thus modern science (with experiments in contrast to Greek/socrates scinence (mainly logic and thinking)), was birthed in Christendom and not China.
            I could go on and on. For you to say that nearly everything in the European civilization is more or less solely from our Greco-Roman heritage, is pure rubbish.

         8. Lol!
            Did you actually think about what you just asked?
            “Aside from refraining from living as animals and instead creating a civilization that endures, what point is there to Christianity?”
            This is exactly why Atheists should be mocked. Fucking retards. I’d rather live in a civilization any day, rather than by “might is right”, as animals do. Make no mistake, with everyone establishing their own morality, all that is left is “might is right.” Or, animal living.
            Are you certifiably this fucking stupid, or did atheist inspired education make you so?

         9. Typical nonesensical response from a religious fanatic.
            You guys seriously overrate Christo’s influence on European civilization.
            European civilization pretty much follows this order with a continuous development
            Indian>Iranian>Greek>Roman>Western European. These civilizations are all related with similarities in law, language, culture etc.
            Learn some real history and then come speak to me, not that semitic mumbo jumbo you find bible

         10. Yeah, right. Keep smoking that crack.
             Please name all the things that emigrated from Indian law to us. Name them and provide ample academic documentation. Please expose your vile and blind hatred for Christianity and absurd pseudo-academic lunacy.

         11. You can have a common moral system without believing in any deity.

         12. European civilization had and relied upon their gods and religions. Not only that – Socrates and Plato were inspired by Moses’ writings. Many of the Greek gods have parallels in Biblical characters, such as Heracles and Sampson.

         13. Christianity brought the scientific method. While the Socratic method may have been pagan (even though there is heavy influence from the Torah in Plato’s writings), the scientific method is distinctly Jewish/Christian in nature, as it comes from the processes in the Torah for the administration of justice and the determining of a valid prophet. Replace “suspect” and “prophet” with “idea” in the relevant areas in Deuteronomy, and you get the scientific method as it is known today.

         14. Not as objective morality. You can impose your own subjective morality on the society, but then you have a dictatorship, and there is a vast difference between agreed and imposed morality.
             The other alternative to imposed subjective morality is what we see from atheists today. My-truth and your-truth garbage. How can you build a civilization based upon that?
             Explain why you atheists never in the recorded history of mankind managed to create a society, not even a city, based on dysfunctional godhatred and godlessness.

      3. It’s never been the purpose of atheism to create societies. Atheism is a deeply personal idea. Atheism will always remain in the minority, because most people fear uncertainty and ambiguity so they need the crutch of a deity in order to not kill themselves out of despair.
         CHRISTIANITY DID NOT CREATE ANY CIVILIZATION. You think you can create a civilization with ideas like “put the other cheek”, “sell everything you have and give it to the poor” or “my kingdom is not of this world”? The civilization, ROME, had already been there for a long time. Christianity, considered an abhorrent cult by the Roman aristocrats (that is, the educated), spread within the Roman civilization like a cancer. Christianity clashed not with the Roman religion, which was basically a set of empty rituals and traditions, but with the driving philosophy of Rome: Stoicism. Out of this clash came something that didn’t resemble the original message of Jesus at all; a mongrel born out of political convenience, which adopted and adapted the forms and rituals of the Roman religion and borrowed heavily from Stoicism, and also provided justification for political and military actions that were in direct opposition to the teachings of Jesus. That is the Christianity we know today, the Christianity that Western Europe received.
         Now you know which religion can claim to have created a civilization? Islam. It spawned from nothing, among uneducated savages deep in the desert. It took a loose collection of polytheistic Arab tribes that warred each other and made them into an unstoppable force that managed to conquer much mightier kingdoms and spread over three continents in just a couple centuries. It provided a basis for a great civilization whose might just faded in the last century. And all the while it hasn’t changed one bit since the time it was conceived.

         1. Spoken like a true atheist psuedo-intellectual moron.
            //It’s never been the purpose of atheism to create societies. Atheism is a deeply personal idea.//
            So if I said hate, death and destruction never would create a civilization, you would counter that with great “arguments” like:
            1. It’s never been the purpose of hate, death and destruction to create societies
            2. hate, death and destruction is a deeply personal idea
            Are you able to see how stupid you “arguments” are?
            //Atheism will always remain in the minority, because most people fear uncertainty and ambiguity so they need the crutch of a deity in order to not kill themselves out of despair.//
            This is taken right out off your atheist ass, to desperately attempt to explain away why you hatefilled atheist apes with your my-truth and your-truth mentally garbage logically inherent within atheism, never could even sustain a village. Show me your documentation, atheist fool.
            You morons claim that atheism is the default position, and existed before religion, and now you must invent absurd theories why you atheist animals crashed in every attempt to build a society, despite being “free” from the burden of investing time and resources on religion and offering to the gods.
            Used as with Marxism, you must make up crazy theories to explain away your insanely failures in the real world, and why THIS time you shall make it.
            //CHRISTIANITY DID NOT CREATE ANY CIVILIZATION. You think you can create a civilization with ideas like “put the other cheek”,//
            Rubbish. Here are some elements explaining Christianity as a basis for society in contrast to the “we are just atheist animals” ideas from the atheist apes as a civilizational foundation:
            1. Objective morality and a common moral system.
            2. Persons adhere to this moral system without much policing, as they (rightfully) believe that they would be held accountable by God, even if they were not exposed as rapists, murderers, thiefs and liars here on earth.
            3. Christianity gives both rights and protections. Most famously found in the English common law and the American Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
            There are no such thing in atheism. There are nothing outside an atheist that have the ability to forcefully change his eagerness to kill, rape and murder, if he truly wants that.
            One example is freedom of speech. Jesus Christ never infringed on the freedom of Speech of anyone, He answered with silence or arguments. Thus freedom of speech is protected in Christianity.
            4.King David was rebuked by God/a prophet. Thus Kings are not above the common law.
            You will have examples like this all over the Bible that is the foundation of Christendom.
            You have nothing like that in atheism. And this is why now, in atheist/secular Europe, Geert Wilders was told by the judge that truth is not protected speech.That it was totally irrelevant of what he said was true or not, as long as it could lead to racism/cause harm against Muslims and humiliate Muslims.
            5. Christianity have a linear understanding of time (In the beginning God created…) and that we can find God in nature, and that God is a maker of natural laws and keeps them in place. Thus everything you need for empirical science. Thus modern science (with experiments in contrast to Greek/socrates scinence (mainly logic and thinking)), was birthed in Christendom and not China.
            I could go on and on. For you to say that nearly everything in the European civilization is more or less solely from our Greco-Roman heritage, is pure rubbish.
            //Out of this clash came something that didn’t resemble the original message of Jesus at all; a mongrel born out of political convenience//
            I am a devout Christian. Explain to me where my faith deviate from the early Church Fathers. Give examples from the Bible.
            //Now you know which religion can claim to have created a civilization? Islam.//
            Again a truly moronic statement. Islam only CRUSHED great civilizations. Like the Byzantine Empire, the Persian Empire and Egyptian Empire. All these great areas of magnificent civilizations turned into third world Islamic hell holes, never to rise again after they got the curse of muhammadism over them.
            Case in point. The Blue Mosque in Istanbul is SMALLER, MORE SIMPLE and UGLY compared the the Hagia Sofia. That means that EVEN 1 000 YEARS AFTER Hagia Sofia, the whole Ottoman empire could NOT EVEN MATCH the great Christian Byzantine Empire.
            What kind of delusional and ignorant hater are you? Atheist? Muslim or pagan?

   7. Yes, as concepts they are independent. In application though, the latter are informed by the former.

   8. It is completely independent from marxisms, socialisms and SJW American-produced crap.

      You couldn’t be more wrong. Western Atheism has it’s roots in Marxism. Research Antonio Gramsci and his “Passive revolution.” Then get back to me.

      1. In most of the cases, people (Europeans) become atheists by personal reflection after having found logical incongruities in the bible or other religious texts in front of scientific evidence. Our conclusion is that there is not enough evidence to support that a deity exists, or at least, that theists do a pretty bad job trying to convince us of such existence. Fuck Gramsci. I became an atheist by the age of 12-13 and had not even know what marxism was until I reached 18. Ideology that I immediately rejected, BTW.

         1. I became an atheist by the age of 12-13 and had not even know what marxism was until I reached 18. Ideology that I immediately rejected, BTW.

            You really should research Gramsci and Rudi Dutschke for that matter…or you could not. Either way, I respect your religion but it isn’t by accident that you became an Atheist before you had even completed puberty. We are effected by their environment, after all. Your atheism has more to do with social engineering on a granular level, than actual enlightenment.

2. Christianity may not be an enemy to the red pill but it is an insult to my intelligence. Reading the bible alone, trying to make any sense of it is just impossible.

   1. A insult to your intelligence? You must be above Isaac Newton who believed in it whole heartedly. But you are not huh? I mean how are you going to change our world the way he did?

      1. Yes an insult. And who cares what God he believed in? What does that have to do anything?

         1. You say it is an insult to your intelligence, which is infinitely inferior to someone like Mendel, Newton, Louis, Mozart. They were all far greater minds than we could ever hope to be, so why is it not insulting to their intelligence, but it is to yours?

         2. Oh gee, I guess we should be thankful he didn’t believe in Zeus or Cronus. That’s the real nonsense.

         3. What’s nonsense is being a hipster little prick who feels the need to shit on other people’s belief systems. If you have to hate on everything other than the ‘enlightened’ belief system you subscribe to then you’re defunct as a rational individual.

         4. Oh you poor thing. Nothing says red pill like crying because someone said your God is phony.

         5. I’d have said the same thing if you made a sweeping statement about a burger. The last bastion of any idiot is to pretend he’s emotionally upset you. Try harder.

         6. Which I never said but the reactions I’ve got make it seem like I’m driving the street screaming “fuck Christianity.”

         7. What reactions were you expecting? The book blatantly isn’t that complicated, plenty of people have learnt plenty of lessons from it whether invented or interpreted. You’re boasting about your intelligence and insulting a religious tome in the same sentence. Doesn’t take omniscience to figure out the likely responses to that.

         8. If your beliefs are so fragile that the slightest little opinion turns you into a school girl, then you may need to rethink those beliefs.

         9. I don’t believe in Christianity.

         10. Whether you do or don’t doesn’t matter. Take that advice for wherever it may apply.

         11. You’re gonna cut your hands clutching at straws that hard, friend. This really is as simple as me thinking you’re a dumb fuck and calling you out on that. Still, thanks for the advice.

         12. Well don’t start calling me names, I may just start crying.

         13. Yet Christians aren’t the ones that automatically blast people like you for their beliefs with insults.

         14. Riiiiiiiiiight.

      2. Not sure why that point would count in the favor of Christianity. Newton did believe it, but was a hardcore heretic.

   2. Why must it be true to be good?

   3. The fact that you can’t understand a book is the only
      insult to your intelligence here. Or, rather, an openly admitted failing.

      1. Oh, I understand it alright.

   4. Atheism is an insult to your humanity. Either one does not believe it in practice, or they have to admit to creating their own complex illusions and delusions to get through life. Or they could just be a nihilist.

   5. yea, I mean.. the whole thing is built on this resurrection thingie:
      -if you believe it, you are irrational and crazy probably.
      -if you don’t, well, this whole system is built on a lie. How can you trust it.
      Take your pick (if you are Christian)!

   6. Unless you have read at least 1000 pages within systematic theology, you are in no position to judge the Bible intellectually.
      If you truly believe you have understand the Bible, then I will be more than happy to test your knowledge.

   7. My IQ is far above Mensa entry level. I am a firm believer in Christianity.
      Please present your arguments, based on facts and logic, that Christianity is an insult to your intelligence.
      Good luck.

   8. 1. “I can’t explain it so therefore God it.”
         Also, it seems more likely that this bit was poking fun at creationist, no?

         1. http://www.quickmeme.com/img/6f/6fa56c8b0bc935735d0745d95652f44b80c6420d6c1bc2c1cc84259e18f2b54d.jpg

         2. Tell me more.

3. All forms of monotheistic religions encourage the conformity of the mind and spirit to a set of codified beliefs that are not open to rational enquiry. Islam is an extreme form of this type of mentality i.e brain washing. Christianity on the other hand has compromised masculinity in many key ways, for example with its emphasis on pity and sympathy- during though times in my life, the last thing I want is peoples’ pity and sympathy and as for turning the other cheek, I find that quite offensive, and goes against ever notion of natural justice.
   You should also remember that Judaism and Christianity gave birth to both Marxism and feminism by default. When you examine the pre-christian ancient world, you will find that it had a far stronger and healthier culture then the monotheistic religions which introduced a darkness, which is still growing, into the world.

   1. Did you even read the article? He presents factual, reasoned counterpoints to everything you just said here.

      1. No he doesn’t. Why and how did these middle eastern religions, ever, ever take root in northern European, I’ll never no. Read, the Bible, it relates to Jewish tribes quarreling among themselves, it’s alien to the original myths and cultures of northern Europe. How can these religions speak any truth to me? It amazes me to see Americans in the southern states who worship a God and a religion utterly alien to them. It’s actually almost amusing how people throughout history have been doped by this.
         Marxism and the plethora of all left wing ideologies are largely ascribable (for good or ill) to Jews and Judaism. But, lets not crudely keep blaming them- the point I’m making is that Christianity and Judaism are completely irrelevant to being a self fulfilled man. To me there is always something suspect about people who are defined by their faith- life is not that simple and I’d rather have “doubt” than false faith.

         1. “…I’d rather have “doubt” than false faith.”

         2. Ah, but what about doubting your doubts?

   2. Christianity and Judaism did not give birth to what you mention. It introduced a darkness? Do you know how good the United States was before they kicked God out of the public arena and declared him an enemy? No no sir, it is the further we move away from God that make us more and more evil.

   3. How in the world did Christianity give birth to feminism and Marxism?
      Feminism demands that women hold power over men, and that her needs are first. Christianity says that God is first and encourages a traditional un-feminism way of life. Where the man is the head or authority of both the home and church.
      Christianity gave birth to Marxism? It’s not clear whether Marx was an atheist but he was very critical of religion and called it the “opium of the people.” His views on religion eventually leaked to Lenin who was staunchly atheist, which helped lead to Communism and the government as the supreme being in the USSR. We can all tell how well that went…

      1. Yeah. We’re going to have to remember that feminists HATE Christianity with a passion. The verses the author wrote in the article make that very clear if you ask me.

         1. I’m kinda surprised that feminists don’t pull out a Sharpie and start blackening out lines and verses in the Bible like what lawyers and governments do to secret documents released to the public.

         2. They did:
            https://archive.org/stream/thewomansbible0980gut/wbibl10.txt

         3. Feminists hate Christianity for the same reason that Catholics hated Protestants; different sects of the same basic ideology.

         4. Yeah right. Any other half-assed assertion genius?

      2. Feminism and marxism are inspired by certain aspects of christianity, but both are a kind of Christianity stripped of all of its nobility and nuance and boiled down core of pure slave morality.

         1. this…and all three jewisms take advantage of European people’s innate sense of kindness and fairness, borne of ice age social evolution the rats never experienced.

   4. When you examine the pre-christian ancient world, you will find that it
      had a far stronger and healthier culture then the monotheistic religions
      which introduced a darkness, which is still growing, into the world.

      Yeah, so healthy that it crumbled to dust and its people resorted to Christianity as the only thing that indeed saved them from the Darkness.

      1. How do you explain the Dark Ages? How do you explain the hell hole that is Mexico, which is strongly Catholic?

         1. A “dark age” where slavery was banned, Universities arose and knowledge was preserved in the Middle of the Vikings age where these “gentlemen” used books as fuel for bonfires.
            If anyone is responsible for the Dark Ages look no further than to the Muslim boys who spent almost a millennium in war and blocked the trade in the Mediterranean, hence no papyrus and limited to no media. Besides, Mexico, even though is ever more pagan (what kind of “catholic” worships the “Santa Muerte”) is a lot better than before the Conquest so it´s not so bad.

      2. The weakness and decay only happened oddly enough after Constantine the Great adopted Christianity as the official religion of the Roman Empire in 330 AD. Christianity started as a cult religion that was meant for the ears of other Jews…in then grew into the monstrosity that we see today.
         Without Christianity the west would probably be 1000 years ahead of where it is now…ironically we now have another cult for the house of Abraham (Islam) that wants to drag us all back into the dark ages once more.

   5. I dunno man, does buttfucking little boys in orgies count towards a healthy culture?

      1. I presume you’re talking about the Catholic Church?

4. Huh?
   Religion is PRO white-knight, PRO blue-pill, PRO put-women-on-a-pedestal, PRO get married, PRO gynocentrism, PRO be-a-nice-guy.
   Seems religion has very little in common with the manosphere/red pill community.
   There’s a reason for the “born again christian virgin” stereo-type. These used up/single mom women suddenly start attending church in their late 20’s because they know religious men are suckers.

   1. Christianity pro white knight? Rofl, so much fail, that or you are trolling.

      1. No trolling, religious guys are often among the first to try to excuse female behavior or fall for the crocodile tears. I’ve seen it a number of times, an obvious bad apple turns on the crocodile tears and the religious dudes “swoop” in to comfort her or attack the “offender” male.
         Lots of “man up” shaming seems to originate from religious types as well.

         1. They are not real Bible followers, they are bought into a social gospel with no power in it.

         2. Exactly. Most of my family members are Christians and they all have that mentality. Not all that red pill if you ask me.

         3. They’re mixing Christianity with the PC cult. Kind of like a parasite infecting its host.

         4. Christianity is to the PC cult as a stupid, spoiled mother is to a slutty daughter.

      2. Lol a few months ago I learnt a from my family how a member in their congeration (Jehovahs witness) wife up a single mom.
         Their minds are so brainwashed and sex deprived into their late 20s and 30s. I mean ignorance is bliss, so that’s why they must be so happy to get locked down by the first stank pussy coming their way.
         I bet if I put a young tight “worldy” hottie on their lap they would but their nut and kill themselves in shame.

         1. I’ve seen a similar incident.
            Several years ago I briefly knew a 28 year old guy, he was a straight shooter, well-built, and Christian. He had returned to school around 25 and was just wrapping up his second degree.
            I ran into him around 8 months later, asked him how he was doing etc. Turns out he had a fiance and was getting married soon. It turns out she was 32 and already had a kid from a previous father. I met her a few weeks later and wasn’t impressed, she looked rather frumpy and had a perma-scowl.
            Anyways, he moved out of state for a job and I never heard from him again.
            These religious guys are often quite thirsty despite having other areas of their life locked down, and sadly this makes them prime targets for post-wall women and single mums.

         2. What’s funny is that I mentioned to my 2 sisters and mom and they flipped out on me, defending the girl and praying the guy.
            However I wonder if they would work to support another a single father and his child.

         3. Yep, it’s “always” the man’s fault and the girl is the “helpless innocent angel”.
            Where have we heard that before?

         4. As s previous poster said, it’s pathological altruism.

         5. JW’s are not Christian.

   2. It’s become that way because it’s been infected by the PC heathens/terrorists.

      1. It is what it is now. What it used to be and what you would prefer it to be is irrelevant. If you are a christian today you are one of them to anyone who doesn’t personally know you and you strengthen their cause.

5. “Women are not expected to be men’s slaves, walk whatever amount of paces behind men”
   Well, women sure have had no qualms about doing it to us. Maybe they need a taste of their own medicine as a wake up call?

6. Faith is strength. Doubt is weakness. If you believe that God will give you everything you need, you will never be like these pathetic nihilistic fools.
   If you do not believe in God because you do not think it is rational, you have a different belief at the center of your life. Your belief is that it is most important to be rational in all things. Well, there is a place for you with the Objectivists. It is a futile quest.
   Consider that Christianity built the West and that it has worked for over a thousand years. If you consider yourself a Conservative, this should be the last tradition or belief you think about throwing out. It should not be done lightly.
   Most Churches have changed but the Bible has not. Read it.

   1. christianity didn’t build the west, White men did. Not much of value in that semitic book of fairytales.

      1. Deadass. I like that.

      2. A story doesn’t have to be true to be useful and instructive.

      3. Of course white men did. These same white men were Christian, not Islamic or Atheist.

   2. Actually, faith and doubt are not mutually exclusive; they work together. When faced with doubt within, people tend to seek faith from an external source, which is where religion comes in.
      “Consider that Christianity built the West and that it has worked for over a thousand years.”
      It really depends what you mean by “worked.” Egypt worked much longer than Christianity with their polytheism and Chinese civilization also lasted thousands of years without worshiping a deity.

      1. True, but Christianity is still going, unlike Egyptian polytheism. Hopefully, still going strong. The Chinese on the other hand have hardly advanced as far as the West. We could say they haven’t become as degenerate either, but it is success that provides the opportunity for degeneracy.

   3. The Roman Empire built the West. Christianity infiltrated it.

      1. This article should be retitled “How the Redpill Community can use Christianity to Our Advantage” It can be leveraged the same way the Romans leveraged it. Christianity itself is neither pro-masculine nor anti-masculine. If one looks, one can find aspects of both. But we CAN use religion in general and Christianity specifically to help create a better society.

7. There needs to be an article titled ‘Why Atheism is not an enemy of Neomasculinity’ instead.
   I’m not against Christianity per se, and there are many christian men from history that I admire, but this inane attack on atheists within ROK and the manosphere needs to stop. Just because I don’t believe and worship a deity, it doesn’t make me a hipster, leftist, or a homosexual. Stop grouping us with the progressives and SJWs, we’re not the same as them. As if we don’t have enough enemies already, this bullshit schism is causing an internal strife in an already marginal group.

   1. Tell you what. I don’t have a problem with Atheists or Christians. Let’s just fight this PC monster together and destroy it before it destroys us all. Agreed?

      1. Exactly, that’s all I ask for.

         1. Yes. Then we’ll argue about religion vs atheism, later. 😛
            Besides, we both have MUCH bigger fish to fry at this point than this one disagreement. I’m with you on that Skoll.

   2. Exactly. I’ve already stated I’m not a Christian nor an Atheist but I don’t have a problem with either. They’re not the enemy.

   3. Atheism is a plague, Dyou know what would happen if we had atheism for everyone? Life would cease to exist very shortly. When every person does what is right in their own eyes, only evil will come of it. You become your own judge, and no judge will ever sentence himself.

      1. Basically, I view it this way: let’s set our differences aside, and deal with the problems of feminism. If we want to fight each other about religion vs secularism, let us at least make sure we’ve saved ourselves from the pains of Marxism. Of course, it would be best if we just separated into different countries and didn’t have to deal with each other for anything other than trade.

   4. I agree that atheists are not the problem, but the author is clear on the “militant atheism” that actively seeks the destruction of religion AS a problem. Which it is. Have you ever wandered to Reddit Atheism? It’s a breeding ground of SJW and propaganda that vehemently mocks Christianity. I don’t think the article is about atheist in general, but those actively trying to undermine Christianity as a acceptable way of life.
      At the end of the day, if a red pill atheist and a red pill Christian were in the room together, I can bet that the only big difference that they would have is the idea of the existence of God.

      1. A lot of implications flow from those positions which would lead to heated bickering about the details.

         1. Yes, but the re-pill atheist and the red-pill Christian would be able to have far more intelligent and enriching debates than, say… an SJW-atheist vs. anyone else.

         2. lol this is so true!!

      2. So what is the problem with “militant atheism”? There’s already militant Christianism and militant Islam. They both at some point have persecuted and sought the destruction of atheists (and all heretic/dissenting thought). They both want to convert everybody through various degrees of force (from the “knock, knock, gospel in your face” tactic to the “submit or die” tactic). Why aren’t atheists allowed to spread their ideas as well?

         1. Never said we should have militant Christianity, whatever that means. And I definitely don’t think militant Islam, and flying planes into buildings is an acceptable way of life.
            Defining militant Christianity with witch burnings that happened over 400 years ago doesn’t really negate the fact that Christianity has been the biggest foundation of the Western world for over a millennium, which would include the most advanced nations, and our democracy.
            If a “militant Christian” were doing a witch burning today, then it’s quite clear they are not a real Christian, and do not understand the gospel. Not trying to get preachy here, but the Catholics and Protestants in Ireland blowing each other up, is not a demonstration in real Christianity. My point being: There’s an actual guide (The Bible) that has allowed Christianity to not only flourish, but to adhere to a set of moral principals, which does not include blowing each other up.
            However, looking at “militant atheism” and you can see it’s rap sheet does not include the foundation of Western civilization, but only regression and disarray. Both major cases of a nation exterminating religion completely were the former USSR and China. The result? It wasn’t pretty, and it certainly didn’t help human flourishing, as millions perished. You see, there is no guide pertaining to “militant atheism” there are no founding principles, or tenets or doctrines, which is fine. However, in replace of guides, we have groups over at the subreddit/Atheism, that expounds the destruction of religion, the destruction of the traditional family, the rise of feminist thought, and the breeding ground of SJW. BECAUSE they KNOW that Christians are against that. So whatever Christians are against, they’re for.. strongly, and with malicious intent.
            Again, it goes back to where you’re getting your sources from. What I like about RoK and the Red Pill is it allows different groups of men to come together and have a common idea regardless of creed. However, you don’t see modern Christians supporting the destruction of the traditional family. What you do see is “militant atheism” over at Reddit that DO support that. Which is exactly the point of this article.

         2. What do I care about militant Christianity or Islam (which isn’t necessarily about crashing onto buildings, btw)? I’m a tolerant person and my worldview has place enough for militant Christians and Muslims to live their lives how they damn well please. I’m all for militant any religion AS LONG AS they can’t rule over me. But religious people cannot tolerate other ways of life for much long and they’ll eventually seek to co-opt political power to impose their worldviews. That’s when things get messy.
            You say that Christianity is not about witch burning (never said it is, btw) but what’s in the gospel. And then you say Christianity has been the foundation of the Western world for over a millennium: Do you see your own contradiction? Here’s the kind of religion that has been the foundation of the Western world for over a millennium:
            -The kind that called for the persecution of and genocide against all sorts of ethnic and religious groups, including Christians.
            -The kind that stood on the side of and promised the support of god to every warring faction in all of the many wars between European countries.
            -The kind that provided religious arguments for warfare against other civilizations.
            -The kind that justified the forced conversion, oppression and annihilation of countless non-Europeans in order to “save their souls”.
            -The kind that justified the enslaving of millions of Africans with misled biblical interpretations.
            That’s not the same religion of Jesus Christ, who clearly said “my kingdom is not of this world”. The West was not based upon the exercise of religious virtues and moral excellence like you’d have us believe, but upon brute force, like every other civilization. Western power was not based upon the bible. You can’t achieve the mighty West by following the teachings of Jesus Christ, so don’t equate Christianity and the West.
            Again with that USSR and China bullshit? It was their political system, not atheism, what caused the atrocities of the Communists. The Communists weren’t militant atheists, they just didn’t want any potential competition to their political power -and their biggest competition, at least in the beginning, was religion. That’s why after they dismantled religion they went for non-Communist ideologies and then they went for rival Communist branches. In fact, Stalin and Mao persecuted far more political dissenters, who were atheists (and even fellow Communists), than religious persons.
            Atheism is only a philosophical position which implies no action whatsoever. Atheism does not imply the destruction or anything or the rise of anything. Seeking the destruction of religion is something beyond atheism. Besides, many religions already expound the destruction of other religions, so you don’t need atheism for that.
            Moral values and the traditional family predate Christianity by a long, long time, so don’t talk as if Christians invented it.

   5. The difference is that while there is not an attack on atheism in general society, there is an attack on traditional Christianity and it’s values.
      Furthermore, this article is not attacking atheists, it is defending traditional Christianity against those who seek to tear it down, including those who condemn it altogether, and those who seek to water it down into SJW bs.
      The positions are as follows:
      (1) traditional Christians tend to be red pill and support proper values
      (2) newer leftist “Christians” tend to be the subject of propaganda, and reject Biblical teachings in favor of SJW bs
      (3) atheism in general is not necessarily pro- or anti- manosphere, it just means a person doesn’t believe in God
      (4) “militant atheism” which is the effort by certain leftist atheists to destroy the “oppressive” Christian roots of Western civilization, is inherently destructive

      1. My original comment was directed at certain elements here in the manosphere who are hostile to atheists, not the article itself.
         As for your points:
         (1) Anything traditional tend to be red pill regardless of Christianity. I just don’t buy this imaginary link between RedPill and Christianity. I see them as two separate and independent entities.
         (2) I agree. In my observation, modern Christianity is more fluid and tends to take the shape of the society it belongs in. It just goes on to prove my point from #1 that religion and social values are two different things.
         (3) Again, I agree. Just as religion is a separate entity from RedPill it’s the same for atheism.
         (4) Well, this is where we have our differences. I just don’t see any “militant atheism” destroying Christian roots of Western civilization. Even if it was true, progressivism will continue spreading regardless of Christianity. That is, unless you want a theocracy to enforce traditional Christian values. To use another example, churches today are more tolerant of gays than the Soviet Union back in the day. What does that tell you?
         The way I see it, saying leftist atheism is destroying traditional Christian values is like saying sharks only bite you when you’re wet.

         1. I agree that Christianity is relatively fluid when it comes to social values, but I still think of it as overall beneficial because even feminized churches promote the family (if not the patriarchy) and rejection of materialism (which causes social decay), and is helpful in dealing with addiction, increasing happiness, and other psychological benefits.
            When I reference about militant atheism, I am talking about people like Richard Dawkins who seek to spread atheism, which I view as generally harmful.
            See this for example:
            “Some 51 percent of atheists and those described as agnostic told Pew that they are liberal, with 32 percent moderate and 13 percent conservative.”
            (http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/majority-of-atheists-are-liberal/article/2510230)

         2. As an agnostic, it saddens me to see those numbers.

         3. To a non believer of christianity, it may be unreasonable to believe that Christianity and RedPill are linked.
            But to a christian, Christianity is itself the true and only RedPill that exists, that comes to masculinity and everything in life and death.
            I’m not trying to convince you to convert or anything, I’m just clarifying why christian people tend to say things that sounds intolerant to non believers. Actually, christians have to act tolerant in order to properly deal relationships with non believers, but the Word itself is not tolerant at all, it’s objective in say that this is the only truth.

      2. There’s no such thing as an attack on traditional Christianity and its values. Traditional Christianity is fine and dandy. A considerable majority of the population in the West is still Christian and almost everybody in the world is a member of some religion. In fact, atheists amount to any noticeable proportion of the population only in a handful of countries, like UK, France, Germany, the Scandinavians and Japan, which also happen to be the most educated, developed and prosperous, mind you.
         There’s no such thing as militant atheism. Whatever degree of exposure atheism has achieved pales absolutely in comparison with Christianity’s. In order to learn about atheism, you have to search for atheist information sources yourself. In order to learn about Christianity, you just have to stand somewhere in the open and sooner or later a Christian will come to teach you about Jesus.

   6. I do agree. No enemies on the right and all that

   7. Sorry but Western atheism is an extension of Marxism. A vast majority of atheists are leftists, a vast majority of atheists favor leftist policies and a vast majority of atheists work to tear down Western religions and tradition with the same enthusiasm as feminists, who undermine the masculinity of our civilization.
      This is a game of averages, not absolutes. Don’t take it personal.

      1. No. Western atheism predates Marxism by centuries.

         1. No.

         2. Well Western paganism certainly does!

      2. Wow! Well put. Couldn’t agree more. It is what it is.

   8. I’m not a Christian either, but I do support Christian ideals. I agree with all the points brought up in this article, I just don’t think a guy put two of every animal EVER on a giant boat that he built by himself. However, every religion or theory is really stupid when you think about it.

   9. ” but this inane attack on atheists within ROK and the manosphere needs to stop.”
      The thing is, you may be one of these enlightened atheists that can co exist with people of a pious persuasion, but recent history has shown that there are more of the militant type of “antitheist” atheist than people like you.
      You see them all the time…anytime an ROK article praising faith is published, they swarm out of the woodwork to attack with insults to faith and those who are faithful.
      There are more anti faith examples in the US, as collectively embodied through the “Freedom from Religious Freedom Foundation” and personally represented by Richard Dawkins. These two are the best symbols of antichristian sentiment here, along with the odious president obama. Christians in the US are on defense from other Americans and non americans, and ROK blue pill atheist attacks against ROK members of faith is a reflection of that.
      Atheism per se doesn’t necessarily have to be against neomasculinity, but it’s not exactly its friend either. Christian religion has more in common with neomasculinity, because the Alpha male tendencies expressed in the bible were the first and best example of a fully functional and prosperous Patriarchy. When the US stopped following that example, it gave rise to the motley crew of social disorders we are dealing with now: lawless children, abortion on demand, uppity females, homosexual deviancy, and so forth. What has atheism done to combat that? Nothing. In fact, one could argue that it’s done nothing but support these things.
      The war on Men is therefore the war on faith; the two are intertwined there. The rise of atheism has not so coincidentally occurred with the rise of antichristian militancy, as the progressive left has used the first to attack the Christian faith in order to wean Americans off of a devotion to something (Someone) greater than themselves, through a promotion of intellectual narcissism, hubris, and theophobic banality. As i said you may be the exception (to all that) but quite a few of your less than civilized friends on here are clearly not.
      I mean no offense, but history is as i have spoken it.

      1. The war on men and the war on faith are not intertwined. That’s just meaningless, grandiose-sounding drivel.
         There’s no war on Christianity by “militant atheists”. It’s just that finally, since very recently in history, atheists are allowed to publish their ideas freely and the religious are alarmed because they aren’t used to hear the other party talk. Christians are not on the defense. they’re still the overwhelming majority and they get away with things non-believers would never dream of. Christians have been broadcasting their negative opinions of non-belief for millennia, so it’s only fair that non-believers can now express their negative opinions about Christianity.
         Unless you mean to say that only Christians can express their opinions. You know what? C’mon, say it already. Don’t be beating around the bush. Life would be much easier if Christians came clean and said what they really think: that they want a world where only they can have opinions and no lifestyle but theirs is allowed, just like in the past. At least that way we know where we stand.

         1. That is your pedestrian drivel that considers it so. Unless you can provide something more tangible than ipse dixit remarks, the most you can offer here is a difference of opinion, nothing more.
            Your nonsense is invalidated all the more easily when one bothers to actually look at what the FFRFF and Dawkins themselves advocate for: the complete “separation of church and state” despite the fact that
            A: There was no literal SOCAS expressed or insinuated in the Constitution
            B: Jefferson (the one who coined the statement) used it as a means of defending faith from government, as expressed in his letter of support to the Danbury Baptist Association.
            As far as you and your “Christians are not on the defense” perhaps you should do better research and educate yourself on the kind of militancy they represent…or maybe you’re ok with firing a football chaplain because he GASP tends to talk about God to inspire the team?
            Or maybe you are aware, and you simply don’t care about these unconstitutional fascist maneuvers by fellow secular militants…is that more accurate to say?
            http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/aug/22/freedom-from-religion-foundation-demands-universit/
            “Christians have been broadcasting their negative opinions of non-belief for millennia, so it’s only fair that non-believers can now express their negative opinions about Christianity.”
            Ahh yes, the “it’s time for some sweet revenge!” compos mentis remark…how very inspiring! Will you go so far as to call for an inquisition of Christians to include execution? Or is the legal persecution example of Kim Davis in Kentucky sufficient enough to satisfy your thirst for revenge?
            I believe in free speech, for pious and secular alike. The same cannot be said of you, since you foolishly seem to think that in the US we are not operating under a very real and very unconstitutional silencing of free speech, with the fascist obama not coincidentally being the conductor in chief behind it.
            Pathos on you “friend” but i do thank you for proving my opening remark here.

         2. Really: expressing negative opinions about something is revenge? Extremism and trying to distort my argument much? Hell, if secularists were to take revenge in kind, there would be burning Christians at the stake, torturing of Christians, laying of Christians on the rack, beheading of Christians, hanging of Christians, dispossession of Christians, arbitrary jailing of Christians, you name it. This persecution of Christians exists only in your mind, just like “White genocide” only exists in the minds of the White supremacists. It’s hard for Christians to be the victim when they still hold the most influence in society.
            When I don’t have Christians knocking my door, when I don’t see any Christians handing out publications or loudspeaking on the streets, when I turn on the TV or the radio and there are no more Christian channels, when I don’t see a church of some sort every two blocks, when I don’t see that every other car has some Christian-related bumper sticker, when I can walk 5 minutes without being exposed to Christianity in some form… then I’ll start believing there’s a conspiracy to silence Christians. Meanwhile, get the hell out of there with your Christian persecution.

         3. I already quoted for you the part that indicated you were operating on a tit for tat approach, please don’t make me requote it. Lay off the Strawman while you’re at it.
            “Hell, if secularists were to take revenge in kind, there would be burning Christians at the stake, torturing of Christians, laying of Christians on the rack, beheading of Christians, hanging of Christians, dispossession of Christians, arbitrary jailing of Christians, you name it.”
            I’m sorry i didn’t realize Christianity itself is to blame for ALL forms of religious torturing ever initiated. Could you cite some historical examples or is passionate secular bloviation the most you can be bothered to offer here?
            “This persecution of Christians exists only in your mind, just like “White genocide” only exists in the minds of the White supremacists. It’s hard for Christians to be the victim when they still hold the most influence in society.”
            Sure it does, because i couldn’t cite for you ANY circumstances showing you that my point has merit, right? (ohh um wait!)
            I find it amusing that you are so quick to run off at the fingertips with EVERY SINGLE antichristian theophobic remark but you will hypocritically dismiss even a single instance of legitimate persecution against Christians..wow. Biased much?
            By the way, what “influence” do we have when obama himself has taken a hard line opposition to faith and shows it in most of his agenda? Your points such as they are, can only serve to inspire laughter for their sheer selective cherrypicking.
            “When I don’t have Christians knocking my door, when I don’t see any Christians handing out publications or loudspeaking on the streets, when I turn on the TV or the radio and there are no more Christian channels, when I don’t see a church of some sort every two blocks, when I don’t see that every other car has some Christian-related bumper sticker, when I can walk 5 minutes without being exposed to Christianity in some form… then I’ll start believing there’s a conspiracy to silence Christians. Meanwhile, get the hell out of there with your Christian persecution.”
            I’m sorry, you sound like you’ve got a serious persecution complex there friend. And you want to say that my remarks about Christian persection are imaginary? LOL
            How about this, why don’t YOU try moving to a place where there won’t be so many Christians around? Ever thought about that, fascist?
            Don’t like that there are so many Christians here? cool! GTFO then, otherwise quit your whining and deal with it. Bitching like a girl on her period won’t win you any favor on here most especially because this site detests manginas like you.

         4. Oh my! You compared me to a girl on her period, right in the middle of one of your long emotional tirades! That’s like the worse offense in high school. I’m clearly devastated. And then you called me “mangina”? You must be really mad! What’s next? You gonna call me a “cuckservative”?
            Why would I move? This is my fucking secular country and I’m not persecuted. Never said I am. I’m not about to fall in the same trap you do, claiming that I’m a victim of persecution just because people I don’t agree with are allowed to speak their minds. Even if the whole government here were Christians, I still wouldn’t say I’m persecuted… as long as there are laws to protect me from the overzealous. Besides, I have no problem with Christians at all. They’re decent people for the most part and arguing with them warms my heart. Christians are not a particular threat to my freedom, provided that they aren’t placed in positions of absolute political power over everybody else and given the means to impose their worldview through the force of the State (such a situation hasn’t ended well for non-Christians more than once in history). Is there criticism of Christianity? Do some people regard Christianity as stupid, outdated, meaningless, irrelevant and/or harmful ? Are there calls for the end of Christianity? HELL YEAH and there should be, as in a any society where people of different thoughts live together. Are Christians victims? Are they they the targets of systematic persecution? Are Christians consistently and completely silenced in society? HELL NO, not when everywhere you stick your nose there is some Christian reference. As I said, you’re just like the White supremacist who cries White genocide just because he lives in a society where a Black man is no longer lynched after fucking a White woman. Stop the tantrum.
            I think you might have too much time on your hands. That’s why you can reply to any comment on every article in a matter of minutes and always with a wall of text.

         5. You don’t have to claim it friend, the fact that you went on at length with your farcical “THERE’S CHRISTIANS EVERYWHERE!!” spiel tells me all i need to know about how you see us in the US and yourself in relative position.
            “Christians are not a particular threat to my freedom, provided that they aren’t placed in positions of absolute political power over everybody else and given the means to impose their worldview through the force of the State (such a situation hasn’t ended well for non-Christians more than once in history).”
            Well you can be glad you were born in recent years and not circa 1800’s colonial US…trust me when i say you would have HATED being alive back then 😉
            “HELL YEAH and there should be, as in a any society where people of different thoughts live together.”
            I don’t agree that there should be an automatic opposition to just about every ideology out there (would you say that about capitalism and the Constitution as well?) i will however agree that the circumstances behind a potential disagreement should always find an aegis within the fundamental laws of the US.
            Disagreement is like a blossom in the garden of ideas that benefits the bouquet of understanding one chooses to pick over the course of their life. That being said, i take the bulk of your remarks as weeds in that i’m seeing them all too often among the theophobic antitheists who want to claim that we are no different than muslim militants, for example.
            Past incidents of pious fanaticism aside (and you get no thanks for providing no specifics there) you would judge the Christian faith of today by the same standard of criticism you would use on those unchristian-like acts of those who professed to be considered Christian in the past. Your weight of measures is off, friend. I would defend a republic to include even someone so opposed to faith as you just as the FF’s would so long as your views never became part of the cultural or political hegemony…as i’m sure you likewise would feel about me.
            “Are Christians victims? Are they they the targets of systematic persecution Are Christians consistently and completely silenced in society??”
            Two words: Kim Davis. Two more words: Sweet cakes.
            “As I said, you’re just like the White supremacist who cries White genocide just because he lives in a society where a Black man is no longer lynched after fucking a White woman. Stop the tantrum.”
            Ad absurdum remark. There are feigned persecutions (like your unintentional one) and there are legitimate ones, such as the increasingly antichristian hostile atmosphere Christians began to experience under the obama regime. I could spend all day listing them but seriously, i doubt you would care. As it stands i gave you two references just now and i will wait with baited breath as you either choose to ignore them or dismiss them in some cliched manner.
            “I think you might have too much time on your hands. That’s why you can reply to any comment on every article in a matter of minutes and always with a wall of text.”
            Wrong again…i enjoy sparring on matters of intellectual consideration. It’s a particular passion of mine as both scholar and hobbyist.
            If anyone is to be judged on any kind of supremacy affiliation it should be you, more so through the emo inspired atheist rhetoric you’ve displayed thus far. :>)

         6. “I could spend all day listing them but seriously, i doubt you would care”
            At least you got this one right.
            You keep talking about Kim Davis, sweet cakes, the Obama regime, the Constitution, like I should care. Seems like you think I’m in the US. I’m not, never claimed to be, don’t know where you got that from. I’m a non-American discussing an issue on a global level and you keep coming with local examples which are also isolated incidents that in no way amount to the full-blown, all-fronts persecution you want to make out of it. You do know there’s a whole world outside the US, don’t you?
            Anyway, you shouldn’t be too concerned about the depraved secularist atheist heathens. Our numbers never grow that much, either by conversion (our ideas are grim and unattractive and lead to much more disagreement and uncertainty than your average churchgoer is willing to accept) or breeding (we use condoms, fuck our women in the ass and blow our loads anywhere but their pussies). The real risk for you Christians is the Muslims. Those fuckers are outbreeding you by the millions and sooner or later you’ll have to face each other because you’re both ideological absolutists so only one of you can be right.

         7. Well excuse me for considering you an American…won’t happen again.
            “You do know there’s a whole world outside the US, don’t you?”
            Absolutely. Would you like me to cite some links to Christians being persecuted in communist controlled places like China and North Korea?
            “The real risk for you Christians is the Muslims. Those fuckers are outbreeding you by the millions and sooner or later you’ll have to face each other because you’re both ideological absolutists so only one of you can be right.”
            Well now, here’s something we can agree with. And you might find it interesting to know that muslims are a threat to you as well…heathens are generally regarded as worthy of death under Islamic law as i will demonstrate in a later link.
            http://www.thewire.com/global/2013/12/13-countries-where-atheism-punishable-death/355961/
            Just so you know, i’d stand with you against islamofascists even if it meant you stood against me on faith. Perhaps that should put things in better perspective regarding the “enemy” of Christianity.

         8. “Would you like me to cite some links to Christians being persecuted in communist controlled places like China and North Korea?”.
            Only because you cited one link about the persecution of atheists. But it won’t be me the one who starts the Victim Olympics. Just bear in mind that as a religious person you’re more likely to be harmed by another religious person than by an atheist and you’re by and
            large in more danger in a state co-opted by a rival religion than in a secular state.
            And the attacks on Dawkins… Dawkins of all! One of the few consistent public detractors of Feminism and victim politics in the scientific community, who has denounced the pernicious influence of postmodernism in science, has spoke out against “soft/social sciences” and whose major crime is to say things in a not very PC way… and I’m not even a Dawkins’ fanboy. The fact that Dawkins is attacked for saying about religion what religious leaders say every day about
            atheism goes to show how oblivious religious people are to their own bias. As much as Dawkins attacks Christianity, he is far less of a threat to Christianity than Christian leaders who ordain women, officiate gay weddings or endorse liberation theology.
            Of course I’d stand with you or anybody against Muslim extremists but when did I stand against you on faith? When did I say that Christianity is my enemy? Criticism, no matter how harsh, cannot be equated to a declaration of war.

         9. “Just bear in mind that as a religious person you’re more likely to be harmed by another religious person than by an atheist and you’re by and large in more danger in a state co-opted by a rival religion than in a secular state. ”
            That is an arguable point friend, especially given the historical record. I don’t recall China and Russia being under the control of islam.
            Furthermore there is no “victim olympics” going on here, unless of course you consider Christians being beheaded by muslims and persecuted by atheists an exercise in victimization sport. Would you have considered the Black civil rights movement and the Holocaust a victimization olympics as well?
            “One of the few consistent public detractors of Feminism and victim politics in the scientific community, who has denounced the pernicious influence of postmodernism in science, has spoke out against “soft/social sciences” and whose major crime is to say things in a not very PC way… and I’m not even a Dawkins’ fanboy. The fact that Dawkins is attacked for saying about religion what religious leaders say every day about atheism goes to show how oblivious religious people are to their own bias”
            Your extolling of Dawkins is premature and unwarranted, friend. Your atheist compatriots have criticized him for his own penchant for chronic fundamentalism, which he disguises under a veneer of scientific reason. Don’t take my word for it though…take it from Peter Higgs.
            http://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/dec/26/peter-higgs-richard-dawkins-fundamentalism
            “As much as Dawkins attacks Christianity, he is far less of a threat to Christianity than Christian leaders who ordain women, officiate gay weddings or endorse liberation theology.”
            Agreed. It’s nice when we agree, isn’t it?
            “Of course I’d stand with you or anybody against Muslim extremists but when did I stand against you on faith? When did I say that Christianity is my enemy? Criticism, no matter how harsh, cannot be equated to a declaration of war.”
            In an earlier spiel you ranted off about how you see Christians “everywhere” within the context of having to be exposed to Christianity, as if it was some social disease that causes you physiological sickness.
            You may not have used the words themselves, but you certainly implied their meaning.
            You also didn’t seem to mind the FFRFF using any and all measures to pressure the government into bullying Christianity out of an representation in government.

         10. Ah yes, the dead horse of China and Russia (and Nazi Germany, in some versions), also known as “the religious man’s pay gap”. It’s been explained and debunked so many times but, as the old saying goes “none so deaf as those who will not hear”. All I’ll add is Communism (a faith-based religion in itself) also persecuted, imprisoned and killed loads of political and intellectual dissenters, who were atheists and even fellow Communists. I as an individualistic pro-Capitalist Liberal would probably have shared the gulag with the religious. Anyway, I’ll agree to blame on atheism every crime ever committed by anyone who also happened to be an atheist if the religious agree to blame on religion every crime ever committed by anyone who also happened to be religious, even if neither religion nor atheism had anything to do with the commission of the crime.
             Yes, I’d have considered the Civil Rights movement and the Holocaust Victim Olympics as well if at that time Blacks and Jews had been the preeminent majority in the American and German societies, just like Christians are today in the West. It’s hard to sympathize with the claim of Christian persecution when Christians are still the majority, have all the channels to voice their opinions and hold most positions of power; when most politicians are Christian and in most Western countries Christian values (albeit watered-down) are still the cultural standard. Are they forcing Christians into ghettos? Are Christians segregated in public facilities? Are there “no Christians allowed” signs? Is there riot police beating and gassing Christian demonstrators in the streets? Are Christians second class citizens by law? Are they stripping Christians off their rights to life and liberty? They’re making things hard for Christians in some instances, like at some universities where you’ll be prevented from or castigated for talking about religion (which as a Liberal supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion I find unfortunate and unacceptable), but nothing as big as “persecution” yet, let alone at the level of the Civil Rights movement -and don’t even let me get started with the Holocaust.
             Higgs and Dawkins can fight each other as they please. It’s not like they’re my pastors or something. Is Dawkins a crass fundamentalist? Probably -though criticism against him mostly sounds like “it’s not what you say… but how you say it”. The thing is, he’s not worse than the angry, fist-shaking, shrieking imam or pastor who delights religious audiences with his colorful descriptions of non-believers rotting in hell and his wishing tragedy, disease and gruesome death upon atheists. And there are looots of those…
             As I said, Christian activities,as much as I may disagree with Christianity, don’t bother me in the least. My ideal world is large enough to fit everybody. But the fact can’t be denied that Christians are everywhere and, for better or worse, they’re often in your face. Good for you, I guess, since that means you’re doing your job, which is proselytizing. But don’t do it and then say you didn’t.
             We’re starting to repeat ourselves here and I gotta stick my nose in other threads. Whatever you say next is the last word in this discussion.

         11. “explained and debunked” except of course, where it should be explained and debunked…you know, like when you’re actually debating someone who disagrees.
             “All I’ll add is Communism (a faith-based religion in itself) also persecuted, imprisoned and killed loads of political and intellectual dissenters, who were atheists and even fellow Communists. I”
             Sure, under Hitler and the NAZIs…how often did his particular example happen again? Especially when you weigh the fact that Stalin and Mao murdered more people under atheism than Hitler could have dreamed of.
             ” I as an individualistic pro-Capitalist Liberal would probably have shared the gulag with the religious.”
             We might have been cellmates then, given that i would have been in there way before you 🙂
             “Anyway, I’ll agree to blame on atheism every crime ever committed by anyone who also happened to be an atheist if the religious agree to blame on religion every crime ever committed by anyone who also happened to be religious, even if neither religion nor atheism had anything to do with the commission of the crime.”
             Then we are in agreement, so long as the crimes committed by the “religion” were actually calling for those crimes within the contents of their tenets. 🙂
             “Yes, I’d have considered the Civil Rights movement and the Holocaust Victim Olympics as well if at that time Blacks and Jews had been the preeminent majority in the American and German societies, just like Christians are today in the West.”
             Blacks were predominantly Christian and Jews were predominantly people of faith…notice a trend?
             ” Are they forcing Christians into ghettos? Are Christians segregated in public facilities? Are there “no Christians allowed” signs? Is there riot police beating and gassing Christian demonstrators in the streets?”
             Not yet, but it’s coming. All you have to do is look around…it’s like the civil rights movement in reverse for Christians, in that we are losing more and more rights to disagree with populist beliefs.
             “re Christians second class citizens by law? Are they stripping Christians off their rights to life and liberty?”
             Yes and yes…Kim Davis and Sweet cakes by Melissa are just two examples.
             ” but nothing as big as “persecution” yet, let alone at the level of the Civil Rights movement -and don’t even let me get started with the Holocaust.”
             When it happens, will you help defend me from atheist militants as i would defend you from muslim militants trying to establish a religious caliphate here? Or will you simply shrug?
             “The thing is, he’s not worse than the angry, fist-shaking, shrieking imam or pastor who delights religious audiences with his colorful descriptions of non-believers rotting in hell and his wishing tragedy, disease and gruesome death upon atheists. And there are looots of those…”
             He is, since he is basing his views from a supposedly superior sense of secular understanding. Since we religious folks are “primitive” and “superstitious zealots” he should be setting the standard on how to operate especially within the confines of public discourse. If he can’t, then he is no better than “us”…right?
             By the way, when have i called for your death? Unless you mean the Westboro rogue nuts, most Christians i know or are aware of won’t do as you described here.
             “But the fact can’t be denied that Christians are everywhere and, for better or worse, they’re often in your face. Good for you, I guess, since that means you’re doing your job, which is proselytizing. But don’t do it and then say you didn’t.”
             I wouldn’t say everywhere, since that would imply we were the only faith out there. Perhaps you are mistaking them for muslims? They are as forceful as you described as a majority standard.
             “We’re starting to repeat ourselves here and I gotta stick my nose in other threads. Whatever you say next is the last word in this discussion.”
             Then let my last words be” we agree to disagree in a civilized fashion bereft of petty prejudice and the polemics that come with it.”

   10. Write it yourself! I’m sure RoK would have no problem publishing it.

   11. Well said. Religion has no supporting evidence for their magical claims, so it’s emotional thinking and inherently feminine. Man up and deal with things you know to be true vs relying on your feelings to tell you what feels good.
       More conservative atheists would be great. The SJW’s are promoting their SJW religion there as it’s a fertile recruiting ground. Ayn Rand was an atheist!

8. I think differently.
   In Christianity:
   -All men are equal (before God) and equal created (which leads to Egalitarism)
   -The strong focus of empathy, which creates pathological Altruism, which is glorified in the Saints. But there is a distiction between the Heroic and christian sacrifice.
   -The Churches itself are deeply feminized.
   -The concept of sin, which creates a suicidal, selfdestruction force.
   -The Anti-life message by living for the next life.
   -The Glorification of Weakness, Kindness, and Selfsacrifice as values, specially sacrifice not as an end to a mean, but for the sacrifice itself.

   1. “Egalitiarism”
      Which is nonsense.

   2. I definitely agree that churches today are deeply feminized. Most churches are filled with women being the largest groups of volunteers. However, you’ll notice that those churches are slowly dying.
      Look for the churches that have strong masculine men as the leaders and stick to the Bible, and I can guarantee you it’s growing rapidly.

      1. where?
         you mean Acts 29 etc
         their support for gender role reversal, and women do not sin logic
         proves they cater to feminists…
         lots of churches are growing
         does not make them redpill…

         1. I never said that growing churches are inherently red pill.
            Flatirons Community Church is one I know that actively stands against feminist teachings.
            However, even if there were NO churches that challenge women to submit to traditional gender rules as outlined in the Bible. That would not prove that Christianity is pro-feminism. It would mean it’s followers are not following the teachings of the Bible, which is clear that the man is the head of the church and home. That doesn’t inherently prove Christians are feminists, it means they’re being hypocritical in their beliefs.

         2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flatirons_Community_Church
            these guys?
            look at their staff
            women in Authority over men…
            recommend Tim Keller’s books on marriage ( where he endorses gender role reversal)

         3. I don’t see the problem. All of their lead pastors and elders are men. They actively teach traditional women’s roles in their sermons.
            Again, even if they didn’t and it was run by women Christian feminists and growing it still would not be inherently Christian.

         4. the have female pastors who obviously have authority over men
            and they tell their congregation to read books that say gender role reversal is fine….
            right…
            it is clear that now one of the fruits of being Christian is the eradication of the concept of male and female spheres/work ( aka misogyny)

         5. they have female pastors in authority over men
            and they teach their men to read Tim Keller on marriage
            he advocates for gender role reversal..

   3. Makes you wonder if maybe the bible was written by people with hostile intentions…

9. Survival of the fittest is reality.

   1. Survival of the fattest is modern reality.

10. I liked the section on “gender relations” (although I prefer the phrase “relations between the sexes”…)
    Many commenters will point out the obvious that many church going folks actually pedestalize women rather than de-pedestalize. They would be correct. But I don’t blame Christianity itself (as the Bible is FULL of red pill wisdom), I blame the PEOPLE who claim to be Christians yet have never even read and tried to comprehend the Bible.
    These are people who would be wise to remember the following words from Chapter 10, Verse 9 Revelation (KJV): “Take it, and eat it up; and it shall make thy belly bitter, but it shall be in thy mouth sweet as honey.”
    Folks LOVE to talk, most HATE to walk.

11. The only problem is most women are “just pretending” to be into religion, usually to snag a $ucker. There are women who take religion seriously, but they are vastly outnumbered by the pretender opportunists/predators.
    And then there’s the draconian laws currently on the books. You can be as religious as you want, but if she can have you thrown in jail merely on her word at any time, then she has the power. Period.
    A religious relationship can’t really exist in a Western country due to the huge power imbalance between the man and the woman, it may work in a third-world country though.

    1. Unless she is a true believer, and truly believes the husband is patriarch by the grace of God. There is no power imbalance larger than that between an omnipotent deity and, well, anyone else.

12. Strength is nice, but I am not a big fan of sacrifice.

13. I’m sure the SJW’s will be happy either way so long as you don’t call God a him.

14. A quick glance over the comments reveals the usual atheist crybabies stomping their feet.

    1. riiiiight.

15. So being a whiney MRA is now “neo-masculinity”? I don’t have enough of a victim complex for “neo-masculinity”, so I’ll just stick with classic masculinity.
    Anyway, I don’t see the need to believe in a personal god which there is no evidence for, but I don’t think Jesus encouraged people to fancy themselves as “kings” or to actively seek pity for their “plight” even if they are men.

    1. ‘So being a whiney MRA is now “neo-masculinity”?’
       MRA get result in the fight against feminism? What do you have against that?

       1. No. They don’t they are just losers who let Roosh tell them what to do.

          1. They get results.
             Paternety tests are mandatory in case of divorce in many states, French got parental leaves, etc.
             These guys get results in the real words and that’s the only thing that matters

16. The assertions made in the article are all true in certain contexts, but the same could be said of the opposite assertions. Christianity, like any other religion, is not inherently one thing nor the other. It is exactly what you make of it.
    You may believe your particular understanding of your religion is the True form of it and that any actions taken by people who don’t understand the religion like you do don’t count towards the historical record of your religion. But for everyone else, such a distinction is meaningless in every way that actually matters in the real world.

17. The dynamo was invented by a Benedictine priest.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%81nyos_Jedlik
    Priests and monks had a lot of free time on their hands. Guest how they spent that time? By doing math and science.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Roman_Catholic_cleric-scientists

    1. An incidental consequence of the fact that during the Middle Ages, the Church was the only place where literacy was the norm.

18. We cannot allow Religion nor anything other to divide us. Divided we fall gentlemen; the Progressives will win if we fight each other. You can be Athiest, Thiest, Religious or agnostic and still be free. Free from the Progressive dogma that sadly, at least 50% of the U.S and probably even more of Western of Europeans are enslaved by. We must stand together against the Marxist agenda; do not let personal beliefs derail us from our purpose.

19. It is not about religion or not religion. It is about the right religion.
    The danish vikings once ruled over england, norway, sweden and a bit of germany. What did they believe in? Did they believe in turning the other cheek, so that it may be slapped as well? Certainly not. It is said that they never turned away a traveler, but on the other hand they have been known to kill for an unkind word.
    They believed in courage. When Fenris refused to be chained unless someone place his hand in his jaw, Tyr stepped forward. They believed in strength, Thor was the protector of the realm of man and the strongest of the gods. Odin, the highest of the gods, was the god of wisdom.
    What do christians believe in? Be meek, and reap your reward after you die! No. We live, and then we die, and hopefully someone will remember us. But only if we are worth remembering.
    Christianity promotes weakness. Discard it. It is unbecoming of a man. Strength is all that matters, so be strong. With or without religion.

    1. The barbarians of yore were unable to develop a civilization. There are no cities north Central Europe older than 2000 years ago. While the Romans and Greeks were exploring the mysteries of the world, defining the standards in Culture, Engineering and Mathematics, the Celts were running naked with their bodies painted and Vikings were busy killing each other and wasting their potential in pointless fraticidal wars (for further proof: No ancient manuscript was left by the Vikings), only defeating the Roman empire when the Empire had done itself in (sounds familiar).
       The Truth is that Christianity is the only thing that determined the luck in favour of the West and prevented the Islamic/barbarian conquest (a tragedy that befell so many other civilizations) while preserving the knowledge of antiquity through the rise of a common conscience as one large community (Christendom). Heathens like you are the very expression of weakness and it’s logical that the last thing the Elites want is a revival of Classical Christianity (not the heretical faggotry we have to suffer every day).

       1. The vikings are only half as old as that. They had cities and a central government in those times, and enough social order to undertake great works of construction (for the time).
          The icelanders wrote things down. Not much for an entire civilization, but they did have writing. But writing is not what defines a functioning society. A healthy fertility rate (which requires strong men, as that is the only kind women want to have kids with) and being able to defend your territory (which again, requires strength – the sort of strength we lack today is mental strength, we refuse to keep people who are bad for our society out of it) is. Everything else is just noise. Even something as impressive as putting a man on the moon and returning him safely back home means nothing if, less than a century later, you lose your country. In this sense the middle eastern countries and even africa are more advanced as a culture than we are. The primary trait is survival, and we are being displaced in our own countries, by our own doing, willingly.
          The only thing we have over the old great cultures is technology. Culturally we are far behind.

    2. Modern pagan reconstruction is a classic example of our decline. It all just simulation, fakery. Growing civilisations create and appropriate..they do not play pretend. Heathenry is weakness.

20. Thank you very much Brian McGonagall for this article. You have told everything so clearly and precisely. No need for more words, only BRAVO.

21. 50% of religious christians are people who fucked up in the past (murderers, junkies, satanists…) and now they´re all shit scared of the wrath of Jesus and stuff.
    That´s not masculinity, that´s first class faggotry and femininity.

    1. More like “hypocrisy”.
       A lot of religious Christians swear, indulge in drugs, have extramarital affairs, etc. And of course, there are the carousel riders turned born-again Christians.
       Hypocrisy hypocrisy all around.

       1. Combine fag behaviour and female behaviour, what do you get? Epic hypocrisy.

          1. These religious types don’t even follow their religious texts or the bible.
             As strange and ironic as it sounds, it seems only the rag-heads or “sand niggers” are actually true to their faith. They seem to follow their ideology to the T, up to and including dying for their religion.

          2. Like christians a few centuries in the past. Only difference is that our church lost it´s power, therefore no more indoctrination and brain washing of the mob.

          3. Yeah, the “modern” church is a joke.
             Celebrates single moms, sermons on feminism, sermons on equality, sermons on leftism, sermons about SJW, sermons about homosexuality, hefty servings of man-shaming, promotion of beta/simp qualities, it has strayed so far from it’s original purpose that it’s barely recognizable.
             Who wants to waste gas and spend a few hours of precious time to get told your “bad” just because you are a man and why you should marry a single mom?
             Seems like a waste of time and gas nowadays.

          4. Nowadays people don´t go to church for their daily (or weekly) dose of indoctrination, they go to Youtube, Facebook, TV and university for their fine share of liberal propaganda.

          5. And they bring Youtube, Facebook, Twitter, etc with them even to the church, so they can continue “sinning” on their smartphones in private even while seated in the church.

    2. Can you show me some statistics for that? I would be rather surprised to find that half my Christian family is composed of former murderers and other unsavoury types.

       1. Just take a look inside prison. Death row is filled with “newborn christians”.
          They know death is coming soon and therefore shit their murderer pants in fear.
          Nutcases outside of prison are much harder to detect.
          Think about all the child molesting priests. All the public knows about are the ones who got caught but do you really think they actually have been the only ones doing this sick shit? Certainly not.

    3. Stupid comment. If you have something, a force, that can lift men out of total degradation and hedonism, with zero self-discipline, and turn them into productive citizens and good fathers for their children, then to call that “first class faggotry and femininity” is a clear sign that you have no idea what real masculinity is.
       Being a spoiled, weak psycho with rampant hedonism, faking a tough guy persona, is not being a man. Sorry.
       And you are no Viking. I am a Norwegian mountaineer, living on the west coast of Norway, and I am a devout Christian.

       1. “Being a spoiled, weak psycho with rampant hedonism, faking a tough guy persona, is not being a man.”
          Did I hit a nerve, smartass? What was it with you, let me guess, child molestation, right? Jesus can´t help you with this, only you can. Just stop being an uncontrollable pervert.
          “And you are no Viking.”
          No way Einstein! Of course I´m no viking, they´re long gone, smarty pants.
          “I am a Norwegian mountaineer, living on the west coast of Norway, and I am a devout Christian.”
          Ah, you´re from Norway, that explains a lot about your weird feminine reaction. You´re the creators of liberal leftism up there, congratulations and thanks for sharing this bullshit with the rest of Europe.
          btw, you don´t have mountains in Norway, that´s hills.

          1. Thanks for the hysterical response, queenie. Totally devoid of any facts and/or logic.
             Take your plastic “viking” sword and go read a book. Educate yourself.

          2. “educate yourself”
             I see what you’re doing…so over the top with your self-righteous christcuck faggotry that you actually sound identical to a SJW.
             Great way of demonstrating that progressivism is the end result of jew worshipping bronze age bolshevism1.0.
             Very clever.

          3. Psychological projection. Take a good look at your own comment, atheist ape.

          4. I know, right? lol
             wait, I know…how about a good “wow, just wow!”
             That hipsterism will clear it up for anyone who doesn’t get your point that Christians are the original SJW faggots.
             Again, brilliant trolling. But, you know, these religious retards will never wake up, so don’t take their menstruation histrionics too seriously.

          5. For 2 000 years with had ZERO SJW. Then suddenly, with the vast influx of childish, angry and completely uninformed atheist animals, we have SJWs all over the place.
             Worse, there are NO social justice in the Bible, only INDIVIDUAL justice.
             Yet you, that atheist idiot, reach the conclusion that Christianity and not atheism is to blame.
             Norway was such a beautiful place, until we got the vile hordes of you atheist bastards, using your demographic power, to smash our once great nation. Without the oil, we would have been Europe’s poorest and most stupid nation.
             Angry, vile and out-of-control atheists like you have never been able to produce a society based on your illogical, dysfunctional and evil atheism. You always live as parasites on other civilizations. You are the most pathetic, foul-mouthed and anti-intellectual group on the internet. Even Satanists look civil compared to you.

          6. mmkay francis.
             answer me this – why is EVERY SINGLE former christian nation now a “welcome the third world to rape us” multiculti shit hole?
             If Christianity wasn’t the root cause of SJW and progressivism, then why didn’t it prevent them?
             The immediate forebears of the fedora tipping atheists you (and I) hate so much were Christians.
             According to you, Christianity is opposed to this faggotry – why is it then so IMPOTENT in combatting SJWism?
             Do you understand the concept of cause and effect?
             Do you understand that we used to be a proud people with our own self-affirming belief systems, as opposed to pathetically grasping onto sand nigger slave morality bullshit?
             These are rhetorical questions for the benefits of non-jewbots here, btw.

22. Marxism will never thriumph: “And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.”
    Matthew 16:18.

23. It’s clear anyway that there’ll always be a divergence in any community or group of people on matters of beliefs. I think equating people who are genuine agnostics as somehow not being red pill is both stupid and short-sighted.

24. Christianity is blue pill. Regardless of all the cherry picking a Christian apologist does the whole thing comes down to you reading a Bronze Age book that was written by the sky God.
    This site wrongly demonizes atheism via association which is a fallacy. Atheists are not all political leftists. Repeating it won’t make it true.

    1. Why dont we have revered bronze age books by atheists?

       1. What is remarkable about the Torah and other parts of the Old Testament is the fact that they exist at all. There simply aren’t many bronze age books to begin with an every writer at the time would have been instilled with a sense of the religious or spiritual.
          .
          Socratic and pre-Socratic writings would be the closest candidates but those authors weren’t technically atheists either by definition or in practice.

    2. Agreed.
       RoK and Roosh’s corner of the manosphere in general wrongly attack or insult atheists as “just more products of the left”, but this is an overgeneralization and not true at all. It should be noted that some of the best thinkers/anti-feminists in the manosphere are atheist.
       Simply not believing in a religion does not automatically mean one is a leftist.

       1. agree. Atheist conservatism/libertarianism is one of the fastest growing movements.

    3. Except that Jesus lived in the Iron Age and the gospels were written by men and contain basically no direct quotes from God. The Hebrew Bible was largely Bronze Age and the Quran was the direct word of God.
       .
       Lots of atheists fall on the political right, which does not make their beliefs any more coherent.

    4. This site wrongly demonizes atheism via association which is a
       fallacy. Atheists are not all political leftists. Repeating it won’t
       make it true.

       You are right, only 90% are leftists. Besides since no godless society has shown the will to survive (Western Europe, most of Russia and U.S. all have or are in the process of entering the negative birthrate territory) it seems atheism is a self correcting condition.

       1. “You are right, only 90% are leftists.”

          That is the fault of theists. They base morality on fairy tales. And when society inevitably becomes disillusioned with those fairy tales, they have nothing to base their moral principles, and hence become deviant.
          It would be like telling your children that violence, theft, and lying are wrong because Santa Clause says so, and that he won’t give ’em presents if they disobey. That might work for a while, until they discover that Santa Clause isn’t real. Then you’re back to square one.
          Instead of doubling down on myths and fairy tales, we should instead be basing our morality on reason and logic from the getgo.

          1. Reason and logic can never be the basis for morality because that would entail every man would be his own judge. Unlike you I accept that there are things that humanity doesn´t know of and one of them is the human intrinsic need for a moral system outside their influence, aka religion, hence why no godless society that we know of has existed.
             Since no one would condemn himself, appeals to reason and logic based morality would be the beginning of a real dark age until a strong man imposes his will. This is because besides the mathematics, engineering and science, reason and logic are relative to the person self-interest. What happens is that atheists think they can develop their own morality but do not realize that everything is undergirded by the Christian tradition; even them are under the umbrella of the Christian moral system. However don´t worry, the thin civilizing layer is receding and Christianity is on the wane, hence the system you are arguing for is coming soon.
             In a real “logic and reason” morality based system, there is no reason why killing or stealing would be frowned upon if one is not to be discovered, besides the inconvenience of having to hide the body or the booty (or both…). There would be no reason why rape would be illegal since it would be better to use those unused vaginas in a time our nation is facing a demographic winter….

25. I remember something Dave Sim said about religion (he may have been quoting someone else):
    It’s better to believe in God and be wrong than to disobey his orders and find out He exists.
    So an atheist has the right to be wrong, but in advancing it as a better moral system, they seem to lack depth.

26. From the Byzantine period onward, the best and brightest youngsters were literally driven and steered into the clergy and the Jesuit colleges flourished. The scientific prodigies were not so much a product of the church, but the overlapping dominion of the church with the state and academia. You can identify a true prodigy when they’re quite young and the fusion of the church and academia created a farther reaching ‘cathedral’ that could arm its state with the best minds militarily, academically and theologically.
    Today in a technocracy, the best and brightest would be ‘steered’ via a ‘brain heist’ such as the one postulated with the Malaysian Airline flight full of techno heads which disappeared to subterrainean labs possibly. Key microbioligists have also been suffering strange fates and disappearances as well during this past decade or two. Today’s vulture culture tricks a buck selling gay pride and STEALS the best and brightest when it needs by pulling a friggin’ BRAIN HEIST.

27. There are still a lot of Christians on the left and have been ever since the rise of big government allowed various ideologies to impose on multitudes of fellow citizens. The example that jumps out in my mind is that “Father of Canadian Health Care” (ie. socialized medicine) was voted The Greatest Canadian by a nation-wide poll on the CBC in 2004. He was a Baptist minister before getting into politics but his idea now soaks up a third of all provincial government budgets and sizeable chunk of federal funds as well.

28. Christianity is the ultimate red pill for those who understand it well enough.

    1. So Nietzsche was a crackpot? Slave morality is red pill? Better yet, the will to power is blue pill?

       1. Well, Nietzsche did end up crazy after all. Joking aside, that’s a false dichotomy, he has good points AND he’s wrong on others.
          If you understand Christian doctrine well enough, it’s far from a slave morality. I would say it’s the complete opposite. According to Christians, God gave us free will (because God loves us, I know it can sound weird). How exactly is that slave mentality? FREE WILL! It can’t get further from slavery by definition.
          I’m not trying to convince anyone, I’m just saying Christian theology can easily be misunderstood (how else could it be? if you accept that God is infinite, as that we are finit creatures, then logically there are things we can’t comprehend), and is totally redpill-compatible so to speak.

          1. If you didn’t figure it out from my other posts, I was playing devil’s advocate (so to speak). However, the “understand. . .we enough” smacks of being a True Scotsman considering there are millions of Christians from the laity all the way up to the clergy who believe and practice and even preach all sorts of blue-pillery.
             .
             Christian free will is sort of like leftist free speech. You are free to do what you like and then burn in hell (or a human rights kangaroo court on a hate speech charge) if those in power don’t like your choice.

          2. Free Will my friend existed long before Christianity. Also, many of the more interesting and understandable parts of Christianity are far removed from the literal minded Revelations in the Bible, namely, the arguments worked out by the Church doctors and theologians….but again these are not the “words of the Lord” yet avid Christians will use these arguments that have been worked out on the side lines when it suits them. However, these might be entirely fallacious as they are only the mere thoughts of mortal men, if be it, intelligent and erudite scholars. How ironical Christianity is!

          3. Not quite. You are free to do anything, but you are accountable to your actions. If you don’t know that you’re wrong, you get a light beating (Luke 12:48). Eternal condemnation in hell is something that is very tenuous at best according to scripture. Your choice is basically this: admit your faults and place your trust in Jesus’ death and resurrection, choosing to stop intentionally sinning (as defined by the Law – 1 John 3:4 – not men – Deuteronomy 4:2 – so polygamy, non-marital sex, and masturbation are not sins) (this is what repentance is), and go to the kingdom of Heaven, where you get to rule with God for eternity, or basically go on with your life, and then go to Hell, to burn for ages until you get snatched out if you ever repent, or perhaps cease to exist entirely (which, if you’re an atheist, you already wanted/thought was going to happen anyway) after getting burned up.

          4. Well, there is that whole purgatory thing where you are punished for eons but eventually let into heaven.
             .
             Accountable for your actions? Sounds like SJW talk.
             .
             http://mattforney.com/social-justice-warriors-free-speech/

       2. Nietzsche was indeed a crackpot. Every idiot can hate and kill. You need no superiour intellect or character to do that.
          Taking care of people and forgive those that do not deserve it, do.
          The true slave morality is the hedonism found in Nietzsches teaching. That’s also why he ended up catching syphilis in a Leipzig whorehouse.
          That is the sign of a true Übermensch, while taking responsibility to help people less strong and in need, is not, right?

          1. Where did Freddy say to hate and kill?
             .
             What is superior about specifically giving anyone anything that they don’t deserve as a matter of ideology?
             .
             I don’t know if I would describe it as hedonism. He relentlessly criticized utilitarianism as it was rooted in pain-avoidance/pleasure-maximization and later Alfred Adler adopted the will to power in his psychology in contrast to Freud and his will to pleasure.
             .
             In any event, the weight of evidence seems to imply that he never caught syphilis and probably died of brain cancer.

          2. When Nietzsche rants on about how different the Übermensch is from the Untermensch, then he explicit mentions the lave morality of Christianity to not kill their enemies and hate their enemies, but love them.
             This goes through all his books. I agree with parts of what he is saying, as his attacks on feminism in Jenseits von Gut und Böse and his German is excellent. In contrast to most modern atheists he was able to clearly see that if one remove God from society, one must find something to replace God, or the society will degenerate.
             Most his attacks on Christianity is de facto Christianity’s restrictions on hedonism.
             I guess the syphilis may be debated, but his sexuality was in many ways pathological, and strangely enough somewhat equal to Hitler’s.

          3. The most dangerous aspects of Nietzsche’s teaching is already found in the title of his book, Jenseits von Gut und Böse.
             And that is total bullshit. When one strip a young mother naked, and gas her to death with her toddler on her arms, totally disconnected for anything she has said or done in her life, the this IS evil. It is NOT beyond evil in some higher share of morality.
             And I am sure that if anyone did something like that to him, the coward, taking out his eyes, cutting his throath so slowly that he drowned in his own blood, then I am totally sure that he would say this was evil, and no way would he accept that it was OK because the guy that did it to him was some kind of Übermensch.
             It is very dangerous for a society when the Christian understanding of good and evil, which is totally true, is replaced with some kind of moral relativism, or, in Nietzsche’s case, elimination of the notion of good and evil.
             So in Nietzsche’s case, one could argue that he does not promote hate, as he would have claimed that an Übermensch does not hate, as his feelings and morality is above/beyond hatred, and pure. But for anyone else, this would be pure, crude and banal hatred/evilness. And the same would Nietzsche have said that if he were in the receiving end. He sure did that in the real life.

          4. I hope that you have not bought into the idea that he was some sort of proto-Nazi. His ideas were later mutated and co-opted by his proto-Nazi sister (the beneficiary of his estate) as well as actual Nazis later on.
             .
             There is something to be said about not restricting yourself to someone else’s definition of good and evil but rather forging your own path for your own self-realization to benefit and advance yourself and those ideas and people you care about.
             .
             I have to agree with you that gassing women and children, along with child rape-torture pretty much puts the lie to the idea that there are no universal moral or immoral acts, and philosophies that necessarily imply a hard form of moral relativism are still born in their validity.
             .
             Nietzsche, for his part, was not a relativist but rather a “perspectivist”. Now, I don’t claim to be a scholar on this particular point, and there seems to be not more than a hair’s breadth between the two but subsequent interpretations seem to suggest the analogy of four witnesses on four different corners of an intersection watching a multiple car traffic accident. They all saw the same objective event but each will have a different perspective and therefore a different interpretation of what the “truth” is regarding what happened.

          5. I agree with what you say. Yep, no direct link between Nietzsche and Nazism, but Nietzsche opened up the moral question, so it was easier philosophically to escape from Christian morality, and thus facilitate Holocaust.

       3. Aaah, OK.”If you didn’t figure it out from my other posts, I was playing devil’s advocate (so to speak).”

       4. Fun fact. Nietzsche’s breakdown produced symptoms that one today would commonly attribute to schizophrenia: http://nietzcheaday.livejournal.com/ So you’re likely actually believing the ravings of a madman! Have a nice day!

    2. Keep telling yourself that. I can count on zero hands the number of alpha males I know that are hard-core Christians.

29. “Thousands of men, rich and poor, dropped everything to fight and die for an idea – to regain the Holy Sepulcher for Christendom and help their eastern brothers who were being crushed under what seemed like an invincible tide of Islam.”
    Would that be comparable to what Islamists are fighting for these days?

    1. It’s a do-over because Islam lost. If not for oil, nobody would give a shit about Islam because it would not have the resources to be a threat to anyone in the west.

30. The problem with mainstream/contemporary Christianity is that it tends to espouse the ‘bank slate’ pseudoscience that all people are born ‘equal’ under god and that redemption is through belief, when economic reality throws cold water on those delusions. In reality, some people by virtue of IQ and other genetic factors are born ‘better’ than others, and redemption is not as easy as just believing in a spirit , but by quantifiable accomplishments, social status, and the creation of economic value. Maybe that’s why the NRx movement argues that liberalism/progressivism is an offshoot of Puritanism. cont http://greyenlightenment.com/salvation-paleochristian-vs-hbdrationalist/

    1. Spiritual equality says nothing of one’s intelligence, strength, character or any other measure. It also does not imply any particular distribution of wealth. Spiritual redemption has nothing to do with economics per se.

    2. IQ is overrated. I should know.

       1. It doesn’t make you a “better” person anymore than the measurement of your biceps. Intelligence per se has no moral qualities to it. Certainly, the worst of modern tragedies were brought about by highly intelligent people.

          1. But the data on wealth vs. IQ is hard to dispute – smarter people tend to earn more more money, while less intelligent people fall into poverty. Smart people also create technologies that improve living standards. Gary Ridgway, the most prolific Amrican serial killer, has an IQ of 80. Evil on both sides of the Bell Curve. With recent trend towards automation and the winner-take-all nature of the economy, brains seem to be more important than brawn.

          2. With the exception of the Ridgway example, my point still stands regarding moral qualities. As a group, people with IQs around 80 tend to lean left politically, despite the stereotype of the right that the left pushes. On the other hand, once you get over about a 125 IQ the odds of you being a leftist increase. Keep in mind that there is a cut-off somewhere in the 130s where IQ has basically nothing to do with the practical world. The greatest generals, politicians and business leaders cluster in the high-130’s.
             .
             Thomas Sowell described a conservation where one comment went something like this: “Ever notice that whenever we have a crisis there is always a Harvard man at the center of it?” Smart people don’t necessarily have the wisdom to use their mental power any better than your average person. The smartest – especially in this technical age – are given greater responsibilities and when they fail the results can be catastrophic.

          3. I guess we need systems in place to minimize the potential harm caused by morally compromised people. The rule of law is a deterrent, but it can’t undo the past, nor will it effective against those who ignore it.
             Wealthy, smarter liberals tend to be of the pragmatic/ neo liberal variety, examples being Larry Summers, Bill Gates, Bill Clinton, Steven Levitt, Steven Pinker and Bryan Caplan, in contrast to the less intelligent welfare liberals.

          4. The problem with smart leftists and the rule of law tends to be that they want to have laws that they find “reasonable”, that they figure they can follow, and that allow them the most freedom while protecting them from others.
             .
             My guess is that you have read The Bell Curve and one of the criticisms that the authors level is that laws are written by, for, and interpreted by high-IQ people – the top 10% or better – while half the population, with double digit IQs is expected to function in that environment.
             .
             Having checks and balances on the individual, institutional and ideological level can prevent any one of them from amassing too much power and therefore causing too much damage when they suffer from moral rot.

          5. Hey when are you going to get disqus on your website so we can leave coments?

31. “Most people notice that something is amiss in modern gender relations. Women are often valued over and above men and unduly pedestalized.”
    Did that start with the troubadours extolling courtly love during the crusades?

    1. From what I could tell, such romantic notions were introduced later. I have begun reading Don Quixote, fascinating.

32. Why Christianity Is Not An Enemy Of Neomasculinity
    Who ever said it was. Atheists within the neo masculinity movement, in contrast to the low-information atheists who watch Colbert and Daily Show, don’t have enmity towards Christians.

    1. Good point.
       We need to differentiate between the quiet thoughtful agnostics versus the fedora preachy-atheist.

33. Roman Catholicism needs to be distinguished from the Scriptural Christianity it has always persecuted mercilessly.
    And Roman Catholicism CAUSED the Dark Ages by deliberately keeping the masses in ignorance to perpetuate its own power. It was Gutenberg’s printing press that finally broke through the deathgrip of illiteracy that Rome was perpetuating on the masses. You are feeding these people a Romanist, carefully sanitized version of history.

    1. Another idiot. Gutenberg was catholic and, as can be shown throughout history, without the militancy of the Church, a real dark age would have fallen over the West, since all the knowledge from Rome and ancient Greece would be lost forever.

34. Don’t forget that Christianity also invented the tourist industry. Props there.

35. Religions come and go, and people don’t notice their absence afterwards. If they teach some enduring truths about human nature, they do so through shrewd observation and guesswork, not because they received some spooky revelation from the beyond. For example, the Zoroastrian religion will probably disappear for good in this century, even though its origins predate christianity’s, and it had millions of adherents at one time. The same thing will happen to christianity as well.
    As I like to say, we atheists can certainly believe in the rapture: We can see that christians have already started to disappear!

    1. I was catholic but am moving towards atheist. not in a hateful way, but the concept of an all powerful being is ridiculous and whimsical fantasy based around imagination.
       I recognize Christianity is great for building civilization but actually ‘believing’ in an afterlife is absurd. can you get laid in the afterlife? if so, that implies pregnancy exists in the afterlife. and if our core urges remained in heaven, that means things like jealousy, anger, etc would still exist in a heaven. and if those human traits didn’t exist in heaven, wtf would be the point of an afterlife? just float around doing nothing?
       the whole concept is beyond absurd and just plays on human self awareness of death.

       1. I am starting to think, after reading your comments, that you were not a particularly devout (or attentive) Catholic. Now I’m not Papist, but I would think that these rather elementary questions would have been easily answered if you had bothered to turn up to Catechism.

          1. I never thought to ask those questions when I was younger. You seem to not know the answer either

          2. You must not have been a terribly inquisitive child then. I am talking, of course, about your “who created God?” question. How many colours are there in the square root of pi? How many seconds are there in a kilometre? The statement simply does not make sense, as God is by definition uncreated. You have simply put together grammatically correct word salad, much like the sentence “Colorless green ideas sleep furiously”. If I were being uncharitable, I would say that you have posed a non-question. And non-questions have non-answers.
             As for the last of your questions, I shall quote from a catechism that is admittedly not Roman in origin, but I think would be agreed on by the RCC as well.
             Q. What is the chief end of man?
             A. Man’s chief end is to glorify God, and to enjoy him forever.
             The answer was the same from the start, and remains the same at the very end, and even after that.
             Lack of understanding to one person is not sufficient to render a concept absurd. The answers are out there, distilled, formulated and refined over centuries by scores of intellectuals. Perhaps all you needed to do was to ask your priest to get said answers. He’s been trained, you know.

          3. thanks for your answers, but my local priests hands out marriage annulments like candy I don’t really trust the direction the church is heading right now.

36. Modern so called ‘Christian’ mega tabernacles with their multi cult gay flavored tambourine clanging jamborees are not ‘Christian’. They’re an extension of the social marxist cult and nothing more. Pumped full of Romans 13 state snitch meritocracy for its congregants and washed ho bags galore, these tin community clearinghouses reinforce the beta male lifestyle and create a revolving trap door for males to remain domestic slaves that eat pussy scraps. And eating ass crack is ok too in there. Anything goes. That’s kosher establishment churches for you. Who can blame anyone for being turned off by the emasculating garbage put forth by these whorehouses.
    Now check out a real snake eating backwoods church with wood floors and guns on the wall. Some red pill athiests on here might mellow a bit. (not necessarily snake eating these days since red pill revival is going a bit more mainstream) :
    http://i.usatoday.net/news/_photos/2009/06/29/gunx-topper-medium.jpg
    .
    http://www.elephantjournal.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/Picture-448.png
    .
    http://nealo.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/or040709-small.jpg
    .
    https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/ea/9b/9e/ea9b9eacb15ab4e15216f77b5f42d884.jpg
    .
    https://malialitman.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/church-gun-two-jesus.jpg
    .
    https://www.gunsamerica.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2015/04/jesus-gun.jpg
    .
    http://protoplasm.files.wordpress.com/2008/02/guns-in-church.jpg
    .
    https://thenypost.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/04-1n003-church1-c-300×300.jpg
    .
    http://ronepraisehouston.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/gun-in-church.png
    .

    1. HBD tells us that people really do interpret their religion based on their innate tendencies.
       Religion merely shapes reproduction over long enough time.
       Shitlib Christians have low fertility like normal shitlibs

37. Christianity, salvation through Jesus Christ alone, has always been under attack and always will be. Jesus told His disciples that “the world would hate you because of me” and “they will hate you because they hated Me first.” The ruler of the world is Satan. Satan destroys and brings death. Since Jesus came to overcome death thereby overcoming Satan, Satan must destroy the followers of Christ. Communism and other leftist ideologies are just tools for his schemes. Additionally, Satan does not have a spiritual warrant to overcome Islam, because it was Satan who first whispered into Muhammed’s ear.

    1. ….then who created God? and why would he makes whites generally smarter than the other races? seems fairly cruel. Surely God would know that once whites become the extreme minority in the next century the world will gradually grind down back to primate level existence.

       1. Nothing created God by definition.
          God has alway been and always will be.
          Impossible to grasp mentally but true nonetheless.

          1. to live, function, and even enjoy life you have to be rational and apply logic to all our decisions – your job, safety, well being, etc… yet you’re asking me to disregard every sense of logic for what? Because humans are afraid of death we need a creative answer to make us feel better?
             Don’t get me wrong, if a supreme deity came out of the sky and gave me warnings of how I need to behave, then yea I’d listen. but you’re giving me ‘evidence’ based on thousands of years ago of what people claimed they heard and saw back then.
             apparently the initial believers had the benefit of God blatantly telling them what to do, I imagine it’s much easier to believe in God when he supposedly makes the sun ‘dance’ and perform various miracles right infront of you.
             For the rest of us, you’re demanding we take a huge leap

          2. For the previous definition of God I gave (which is: the absolute, uncaused and eternal ), there is no need to rely on faith. Logic and reason alone can lead you to this conclusion.
             About a Christian definition of God (which is compatible with this one), I agree, you do have to take a leap of faith. BUT taking a leap of faith isn’t incompatible at all with logic and reason.

       2. I could have it wrong, so not putting words into the mouths of Christians here, but don’t they believe the world is meant to end as stated in Revelation?
          If so, then wouldn’t the point be to grind the world down? And don’t Christians believe that this world is more of a testing ground in which to find salvation and admission to heaven through Christ?

38. I find it bizarre when you see a top level pro athlete thanking God after a big win, they say things like ‘Im great because God made me this way’. okay. but what about the kid born with multiple sclerosis whose been in a wheelchair his whole life. is that also God’s doing?

    1. the world need to equilibrate

39. what a load of bull…
    Christians believe that to be christian you need to get rid of chauvinism
    http://joshuarogers.com/2014/01/27/what-i-wish-someone-had-told-me-before-marriage/
    aka a man relaxing while his wife cooks etc is sin….
    interestingly the other way around is NOT sin
    http://joshuarogers.com/2015/08/25/remembering-father-god-at-the-ironing-board/
    or when he cooks and cleans all day while his wife sleeps in and relaxes….
    clearly Christianity is run by mangina’s
    http://www.focusonthefamily.com/parenting/babies-toddlers-preschoolers/post-birth-career-decisions/what-options-does-your-family-have
    they support gender role reversal and feminist marriages
    the same is taught everywhere…
    men are to lead by doing whatever women want…
    please…

    1. you can’t compare the new christianity with the christianity of the old, the new christianity is even ok with gay marriage when they used to burn sodomite. the new christianity have sold it’s soul in order to survive.

40. if christianity was redpill most of its followers would be red pill
    the fact that most of its followers are bluepill proves you are wrong…

    1. If by “most” you mean the majority living in South America, Asia and the Middle East and Africa, then I don’t think you know what you’re talking about.
       Now, Atheism, on the other hand… One need only look at fedora-donning neckbeards, feminists, and God-hating homos and homo-lovers to see the very embodiment of the Blue Pill. The downfall of the West coincided with the rise of Atheism.

       1. The downfall of the Europe coincided with the cultural export of SJW crap from America to Europe, while Europe was largely atheist already. For me it was like yesterday that I could publicly insult people by calling them “faggots”. Now, thanks to America, I cannot anymore.

       2. as someone from Asia
          let us just say the blue pill is the norm
          world theology is led by American AND UK christians…
          everyone laps it up
          so now being a christian also means putting to death ideas that women should look after the home and be helpmeets ( Titus 2, Genesis 1)

          1. As someone also from Asia, I would like to know where in Asia you live. Certainly, the Americanised Korean Church would seem to fit this bill, but most of the Christians I know from my native Singapore,and the underground church movement in China are resolutely anti-feminist, with passages exhorting the submission of wives to their husbands being actively preached from the pulpits.

          2. I know christians in singapore
             full on board with lean in , sandberg
             and husband as homemaker = real servanthood
             from India ( used to live there)- the worst, more feminist that many parts of the west…
             they preach submission alright, but it is neutered by, men leading well = easy submission
             aka a man leads well by doing what his wife wants
             typical CBMW /American style submission

          3. I’m sorry, you’ll have to make yourself clearer. I didn’t quite understand that first bit about the Christians in Singapore.
             And yeah, I’ve heard about how bad it was in India with the SJW pandering there. I’m glad you made it out.
             You seem to know quite a bit about Christian views on male headship. With the Christian population in India being relatively low, I’m curious as to how you managed to obtain such knowledge.

          4. new christianity has nothing to do with old christianity

    2. Graded on a curve Christians are technically more red pill than the rest of society.

       1. really?
          cause where I live ( NZ- from India)
          atheist wives ( heck atheist stay at home dads are better wives) are better /more redpill than most conservative churches…
          same with the men
          christian theology has changed, now all men are taught real male leadership =
          do what your wife wants
          run the house…

41. Christianity = altruistic cuck

    1. Christianity sustained Europe for 2000 years. Idiotic, evil and absurd atheism has crashed the West and laid it totally open for Islam (even paying for it) within a few decades. Clearly your statement is utterly false.

       1. Judaism is responsible for what is happening to the West. Marxism is a Jewish creation.

          1. No.Show me all the Jews in Norway fighting hard for our cultural suicide and mass-immigration. I see ONLY hard-left atheists. I don’t know a single Jew. Never heard about a Jew leading or playing a major part in this.

          2. I didn’t write “Every Marxist in your country is Jewish”. I wrote “Judaism is responsible for what is happening to the West. Marxism is a Jewish creation.” I don’t know much about the religious demographics of your country’s political groups, but I do know about the history of Marxism, socialism, critical theory, etc, and the most important people are Jewish.

          3. Judaism rejects Marxism. Orthodox (devout) Jews are predominantly conservative and dislike gay rights, atheism, divorce etc.
             Atheist Jews, however, are often found on the radical left.

          4. That’s not what I’ve seen. Most of the devout Jews I’ve interacted with think America should have open borders, more affirmative action, more gay rights, hate speech laws, etc. The ones who support Republican politicians are single-issue voters who only vote for them because the Republican party is the pro-Israel party.

          5. No, empirical data says that Orthodox Jews are predominantly conservative, while atheist Jews are liberal.
             
             I am a devout Christian and firmly a to-the-right conservative. However, Orthodox Jews are mainly to the right off me. They don’t believe in gay rights at all. And the male/females have very separate and distinct roles/positions

          6. The Jews who I’ve interacted with read the Torah and attend religious services. Are you saying they’re atheists because they’re not Orthodox?

          7. You have a lot of “reformed” Jewish Synagogues. These are social meeting places for Jews that are atheists in all but name, and everything “offensive” to these liberals are practically kicked out of the “sermons”.
             Very much like Norwegian sailors going to the various Norwegian Lutheran Church for sailors (Sjømannskirken). They go there, mainly atheists, to read Norwegian newspapers and eat waffles with coffee. It is a cultural, and not a spiritual thing.
             It is impossible to truly believe the Tanakh is the true Words of the Living God and be a liberal. Only clinically insane schizophrenics can do that.

          8. http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=0c3_1441769526
             behold your pimp, precious

          9. I see, too retarded to even attempt to formulate an argument.

          10. Kid, I don’t really want to hurt you, but your type has done immeasurable damage to civilization, and frankly, you are beneath contempt.
              If the buy bull wasn’t an endless stream of contradictions and retarded, bronze-age sand nigger slave morality bullshit, I might bother to formulate an “argument”
              God kills his son to appease himself for the sins of the humans he created in order to worship him.
              read it over and over until it sinks in how fucking stupid you are.

          11. //God kills his son//
              Show me the Bible verse(s)
              // in order to worship him//
              Show me the Bible verse(s)
              As a true hysterical atheist ape, you can’t debate with facts and logic, so you use your usual old and recycled atheist straw man fallacies instead.
              In addition, based on your retarded, uninformed and low-IQ rant I know that you don’t even understand the very fundamentals of the Bible:
              Explain to me the difference between the Old and New Covenant and the spiritual implications.

          12. “exthplain to me how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”
              “theee! I win! Athiethht apes hur hur”
              10 Norwegian women were being raped by sand niggers as you posted that, you jew fellating faggot boy.

       2. ‘Christianity sustained Europe for 2000 years’?
          Christianity only took root in Europe in the fifth century, way after the bulk of the great achievements of ancient Mediterranean civilisation.
          It dominated for the next millennium, but this period was of course the Dark Ages – a time in which the Orient and the Middle-East leapfrogged Europe in terms of development.
          Europe only returned as a world leader when the continent’s establishment trimmed Christianity of its most harmful elements in the 1500s with the beginning of the reformation.

          1. Your comment is riddled with urban myths and Mickey Mouse science, combined with pop culture.
             //Christianity only took root in Europe in the fifth century//
             How did Christianity took root? And why after the whole Roman Empire was a Christian Empire
             //way after the bulk of the great achievements of ancient Mediterranean civilisation//
             What are you trying to say here?
             //but this period was of course the Dark Ages -//
             Your comment only makes sense if you had great art/science/culture in the pagan areas, with anarchy and oppression in the Christian areas. Elaborate your insane statement.
             What about the Christian Byzantine Empire in the same period.
             //a time in which the Orient and the Middle-East leapfrogged Europe in terms of development.//
             Name all the major developments you are talking about.
             //Europe only returned as a world leader when the continent’s establishment trimmed Christianity of its most harmful elements in the 1500s with the beginning of the reformation.//
             What about the Byzantine Empire?
             So who was leading the world then? The Muslim world? If so explain why. China was leading the world, if so explain why?.
             Use parameters like science, art, legal and human rights.

          2. A religious person reacting hysterically, well I never!
             Christianity appeared in the Roman Empire in the 4th century, and took root in the 5th.
             This is a basic fact known by anyone who has done even the most cursory study of that era.
             You seem completely unaware of the divergence that has taken place between the West and the rest of the planet in the past 500 years since the reformation.
             http://visualeconsite.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/gdp-per-capita-east-asia1.jpg
             Until the 1400s, while Europe remained fractious, primitive and disease ridden – East Asia was organised, urban and at the forefront of technology.
             During this time, East Asia and the Middle-East were developing the world’s first megacities – while European cities would be described as mere towns by today’s metrics
             https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Historical_urban_community_sizes
             Were a tourist in this time able to visit both London and Nanjing in this period, the former would appear to be a backwater.
             I’m guessing you’re also unaware of the fact that Christian Europe was for large parts of the Dark Ages unable to defend itself against invasion from technologically superior Moorish, Magyar and Viking invaders.
             Fortunately, in the past 500 years, we’ve been able to cast off our superstitions and embrace science and technology to a greater extent than any civilisation in history.
             The results of this are, tellingly, known to historians as ‘The European Miracle’.

          3. Laughable. Even liberal Wikipedia admits that “the dark ages” is nothing but a pop-science myth and mostly advocated by uneducated Marxist atheist morons like you.
             Believe me, they hysterical one here is the one running away from questions. I will post my questions regarding your pseudo-intellectual Mickey Mouse rant one more time and number them.
             1. //Christianity only took root in Europe in the fifth century//
             How did Christianity took root? And why after the whole Roman Empire was a Christian Empire
             As a complete retard, you said: //Christianity appeared in the Roman Empire in the 4th century, and took root in the 5th.This is a basic fact known by anyone who has done even the most cursory study of that era.//
             As Christians were persecuted for centuries in the Roman Empire, the mass-conversions of pagans to Christianity and the rapid growth of the underground church took place BEFORE the Roman Emperor Constantine the Great become a patronage for the Christian faith and Church. He reigned 306–337 AD, so for you to claim that “Christianity only took root in Europe in the fifth century” is completely absurd.
             2. //way after the bulk of the great achievements of ancient Mediterranean civilisation//
             What are you trying to say here?
             3. //but this period was of course the Dark Ages -//
             Your comment only makes sense if you had great art/science/culture in the pagan areas, with anarchy and oppression in the Christian areas. Elaborate your insane statement.
             What about the Christian Byzantine Empire in the same period.
             4. //a time in which the Orient and the Middle-East leapfrogged Europe in terms of development.//
             Name all the major developments you are talking about.
             5. //Europe only returned as a world leader when the continent’s establishment trimmed Christianity of its most harmful elements in the 1500s with the beginning of the reformation.//
             What about the Byzantine Empire?
             So who was leading the world then? The Muslim world? If so explain why. China was leading the world, if so explain why?.
             Use parameters like science, art, legal and human rights
             6. //You seem completely unaware of the divergence that has taken place between the West and the rest of the planet in the past 500 years since the reformation. //
             What is your logical argument here? Are you trying to counter one of my arguments or defend one of yours? Gibberish.
             7. //Until the 1400s, while Europe remained fractious, primitive and disease ridden – East Asia was organised, urban and at the forefront of technology.//
             Oh, yes, please give examples of this fantastic technology. Make me laugh, fool.
             Europe had the University of Bologna in 1088, Oxford in 1096. Compare that to Asia.
             Compare any city in Asia to Constantinople. Compare any building in Asia to Hagia Sophia.
             When will you atheist apes learn real history, and not just recycle your old retarded slogans and anti white/Christian/Western hysteria?
             8. //During this time, East Asia and the Middle-East were developing the world’s first megacities – while European cities would be described as mere towns by today’s metrics//
             Europe is by far inferior to other continents regarding farming due to climate. Thus the advancement of Europe is due to superiour culture and thereby civilizational aspects of the dominant religion – Christianity.
             You seem to be so moronic that you equate with mass-hordes of people to civilizational advancement. If that’s the case. Every third world hell hole today, with millions of people on the streets in their cities, are by far superiour to us. Nice use of a parameter there, atheist moron.
             9 //Fortunately, in the past 500 years, we’ve been able to cast off our superstitions and embrace science and technology to a greater extent than any civilisation in history//
             Sure, fool. Name the ten leading atheists the last 500 years that gave us our scientific and technological advancement.
             And no, gay hedonistic French philosophers did not make Europe superiour. Outside a small circle of hedonistic atheists, masquerading as “intellectuals”, nobody cared.
             Good luck with the list, atheist fool.

          4. 10. //technologically superior Moorish, Magyar and Viking invaders.//
             Show me how you logically reached the conclusion that these barbarians were in any way, shape or form superiour to the European Christian civilization.
             Vikings had great boats, but that’s it. Architecture, agricultural farming, painting, literature etc were by fare more advanced on the continent.
             Regarding the “technologically superior Moorish, Magyar”, I will like to see your practical examples and academic documentation.

          5. I give you graphs, stats and data – you give me childish slurs like ‘atheist apes’. Strong debating skills!
             If you think Europe was the dominant civilisation in the period of 500-1500, you obviously haven’t read many history books.
             For a concise description of Europe’s lowly position in this period and the subsequent ‘Great Divergence’, I suggest the lay book ‘Civilisation’ by right-wing historian Niall Ferguson.

          6. You gave me one graph, totally unrelated to your claims or my counter-arguments.
             Calling you an atheist ape is not a slur, as you constantly insist that humans are nothing but apes. I pointed out how this world-view is reflected in your illogical and non-factual argumentation, based solely on atheist myths and retarded pop science.
             I gave you numbered questions and requests for documentation for your insane and illogical claims, and of course you just run away. In true atheist style.

          7. Not just running away, unable to provide any arguments outside recycling old atheist myths and pseudo-academic slogans, but also upvoting your own comments, only makes you look more like an atheist fool, not less.

          8. aren’t we supposed to limit posting by chicks?
             honey, the ups and downs you’re feeling lately are part of what we’re gonna call your new monthly visitor.
             don’t worry, its all a part of becoming a big girl.

          9. You are a cliché of a little wanker, pretending to be a tough guy after having seen waaay to much action movies.

       3. Yeah the problem is who and in what way they practice the sacred law of Moses and Jesus. And then you can have and alpha or a beta cuck white church.

          1. No, as Christianity sustained Europe systematically and unbroken for 2000 years, then CLEARLY the problem is NOT ” who and in what way they practice the sacred law of Moses and Jesus.”.
             We have only had rampant atheism in Europe since the late 60s, and these hard left atheist morons managed to crash Europe within a few decades.
             To claim that Christianity, and not atheism, is the problem, is absurd and not based on empirical data.

          2. Christianity is full with beta cuck white church they are the only responsibles of their beta church. If they were alpha enough they wouldn’t let intimidated by atheism. Christianity sustained Europe but fall down in front of atheism, beta beta betadom, a kingdom of betadom are you the modern Christianity.
             And what happened with Greece and Balkans they was fuxked by ottoman cocks. And no atheists did it.
             Greeks were still the sons of Socrates and Achilles but the betadom permitted their genocide and miscegenation
             Give to the caesar what belongs to the caesar!!
             Now the womynz are your caesar you must pay alimony to all them and to their bastard children . lmaolmao
             Empirical data??? A christian looking for empirical data. That quest is so bizarre.

          3. In Christianity there is free will. European state churches were completely infiltrated and dominated by hard-left atheist politicians. The Norwegian Lutheran State Church is a good example of that. Our Norwegian Bishops just love gays and hate devout Christians.
             The rest of your atheist comment is so incoherent and logically absurd that I can’t address it.

          4. Cuck chuck! Churc cuck! Cuck chuk! kuk txuk!! churk kuk!churk kuk on mslismz cockas!!the betadom exzprezz rings.
             Beta cuck white church beta cuck white church beta bux beta crunch beta buxed welfarizzed welfajizzed drunkz munkys jizz jazz juzz on da wimxn face!!!!!
             lmao lmao jzzmate!!!
             Eur0cuck,Eur0kuk eurojizzdrunk

          5. A new religion based upon the pillars of ancient wisdom and evolution is what you need. Awake awake betadom Christmas boy has betrayed you you betadom. Judaism, new brandch of Christianity?? That the question you should ask.
             In that religion no beta re exegesis of the sacred law of founding fathers and prophets will be allowed

          6. I am not atheist i am a truly believer of God laws, the Natural Rights

          7. Free will to cuck kukz you the betadom
             Cuck chuck! Churc cuck! Cuck chuk! kuk txuk!! churk kuk!churk kuk on mslismz cockas!!the betadom exzprezz rings.
             Beta cuck white church beta cuck white church beta bux beta crunch beta buxed welfarizzed welfajizzed drunkz munks munkys jizz jazz juzz on da wimxn face!!!!!
             lmao lmao jzzmate!!!
             Eur0cuck,Eur0kuk eurojizzdrunk

          8. What are you doing to keep in force the law of God??

42. Great article. We are constantly told to abandon and mock our Christian faith in the West and to “respect” Islam (or else). The Jewish intellectuals behind this cultural Marxist assault always keep their identity and faith though. Do as we say, not do as we do is their dictum. Mock Christianity and SJWs cream their panties in delirium; mock Judaism or Islam and just see what happens to you.
    And it’s good to see someone who understands that the crusades were defensive campaigns against endless Islamic jihad and conquest. The lands the Crusaders ventured to were all Christian lands that had been in invaded and occupied by the armies of Islam. The conquered Christian people were brutalised and often massacred. Yet Western “liberal” historians have been allowed to lie about the facts and to denigrate real red pill Alpha males, namely the Crusaders who sacrificed all in a higher cause.

    1. The crusaders also looted the Christian Constantinople several times.

       1. Yes, not every move they made was right, the sacking of Constantinople was un-just. It divided Christians who needed total unity in order to stand up to the Islamic armed juggernaut threstening all Christians in Europe and in the Eastern Church. The Eastern church was eventually over-run by the Islamic hordes and lost to history.
          I feel modern Europe is doomed to demographic conquest by Islam. The open door borders and state enforced multiculturalism are all arranged courtesy of international Jewish bankers and local useful idiots of the liberal left.

43. Real men don’t need religion but children and women (also children) do.

    1. Women need religion to make them behave so the man can leave her at the stead and so that his time is freed up, so he can go off in the world to make his gains. Otherwise it would be added toil for him to have to babysit her constantly. Daytime soaps are a BAD babysitter for your homebound woman. Religion is the best babysitter.
       The man on the other hand naturally knows right and can hold his own ass without religion. It is men who make wisdom like bees make honey. Men also have faith and fortitude and religion is only a crutch for a damaged man who lacks.
       When a woman is left alone and left to her own accord, she tends to get lost. Especially if she’s a working woman, her mind strays and she completely forgets who her spouse (master) is. That’s a woman for you.
       Religion for your woman is such a relaxing relief for you, knowing that it works on her like a ‘good pill’ and ensures that you can trust her a little better while you’re away. The ‘religion pill’ is better than a pharmaceutical ‘pill’ and drink which in most cases turns the woman into a sleeping blob whereas the religion ‘pill’ keeps her functioning and doing crafty domestic things.
       Trust that your specific religion holds water with her and keeps her glued when you’re back is turned. Most women would turncoat naturally when the man’s back is turned especially if she either has no religion or if her religion is watered down or weak.
       Few women are brash enough to turncoat right in your face but I had a BPD girl once that would unexplainably turn at times, even with the religion ‘pill’ I gave her. Girls like her explained why some cultures invented things like feet binding and cliterectomies.

       1. Well elaborated.

44. Christianity created Christendom, the greatest civilization the world has ever seen. Atheism gave us the word ‘terrorism’, nothing more. Atheism as basis for a society is a disaster. More than 100 million innocents killed, raped and tortured by atheist regimes within less than 100 years, more than anyone else in the recorded history of mankind.
    With more atheism in Norway we got more rape, divorce, abortion, drub abuse, murder, crime, mental cases, suicide etc, not less.
    With more atheism in Norway, we got more feminism, hate-speech laws, the world’s sluttiest girls (second to none, including the Swedes), more ugly fat/tattooed/pierced/shaved head/maled clothed girls, as they no longer believe God created them with femininity and a feminine duty where their bodies are the temple of God Now the girls believe that they are nothing but a sack of bio-mass, a result of a cosmic accident and everything is complete meaningless. You don’t get good and mentally stable mothers/wives/intellectually conversations out of that.
    From the reign of terror in France to the death camps in Russia/China and killing fields in cambodia, atheism has been the most oppressive and evil force in modern times.
    Just look at the vile, immoral and obnoxious behaviour of the vile atheist apes roaming the internet. Can anyone with a straight face really claim that a society would be a better place with more of these selfish-genes morality based, self-proclaimed athesit animals running around? Seriously?

    1. Why is everyone put into two camps? Christian believers and atheists, when probably most people who are honest with themselves are perhaps really agnostics. I don’t think societies that are atheistic or theistic based are any more or less violent or oppressive than each other. Christianity and Islam as well as secular credos like communism have had terrible and brutal records when it comes to treating people in a civilized and decent manner.
       Violence, stupidity, greed and general backwardness are too ingrained in the majority of the memes that seem to always rule societies, no matter what their coloration, to make much difference about whether it’s christian or atheistic nation, as both are the same to the people at the top- belief systems to be used as vehicles to control and manipulate the masses in society.
       However, people can still through their own efforts see and experience the Divine and the scared in the everyday world outside organised religions, by using their own self discipline and intelligence and this is where discernment, detachment and a need for solitude come into their own.

       1. Christianity gives both rights and protections. Most famously found in the English common law and the American Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights.
          There are no such thing in atheism. There are nothing outside an atheist that have the ability to forcefully change his eagerness to kill, rape and murder, if he truly wants that.
          One example is freedom of speech. Jesus Christ never infringed on the freedom of Speech of anyone, He answered with silence or arguments. Thus freedom of speech is protected in Christianity.
          King David was rebuked by God/a prophet. Thus Kings are not above the common law.
          You will have examples like this all over the Bible that is the foundation of Christendom.
          You have nothing like that in atheism. And this is why now, in atheist/secular Europe, Geert Wilders was told by the judge that truth is not protected speech.That it was totally irrelevant of what he said was true or not, as long as it could lead to racism/cause harm against Muslims and humiliate Muslims.

          1. In a multicultural society there is no singular truth anymore, hence, the ruling against Geert Wilders. If your truth is based on the Bible then it can be said to be offensive to some other ethnic or religious grouping in society. The logic here is that “your truth” is not “their truth” …divide and conquer for the elite who run the whole show again!

          2. You can have a multicultural society with a Christian foundation. USA was pretty much like that, until the Marxists went crazy and took over. Now it is a mess.
             The judge did not argue against the existence of truth. But that Truth in itself is not protected free speech. That’s the level of insanity now. Truth is not protected, lying is, it all come downs to who says it and why . This thinking is contrary to Christian teaching, where we operate with absolutes, not statements that are judged relatively to who says it and why.

          3. But, that’s precisely the problem. We don’t have absolutes when it comes to beliefs in a secular society. There’s no way around this problem unless you establish an absolutist State where you must adhere to a set of codified beliefs in order to be a citizen or member. This is what happen in Communist countries and this is exactly what IS are currently doing in the middle east.
             The enlightment and reformation occurred in the west, we established the notion of universal rights for all regardless of creed, we use science and reason to guide our policies, we respect the right to individual freedom of expression etc. The negative side of the enlightment is to do with the fact that there’s no bedrock of absolute values in a society anymore, everyone has “equal” opinions regardless of their truth content, there’s an increase in estrangement and meaningless relationships in such a society.
             I don’t know what the solution is in a collective sense to this problem, but, I can’t see the establishment of a strict religious set of values that can be appealed to as the solution anymore. The problem with Muslims in western countries is that they use for example the secular notion of freedom of expression in order to be allowed not to integrate with western values, and, also it allows them at the same time to practice their own medieval customs without any fear of censure from their host communities. Very clever and very cunning.
             .

          4. The Bible was the basis for European civilization for 2000 years, before that, both the Roman and Greek civilization used the Iliad and Odyssey as templates for morality. Everyone knew the stories. Agreed roughly with the morality in them, and if not, were prepared to explain why.
             Now everything is floating and based on the whim of any cultural Marxist in academia or media, with zero debate, zero critical thinking and reasoning. A civilization without a moral and ethical template will collapse.

          5. I agree. The Bible up to a certain point, but particularly the Roman Catholic Church was the basis of European Civilization for well over a thousand years. For example, much of what we currently know about Greek and Roman thought was thanks to the Church’s scholars. The Church was unintentionally responsible for so much technical progress in Europe by critically allowing for the role of Reason in eschatological matters which fertilized into wider society and culture. So, yes we’ve a lot to thank them for I guess.
             But, alas all this is in Europe’s distant past. However, the question still remains- what set of values can now resonate with a largely post-christian, multi-cultural Europe? The last two attempts failed in (1) Nationalism and (2) Communism. I don’t have an answer to this question, do you?

          6. Thanks to the vile Muslim Quranimals running more and more around in our streets, I believe young Europeans will pick up morality and outlook from the last time we had a huge conflict with the Muslim world, the age of chivalry. This will be a fusion of historic moralistic renaissance and devout/semi/cultural Christianity.
             Same time Girls will embrace virginity and modesty again. Not long time ago, Norwegian girls were super masculine with short hair. Now they are more feminine and have longer hair, due to interaction with Muslim girls.

          7. Surely the fact that Norwegian girls are now feminine because of their interactions with Muslim girls is a good thing for you? An argument for multiculturalism. Modernity, you’ll never beat it…do as I say and not as I do!

          8. Well, it is complex. I believe we will have a polarization. One part of the Europeans will start to compete with the Muslims regarding aggressiveness among men and modesty among women. Then you will have another group that will be even more degenerate (SJW) and they will side with the Muslims in voting etc.
             Bad thing is that the Muslims will brutalize us. In a civil war we will behead, cheat and torture just as they do. America will be an exemption, as they still have core Christian values.
             Russia ditched very much modernity and now openly embrace their rich culture and history. This could happen in Europe as well. It seems to me that Western Europeans are really tired of having our media and academia pissing all over culture, while praising Islam and every third world hell hole there is.

          9. Even though Norwegian girls are more feminine, they still are the most butch in whole Europe. Swedish girls are classy ladies compared to them. They have a long way to go.

          10. Before Marxism found its way into Americas bloodstream it was a predominantly white country. Whites pioneered the frontier lands and built villages/cities from the ground up through their genetic inborn individualism.
              Ironically it is this individualism and the multicultural tenets of Christianity that is causing the white race to go extinct within this very century quite possibly.
              You cannot have a multicultural society that is also homogenous through a religion which encourages our own genocide.
              Btw I am not an atheist but more agnostic and still partial to much of the Christian ethos

          11. No, that the whole white world is now overrun by non-Whites and that we now will be a minority on every continent on the earth, unless some drastic changes is made, stems from ATHEISM and not Christianity.
              With atheism ideas like patriotism and nations are meaningless, as we all are just atheist apes anyway. Atheism gave us subjective morality. Christianity has absolutes. You have good moral and bad moral. Good societies and bad societies.
              We are told to GO OUT in the world and preach the Gospel. That includes helping the needy in the world. Not invite everyone to us and crush our societies.
              The New Testament is mainly about God’s relationship to man on an individual level.
              The Old Testament on God’s relationship to nations. Nowhere in the Old Testament do you find that the Jews shall not protect themselves. On the contrary. They also are commanded to get rid of Baal, throughout the country. ZERO multiculturalism in the Bible.
              As a Norwegian I know perfectly well that the hell that is over us now came from the vile hordes of socialist atheist apes. Europe is already imploding with only a few decades of hate-filled and dysfunctional atheism.

          12. I agree with the need for a code of morality that exists in absolutes for us as a people.
              However one cannot deny that the disease of suicidal altruism is a phenomenon which primarily exists among white people. If we wish to survive and not go extinct perhaps we should adopt the kind of ethnocentrism that Jewish people’s have.
              Also the population explosion we are now seeing in Africa is an undeniable direct result of white technology and medicine which without such we would never have seen such a horde of third worlders now flooding into our countries. This is also due to Christian ideology of moral universalism which as I stated earlier is a peculiar trait among white peoples.
              This evangelical ideal to save the peoples of the world and to also think of them as equals if only they had the right resources is historically and demonstrably false.
              Ironically this has made these third world people’s completely dependent on us and our technology which they have proven they cannot create for themselves. So when we go extinct all those lives white evangelicals have saved will die horrible deaths of starvation, disease and warfare.
              So in reality this pathological altruism of whites is one of the most evil things in the world currently.
              We should focus on fixing ourselves and making our own collective racial body whole and healthy before we attempt to be a “light unto the nations”.

    2. “With more atheism in Norway, we got … the world’s sluttiest girls”
       You know what that means? Road trip!

       1. lol. I see your point.

    3. “With more atheism in Norway we got more rape, divorce, abortion, drub abuse, murder, crime, mental cases, suicide etc, not less”
       The largest crime in modern Norwegian history was perpetrated by Christian fundamentalist Anders Breivik.
       Subtract his atrocity and Norge has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.

       1. You truly sound like a typical Norwegian brainwashed atheist psycho. Our hard-left state broadcaster, NRK, is your main news source, right?
          So you, as a Norwegian, claim that Breivik was a Christian fundamentalist? Just to prove to everyone here how brainwashed you Norwegian atheists are, please answer the following:
          1. Name the Biblical foundations Breivik gave. Provide documentation,
          2. How do you explain:
          2-A. Breivik claimed atheists can be Christians:
          So no, you don’t need to have a personal relationship with God or Jesus to fight for our Christian cultural heritage. It is enough that you are a Christian-agnostic or a Christian-atheist (an atheist who wants to preserve at least the basics of the European Christian cultural legacy (Christian holidays, Christmas and Easter)).
          Manifesto, page 1362
          In short, for Breivik it was enough to celebrate Christmas, to be labelled Christian. He called himself a cultural Christian. In his own words, just celebrating Christmas would have been enough.
          2-B. Brevik himself claimed that he was a cultural Christian:
          A majority of so called agnostics and atheists in Europe are cultural conservative Christians without even knowing it. So what is the difference between cultural Christians and religious Christians?
          If you have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God then you are a religious Christian. Myself and many more like me do not necessarily have a personal relationship with Jesus Christ and God. We do however believe in Christianity as a cultural, social, identity and moral platform. This makes us Christian.
          Manifesto, page 1308
          As a cultural Christian, I believe Christendom is essential for cultural reasons. After all, Christianity is the ONLY cultural platform that can unite all Europeans, which will be needed in the coming period during the third expulsion of the Muslims.
          Odinism is significant for the Nordic countries but it does not have the potency to unite us against such a devastating force as Islam, cultural Marxism/multiculturalism and capitalist globalism. Only Europeans, in solidarity with each other, can solve our current problems. As for secularism, are there any strong uniting symbols at all? I think not. In order to protect your culture you need, at the very minimum, strong, uniting symbols representing your culture. In this context, the cross is the unrivalled as it is the most potent European symbol. I have had this discussion with many Odinists, and even they understand this.
          Manifesto, page 1361
          3. Why did Breivik not listen to Christian hymns on he shooting spree? Instead he listened to the pagan group Saga. In Breivk’s own words:
          Motivational music tracks, artist: Saga
          Saga is a courageous, Swedish, female nationalist-oriented musician who creates pop-music with patriotic texts. She is, as far as I know, the best and most talented patriotic musician in the English speaking world. And for those of you, like myself, who hates “metal”, Saga is one of the few sources available that offers quality patriotic pop-music with brilliant texts. Most of the tracks are in English and some are in Swedish.
          Manifesto, pages 855-856
          4. Breivik said that he did not have a personal relationship with God. That he did not pray. Not a single Bible verse is used as a motivation or explanations for his actions. Yet in your absurd atheist world, he nevertheless is a Christian fundamentalist.
          5. //Subtract his atrocity and Norge has one of the lowest homicide rates in the world.//
          Again you don’t understand logic. When we had LOWER homicide rates BEFORE we got ugly and retarded atheism, then your argument that we still have some kind of low homicide rates is NO logical argument for atheism. It is absurd to claim that.

          1. You’re really clutching at straws here.
             In Breivik’s own sworn testimony;
             “”Well, I am a militant Christian; to prevent the de-Christianisation of Europe is very important,”

          2. Atheism delusions.
             Again you can’t answer any of my numbered questions. Instead I get some more ramblings where you give generic claims against my arguments, without actually answering them in any logical and/or factual way, of course.
             Your Breivik quote is rubbish as long as he clearly stated in his manifest that celebrating Christmas is enough to be a Christian, and that he supported Christianity over Odin (Åsatru) merely due to the fact of combining forces against the Muslims.

45. “It is better to dwell in a corner of the housetop, than with a brawling woman in a wide house.” (Proverbs 21:9)
    “Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but they are commanded to be under obedience as also saith the law.
    And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” (1 Corinthians 14:34-35)
    “Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord.
    For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church: and he is the saviour of the body.
    Therefore as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their own husbands in every thing.” (Ephesians 5:22-24)

    1. The Bible spits some serious game.

       1. Yup! alpha(god) fucks, Beta(joseph)bucks. Mary cucks. Jesus walks on water. SO RED PILL!

    2. ah ah. Amusing. Such simplistic and even stupid stuff, it truly sounds decrepit, and believe me I hate feminism too. It’s like hearing a 103 years old man shouting some stupid crap at you about how things were 100 years ago.

       1. In that time men founded their success upon the sacred Natural Rights of Freedom and Property. It also sounds too old?? Yes it is disgracefully for alphadom based on property and freedom the only alphadom which put man on moon

    3. According to eurodude eurogay biblical free will is to cuck kukz you the betadom
       Cuck chuck! Churc cuck! Cuck chuk! kuk txuk!! churk kuk!churk kuk on mslismz cockas!!the betadom exzprezz rings.
       Beta cuck white church beta cuck white church beta bux beta crunch beta buxed welfarizzed welfajizzed drunkz munks munkys jizz jazz juzz on da wimxn face!!!!!
       lmao lmao jzzmate!!!
       Eur0cuck,Eur0kuk eurojizzdrunk

46. Modern Christianity does pedestalize women, and does promote the ideal, that men need women to civilize them. Also they now promote the idea that men should step up and support single mothers ect. Look up that bullshit movie Fireproof for instance. Dalrock writes alot on this. But my point is, that much of what I have seen had heard, does not agree with you red pill assessment of Christianity.

    1. The problem isn’t so much Christianity the problem is that every institution today is corrupted by Cultural Marxism. So today’s church’s have been turned into feminized ‘Churchianity”.

47. “What is morality? It is not the following of enjoined rules of conduct. It is not a question of standing above temptations, or of conquering hate, anger, greed, lust and violence.
    Questioning your actions before and after creates the moral problem. What is responsible for this situation is the faculty of distinguishing between right and wrong and influencing your actions accordingly.Life is action. Unquestioned action is morality. Questioning your actions is destroying the expression of life. A person who lets life act in its own way without the protective movement of thought has no self to defend. What need will he have to lie or cheat or pretend or to commit any other act which his society considers immoral?”
    ― U.G. Krishnamurti, The Mystique of Enlightenment: The Radical Ideas of U.G. Krishnamurti

48. Supernatural beliefs of any kind have no place in the 21st century, and every one deserves to be relentlessly challenged.
    If a man cannot face the world without pretending he has little friends in the sky that make everything better, he is indeed weak.
    I would however concede that some of the values of religion, chiefly family and community, are dangerously in decline.

    1. Where religion declines, men become subservient to women. This is not a coincidence, it is causal. If you do not wish to live in a society where ritual is valued, then you concede to live under the feminist bootheel. The middle ground is only an afterglow on the way to one of these two poles.

49. Come on over. I need a blowjob.

50. I am fucking your slutty sister. Right now.

51. How much per day could I make being your pimp???

52. There is some fascinating evidence suggesting that religious people are more or less genetically predisposed to being religious (“god gene” or VMAT2) and people who are more atheistic lack this gene. I am one of the individuals who seems to lack the “god gene”. No matter how hard I tried, reading through the bible, going to church, praying, etc., I could never fully believe in any deity (or anything) without evidence. Yet, I still have a very honed and sharp moral compass that happens to be in line with a lot of the wisdom and teaching in the scriptures, but is entirely informed through evidence and reason. I strongly believe that the teachings in the ancient scriptures were the result of much wisdom and understanding of the human condition.
    Here’s what is most interesting: most people in the world have this “god gene” and there is very good reason to believe that this has been the result of evolutionary processes. It has been of immense benefit to humans as it has been responsible in maintaining stability through self-policing in society (believing in an omniscient and omnipotent deity). Without it, we would likely never have had any stable societies. There is good reason to believe that there will never be any stable atheistic society because most humans have a god gene, so removing god would not be compatible with the way their brain shapes their moral compass and guides their actions. Also, do you ever notice that when god is removed from society, it is almost always replaced by something else that attempts to replicate the omniscience and omnipotence of a god (i.e. a totalitarian state – well armed with a lot of surveillance).
    So all of the atheists arguing that atheism is the way simply don’t understand the mind of most humans.

    1. There is little doubt that the plethora of gods and deities that have occupied human belief has served us well in our evolution to the present. The research you mention sounds interesting. Do you have any links?
       It’s certainly true that millions people continue to hold a great variety of supernatural beliefs. However, if it’s true, how does that explain people that switch from non belief to a particular religion or vice versa? I doubt this research will prove anything, and even if it did, it still doesn’t provide evidence that any of the belief systems are actually true, only that we have a propensity to believe in gods, deities, unicorns or whatever.
       Lastly, a secular society is perfectly capable of creating sound moral and ethical values based on a few key premises, such as treating others as you would like to be treated. You do not need supernatural beings to guide these values as you yourself appear to have observed.

       1. As simple as it is.

       2. “Lastly, a secular society is perfectly capable of creating sound moral
          and ethical values based on a few key premises, such as treating others
          as you would like to be treated.”
          There is no justification for such premises, and this ‘golden rule’ is never put into practice. I am sure if you murdered somebody you would very much like to be forgiven for the crime so as not to be killed yourself or spend the rest of your life in jail. However, this isn’t a sound basis for any kind of legal code.Hence why all legal codes in 100% of countries in the world have a religious basis in history, even in North Korea.

    2. Some have called this spiritual autism, and there really isn’t a problem with it from a purely social perspective. Non-believers can see the basic truth that religion is at the core of a stable society.

53. The author is either a catholic or a Protestant. I am neither, most athiest who use google will tell you they are the original church and bsptist are a Protestants offshoot I disagree. The Catholics church is not the original church and its members are no different from athiest. They themselves do more damage to christianity than any one else, ask yourself these questions, where can you find justification for the following doctrines in the bible : purgatory, infant baptism, the pope, celibant priest, crusades, the Spanish inqusitions, any inqusitions period. One cannot find any justification for those things, why are they there, simple answer athiest infiltrated a church and set it up for use of the government, the roman one. Catholic doesn’t mean christian, it means universal and its customs are pagan. As far as PC the Catholic church is as PC as it can get they just took opposing ideas paganism and Christianity and mixed the two, then killed all those who opposed them.

    1. iow, you’re a baptist with no knowledge of history who thinks he hates papists. gotcha

       1. Simply read the bible and you will see the catholic church sends the most people to hell.

54. Excellent article. Thank you.

55. Jesus Christ was as red pill as they come, but on the blue team…1 Timothy 2:12-14 “I do not permit a woman to teach, or assume authority over a man, she must be quiet.” “For Adam was formed FIRST, then Eve, and Adam was not the one deceived, “it was the woman who was deceived, and became the sinner.” God knows about these bitches, he created then, down to their dna. Man is a first order human, linked right to God, women are second order, linked to man, then God. Red pill as it gets fellas- my point is this- Real Christianity is worth investigating and committing to, if anything for the teachings of universal laws. The thing about God and atheists….freewill….if an atheist wants to not believe in God, God (the universe) will send the atheist physical proof that God does not exist. That’s how cool it is in the big scheme of things.

56. Good article. There’s sometimes way too much fedora is this part of the internet that knee-jerk rejects Christianity without really thinking things through.

57. i am probably gonna peace out from this site soon. with this shit, Forney , and fucking Mike Chang horseshit it’s losing me. Go back to being funny and/or bring back Athlone.

58. It was already said in the article but I’ll repeat it again here using another version of the Bible. Every time I hear a feminist bring up ‘equality’, I come back at them with this:
    “Timothy 1:19
    A woman should learn in quietness and full submission. I do not permit a woman to teach or to have authority over a man; she must be silent. For Adam was formed first, then Eve. And Adam was not the one deceived; it was the woman who was deceived and became a sinner.”

59. Nice try, and I really do mean that. However, your claims of past great deeds are no different than Muslims who hang their hat an algebra. The reality is that Christianity has neutered the Western World ever since the Crusades ended. Moreover, it was a rejection of Christian principals, and an adherence to a pre existing warrior culture, that brought on the Crusades.
    Charles the Hammer Martel had to literally yank people by their collar away from praying in order to drive to keep the Muslims out. Every action after was an action inspired by survival and warrior ethos, not the piety commanded by the bible, nor anything demonstrated by the apostles or saints.
    European culture is the sum of many different warrior cultures, and by that I mean tribes where a war lord rules supreme. All cultures have warriors, but not all are lead by them, with many having a Priest Caste that rules over the people and/or appoints a king as did the Jews with Saul. The South American tribes are another example of Priest Caste cultures.
    This mixing of a priest caste culture with a warrior people has tempered both mindsets, yet I feel has held back Europe from achieving its fullest potential. It certainly has of late, considering the effeminate men and whores that support the current church, and their weak love message.

    1. The West – the Christian civilizations in Europe – transformed the world radically since the Crusades ended. Not sure what date you want to use – The Spanish finished kicking out the Muslims about the time Columbus set sail. So I’ll use the end of the Reconquista in 1492 – although Eastern Europe had to fight the Ottomans and Tartars many more times and Vienna was besieged in 1529 and 1683.
       From medieval to modern technology in 600 years. An incredible leap. No other culture or religion has ever done anything like it.

       1. I didn’t say they didn’t transform the world. I said the Crusades was a case of Christendom ignoring Christianity, and that ever since the religion has slowly neutered the society especially by the time of the Enlightenment when literal interpretation began to be dropped, while still leaving the Christian altruistic teachings.
          Ghangis Khan went from a nomad to conquering most of the world. Muhamed took a sand people and conquered half of the known world within a generation.
          These types of things do happen.

60. Great article Brian McGonagall, my only nitpick is that the point you covered here:
    “As for my people, children are their oppressors, and women rule over them. O my people, they which lead thee cause thee to err, and destroy the way of thy paths.” (Isaiah 3:12)”
    was actually covered in another recent article on ROK called “The red pill anti feminism wisdom from the bible”

    The Anti-Feminism Wisdom Of The Bible

    
    Still, it never hurts to be a little redundant in order to drive home the novel concept that having faith actually gives one a red pill perspective, especially if that faith is as intrinsic to the US as Christianity. Well done good sir.
    As you and everyone else who waxes spiritually on matters of neo masculine faith knows, you will be attacked heavily by the wandering groups of blue pill antitheist atheist trolls here on ROK.
    I stand in your defense and dare these heathen bastards to challenge me as well.
    Daniel Ramos aka “The bastard elocutioner”

    1. And yes friends, i’m aware elocutioner isn’t a proper word 🙂

61. What a contradiction…. the same guys who so brilliantly have figured out through real-world trial and error (and psychological manipulation) how to cut through all of the bullshit surrounding the traditional mating dance and getting girls into bed, so vehemently protect their imaginary god and the silly rules that are preached through religion.

    1. women control sex, not men. Women are choosing to sleep with fun badboys, they punish nice guy behavior and use them as sponsor / providers once their beauty starts to fade in their late 20s. We are simply adapting to the circumstances presented to us.

62. Feminized Christianity is the enemy of masculinity. Jesus was a hardass but today he is cast as a socialist hippy dippy fag in order to weaken the cultural influence that Christianity provides. RoK has at least a few articles exploring this.

    1. A “hardass” doesn’t “turn the other cheek” or love his enemies.

       1. On the contrary, when you consider Him as a divine person this makes total sense. Jesus didn’t need to kill them, he didn’t need to overthrow Rome or the Sanhedrin. As he said, in the end, every single one of them would be judged. In a sense, he had already conquered them in the only way that mattered.

63. I am Christian with no particular Christian affiliation and my wife is agnostic and my son attends Sunday school at a Lutheran church.
    We all get along well around the holidays and such.

64. I knew a guy in school that could adequately justify smoking weed by quoting the bible. That book consists of a thousand pages of vague statement that could be quoted to justify anything.
    That being said, its ironic that articles on a PUA site keep encouraging this return to the grass roots. Frankly I like fucking bitches. I fucking love the state of the world.

    1. exactly. seriously, how many of us would take the traditional sweet virgin, marry her, then spend 60 fucking years doing the same shit every damn day.
       She’ll be attractive for 10 of those years, tops.
       all because we’re guilted into this idea that we will be cast into hell for being promiscuous, and that the world Is just going to abruptly end according to revelations or whatever.

       1. The only thing men we have to do is to control law and politics. I am perfectly fine with the current level of sluttiness of murican womyn. We only need womyn just for sex, after all.

       2. Yep. But in general, I dont understand why beta provider traditionalism keeps getting posted on this site. As an Alpha, or someone perpetually trying to improve himself, I dont want to take on the responsibility of raising a female where her father left off, which is what traditionalism is all about. A stay at home wife is literally no different from a child that does chores, except that the child goes to school.
          Anyone that wants to spend 60 years of their life doing this is certainly not neo-masculine, let alone a pick up artist.

       3. You will be thrown into hell for being promiscuous. And while you’re too busy wasting all your manfulness on chasing another piece of tail rather than raising sons and daughters and leading the community, other men from other tribes and cultures, will run you and your kind over.
          Game might be far better than no game. The Alpha more sexed, happier than the beta. But unless he focuses less on his dick and more on building a civilization, which always and forever means monogamy, then he’ll still lose in the game of life and civilzation. And in eternity. A man who controls his sexual impulses, finds a solid woman to throw it into, refuses the evil of contraception and has the stones to raise children and a family, to organize communities and fighting units to protect that community or nation, and to train, equip, and arm his own sons with the same physical, spiritual armor and strength…. all in the name of Christ… it is he that truly wins. Promiscuity kills, as Game practitioners regularly attest to in the broken women of the world. They bemoan the state of affairs, yet continue to break more and more of those same women by bedding them and ditching them.

          1. so are you married? I can tell you’re not, yet you go around spouting your bullshit that everyone else has to except you

          2. Celibate three years and running. Thank the Lord. It’s liberating. Focuses you. I have ZERO problem next-ing any hot chick, do not give a damn about their approval. Will hopefully marry in the next few years. With prayer, discipline, determination and focus, with fight, you can overcome lust, among many other addictions, and be chill and totally at peace with the celibate life. Maybe I won’t marry. I used to worry about it. Not so much anymore. This life goes by fast. I’ll be sure that, married or not, I’ll be holy and fighting for Christ until the very end.
             Hardly drinking, not smoking anymore, full of energy. Could get laid tonite if I wanted to, easily. Don’t want to. ‘Cause, Sin. Body wants it, I don’t. I win. God’s Will wins.
             Have fun with ignoring my “bullshit”. While it lasts. This life will be over sooner than you think. Pussy gets old, even the “hot” ones. Hell lasts forever.

          3. well I’m glad you have a hobby ; something to focus you and give purpose to your life. I always found it ironic all the priests – who were single themselves – tell you go out and commit your life to living with a woman even though they themselves wont do it.

          4. Thanks. More than a hobby. Otherwise I would fall, not taking it seriously enough. Many priests are betraying Christ and His Bride, the Church, are leading all sorts of their flock astray with pitiful, weak advice. Some do it intentionally, as they deeply resent and hate the Cross. They have infiltrated the Church with the purpose of corrupting it to fit their own moral worldview. The same has happened in many Protestant churches as well, hence the acceptance of gay marriage, women priest, etc., in many of those. Others are just intellectual weak or cowards, afraid to stand against the culture.
             NOTE: Not all Catholic priest have to be celibate. It is only a practice of the ROMAN rite Catholics that their priests be celibate. Eastern Catholic priests are allowed to be married before taking vows, as with the Orthodox Churches. Now, historically and traditionally married priests almost never became bishops, maybe partly due to the demand’s of family life, but there is nothing un-holy or un-Catholic about a married priest, properly ordained in one of the Eastern Rite Catholic eparchies.
             Obviously it is possible for a married man to be holier and more righteous than a celibate priest, or vice versa. And God ultimately wants righteous men, with zeal for Him and His Law, in leadership of His church. Married or not. As even Rome accepts, just not in the offering of Roman Rite liturgies.

          5. Pelayo makes a valid point. Even if you do not believe you will be held accountable in the next life, consider that other cultures who do not act the way you do, are stronger, and history shows that they will conquer you and either exterminate what legacy you leave or enslave it.

          6. then all young white men need to get married and make white children so our people can survive. Except Pelayo isn’t married either, like priests he demands everyone else do something he himself isn’t willing to do.

          7. There are good reasons to avoid marriage today, namely legal ones, but it depends on what kind of women you can find, and what communities you are planning to settle in. Such realities often hinder white men from starting families.
             However the question is not really one about personal life choices, but what our view is of this situation. Is it just? Is it societally beneficial? If the answer is no, then we are duty-bound to see this system be torn down. It gets a little annoying to hear people denounce feminism and the legal empowerment of women over men, but still essentially support an open secular democratic society, in which this is the inevitable conclusion.
             I agree completely that it sucks to be married in the Modern world. It’s a game of Russian roulette. But then are you willing to give up the things which so many people love about the Modern world in order to rectify this situation?

    2. Anything can be taken out of context.
       You like the state of the world? Good for you, but I think most of us like living with a better economy and people who don’t fiddle with smart phones all day and get offended by everything.
       If it weren’t for those “beta providers” you wouldn’t even exist so be grateful some guy fucked some woman to get you born and raised (assuming your mom isn’t a ho who’s had hundreds of dicks inside of her) so you can be free to have sex for the rest of your life.

       1. For starters, I never asked to be born. I don’t understand why people use this argument. I could just has easily have been ejaculated into a rag with billions of my potential siblings and have been none the wiser.
          As for the economy, I worked my ass off for a decent major. I earn double the average income in my town, and I only graduated a year ago. Besides, I doubt the economy was ever “better”, short of a few post-war periods. Humanity has a fetish with nostalgia. I’m sure people in the ’50s said the economy was better in the ’20s.

    3. I would love to hear that justification, just for the entertainment value. Can you remember and share?

65. I don’t see how people can adapt the book of revelations to whatever conflict happens to be going on at the present moment and say it’ll be the end of the world.
    Vietnam, WW2, and really any prior conflicts were all brutal and significantly more bloody than anything we have today, yet everyone is freaking out.
    IMO the only real problems are overpopulation in the 3rd world and their violent, idiotic tendances (Islam).

66. I am always a bit puzzled how a piece like this can be reconciled with the sexual mores promoted by Roosh and his gang…

    1. .Roosh is a smart dude.
       i
       He understands (impllicitly) that we are body and and spirit. Yes, the carnal mind is emnity against God. (I apologize for explaining his theology as I obviously cannnot. I am just saying how I see him and explain to myself the curious paradox of this site.)
       However, we have to make an attempt to reconcile the two while we are here. The synthesis is the soul.
       The circle will never be squared perfectly. Except through time perhaps.
       Fortunately, as we get older and become less (hopefully) slaves to our passions, we become better people. And yes, that includes not constantly screwing around. Successful marriage can help, but is under attack by left.
       However, it is hardwired into our DNA to have a powerful carnal mind. Roosh seems to want to help us with that issue.
       I am happpy to see a site that at least attempts to explore this issue. And reconcile that which is difficult to reconcile.
       We do not yet have an absolute value for PI, but Roosh seems to have more decimals down than most. But the circle will not be squared for a long time yet.
       Whether you are nihilist or religious traditionalist, Roosh is worth your attention. Even if nobody really has the answers. Even the guy who can’t yet think beyond next week-end’s pussy might start evolving. And might even get in some action in the process rather than spending another sad evening whacking off.

67. You fuckers have definitely jumped the shark.

68. You can quote the Bible all day, but it won’t change the behavior of the churches who are solidly to the left and pro-illegal immigration and feminism. And more pro-homo with each passing day. And of course they are Zionist shills as well, as dumb goy are supposed to be.
    It’s way past time to dump the Abrahamic religions. They are Jew religions and not native religions of European peoples.

    1. Reading these christains gives me the chilling realization that the European race isn’t going to survive without a major culling…its disturbing. They are weaponized by our enemies beyond redemption…

    2. I was with you until that last paragraph.

69. ”Christianity condemns laziness and encourages self improvement”
    You need to define ‘laziness’ and ‘self improvement’ very accurately before writing your half-baked ‘articles’.
    If anything, the qualities you erroneously think are found in Christianity, are found in science. If you are telling me that Christianity promotes ‘self-improvement’, you don’t know what you are talking about, please stop churning out stupid stuff with no logical basis. I am amazed at how long has been since I have read a good article on ROK. Quality has gone down the drain, I just keep reading some stupid crap.

70. Opiate, not opium.
    Also all religions are stupid.

    1. That’s because they are ran by people. People suck.

       1. Right I believe everything is run by people

          1. And the world is flawed. Religion is just another example.

71. “A man without religion is to be pitied, a woman without religion is a horror beyond all things.”
    “When women dress immodestly, and men despise religion, it is the beginning of the end.” – Seneca

72. Christianity tells the story of the ultimate alpha fucks beta bucks narrative with Mary cuckolding Joseph. Feminism is rooted in anglo puritanical evangelism … Its all about pedastlizing women whilst shaming/demonizing men’s vices e.g. boozing, whoring, rowdy behavior. SJWs share more in common with western christian prohibitionist than Russian Marxist. Its always been about using moral outrage to control men and enforce cultural retardation. Just a bunch of pearl clutching twats SJWs&christians.

    1. This guy sees through the bullshit.

73. Jesus Christ was MGTOW before any of you hipsters 😂 “For thus saith the Lord, the stank ass women of the temple know not their own worth, but ye shall cast them out with their small children in hand to live according to what she hath sown. For the Lord saith, bitches be crazy, forever and ever amen.” 🙏

74. It has been a pretty consistent fact throughout history. When religion diminishes, men lose their political power and subsequently become subservient to women. You can see this not only in Christian societies, but Islamic, Hindu, and Buddhist societies as well. Where secularism triumphs, men lose.
    One cannot be for Patriarchy and against religious dominion. One necessitates the other.
    Again, the hostility to religion conceptually comes from two positions: one a criticism of Liberal religion (i.e – the current Pope, Methodists, Anglicans etc.). This criticism isn’t particularly valid because heretics can always and have always been burned.
    The other is a fear of extremism. Dissident men largely fall into two categories. The first are those content to just dislike political correctness and the Liberal establishment, but not really oppose any of their core beliefs, such as secularism and suffrage. The second are those who are willing to embrace extremism in both method and ideological framework in order to oppose Modern thinking. The move towards this second position is essentially what NeoMasculinity seems to be about, which is why MGTOW criticized it.

75. It’s magical, emotional thinking. Less emotional (and therefore feminine) than Islam, but purely emotional arguments. Man up and accept reality.

    1. Speaking of reality I have two questions for you. 1. Do you accept that your five senses give you a complete and accurate perception of reality? 2. If yes then do you have a scientific way of proving the same?

Comments are closed.