Why Returning To The Pagan Mindset Could Bring Back Masculinity

Sometimes a crisis can force you to do things you never would have agreed to before. My step-father was 40 years when he had a heart attack. Up until that point he had been a two-pack-a-day smoker. No amount of pleading could make him quit, but after his heart attack he quit cold turkey and never looked back. It’s the same thing on a societal level—a crisis can change the course of a civilization forever.

We’ve reached such a crisis in Western civilization. Decades of leftist social engineering and replacement levels of immigration have turned Western man into atomized units devoid of spiritual purpose. But this crisis has caused a reaction within Western society. Men are starting to become aware of our dire situation and the events that led up to this point. We are also taking the first halting steps toward reversing the disease. One of these steps may be the return of the pagan mindset of our pre-Christian ancestors.

Christianity before the 20th Century

Christianity today has a reputation for being namby-pamby. Modern Christianity fights for feminism, egalitarianism, and third world immigration with the same ferocity as a Social Justice Warrior (SJW). It wasn’t always this way. When Christianity was at its height during the Middle Ages, the society that it created was hierarchical, not egalitarian. There was a threefold social order that consisted of the clergy, the nobility, and the people. Husbands and wives each had well-defined roles and divorce was forbidden. Medieval Christians would be shocked at modern Christians’ embrace of feminism and egalitarianism.

Medieval Christianity did not share the modern belief that everyone is good. Cities were built with walls and strong defenses, not because their inhabitants hated the people on the outside, but because they wanted to protect themselves and their posterity. The idea that Christians are obligated to take in hordes of Muslim immigrants would have been ridiculed by Christians of the past.

Even as late as the 20th Century, Christian leaders still recognized that peoples have a legitimate desire to guard their heritage.

Modern Christianity is pacifist in nature. Many churchmen oppose capital punishment and even modest means of self-defense. On the other hand, the Christians of the Middle Ages knew that the government bore the sword as an agent of God’s justice. Thus, they had no problem with administering capital punishment to those who deserved it. And when Christians in the Holy Land were consistently harassed by Muslims, the pope himself called for a crusade to seize back the land from the enemy.

There is such a big difference between modern Christians and Christians of the past that one has to ask, Which one of these was right? Which one represented true Christianity?

What is the pagan mindset?

When I say pagan mindset, I don’t necessarily mean a return to pagan religions. To be sure there are some men who have rejected modern Christianity in favor of a more masculine paganism. The most common is adoption of some form of Germanic paganism. While I’ve seen some movement in that direction, I don’t expect the mass of Christians, nominal or fervent, to start worshiping Odin anytime soon. Rather, it is more likely that people will reject Christianity as being impractical for the forces that confront us.

The adoption of the pagan mindset will happen when people begin to realize that feminism, egalitarianism, and neoliberalism are not conducive to creating a healthy society. At that point, they will see that modern Christianity, which has adopted these “isms,” is not a solution but an obstacle preventing these problems from being resolved.

Modern Christianity has bought into feminist philosophy. While it doesn’t advocate for blue-haired harpies, it still pushes a leveling of husband and wife. It gives lip service to honoring motherhood but really embraces the idea of careerism for women. And modern Christian leaders would fight the return of patriarchy with as much vigor as the most extreme intersectional feminist.

When it comes to immigration from the third world, modern Christianity is even worse. Rather than calling for sane immigration policy where nations are permitted to have sovereign borders, it calls for Western nations to drop all border controls and admit everyone, even if they harbor an intense hatred of the West. Minor measures, like deporting criminal illegals, are stridently resisted. This opens up the citizens of Western nations to being the victims of unnecessary violence.

The viable pagan mindset would be a rejection of the forces that have brought us to this point. In place of egalitarianism and feminism, it would posit hierarchy and patriarchy. It would reject promiscuity for both men and women and re-embrace married life. In place of neoliberalism, that makes profit the only morality, it would value family and tribe above pure financial gain. Most importantly, the pagan mindset would sweep away the collective guilt that has prevented men from acting in their own best interest.

The downside of a pagan mindset is that it would be unchecked by Christian morality. This would open the door to the potential for ruthlessness.


As a Christian, my hope is that church leaders will stop trying to chase the secular culture, which is moving farther and farther to the left, and return to a healthy sense of justice and a well-ordered society. A Christian answer to the problems that face us would ensure any solutions that are implemented are done justly and, insofar as possible, mercifully. The ironic thing is that the right mindset is already part of the Christian tradition. All Christians would have to do is to reclaim their Medieval heritage.

But, barring some divine intervention, I don’t see that happening. While more and more people have been waking up to the grave problems that are besetting our culture, most Christian leaders continue to peddle cuckservatism or outright leftism. It is likely is that church leaders will continue to try to win over leftists until it is too late. Worse, church leaders, will probably continue to block even mild reforms thus making the final reaction much worse than it would need to be. If the pagan mindset does return, the blame for it will lie squarely with all the church leaders that made it a necessity.

Read More: Why Is Modern Christianity So Wimpy?

561 thoughts on “Why Returning To The Pagan Mindset Could Bring Back Masculinity”

  1. I was quite surprised when I encountered liberal “Christians.” Weak effeminate men who wear plaid shirts, sport nerd glasses, read buzzfat, and support feminism. I walked out of my church when the priest prayed for refugees.
    edit: it’s not all like that. Only in coast states and/or college campuses.

    1. I walked out of mine when they got a lady preacher. Women have a valuable role to play in church. But no woman has the right to teach a man about God or authority from the leadership position. It is explicitly forbidden in scripture for a woman to even open her yapper in church let alone lecture men about God.
      “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” (1 Timothy 2:11–12).

      1. My granny’s church has a lesbian holding one of the offices of her Church (treasurer or some such) and apparently the dyke is an asshat.
        Unfortunately many Christians just focus of the Jesus part of the bible, and not the Samson-y bits.

        1. Good point. From my understanding it was God acting through Paul who forbade women to have authority over a man. He was writing based on the New Covenant laid out by Jesus. But he was fully aware in an Old-Testamenty vein that Eve was the one who was easily deceived by the serpent, and was created as Adam’s helper, not the other way around. Hence women, and probably especially womyn like the one in your story, have no authority over men…in fact Man is sovereign over woman like God is sovereign over Man.

        2. Dude. No. Go pick up some hisory books written while he was alive. Doubt the divinity if you must, that’s the choice, but he was, and some still say is.

        3. Even Jesus said he wasn’t here to change God’s law but to reinforce it. Many people also misunderstand Jesus when he talked about forgives, the liberals tend to forget the “go forth and sin no more” forgiveness can only be offered if it is asked for and guilt is admitted, today people wanted to indulge themselves completely and then have the gall to ask for forgiveness with no intention of changing.

        4. Christianity is the religion of the white man, paganism is the most generic form of superstition there is. Christianity has been impeded into the West for 2000 years and whites would be unrecognizable without it.

        5. Every ideology has murdered millions of white people (we kind of invented every modern one) from communism to fascism, the only reason paganism didn’t kill as many is because millions didn’t exist to be slaughtered.

        6. The Jesus part of the Bible is the most hardcore, Jesus says he is going to send you to Hell if you don’t do what he says.

        7. I cant argue the existence of a man 2000 years ago any better than you can. And as far as the religion being “fake”, that’s more of an opinion than a point.
          The thing about faith, in anything is that YOU have to come to IT, it wont be readily, or even analytically apparent.
          So, read your Good Book, attend a Real (cough Orthodox cough shameless plug cough) Christian liturgy a few times and if it starts to make man’s position in the universe and relative to one another a little more clear, then, there you have it. That’s it – no magic, no special effects, and sadly, no tangible evidence to hold.

        8. There are like 7 different written historical accounts of Jesus: Josephus, Tacitus, the four Gospels, and the Talmud all exist as a historical written record of Jesus existing. As well as the reports Pontius Pilate made to Rome which have been lost to history, but were verified to have existed. Much greater historical record for Christ existence exists than Plato, and many other ancient figures in history.

        9. You can’t be more Manly than Jesus. I think that’s even a dogma

        10. Nope, most texts by roman officials were commenting on rumours or traditions spread by christians after the council of nicea …
          No roman official has ever stated direct contact of a man named jesus …

        11. Josephus, Tacitus, the writers of the Gospels were all contemporaries of Jesus. The writings of the Church fathers which predate the Council of Nicea all speak about Jesus as well. Furthermore the historical evidence of the early Chirch existing and worshipping Jesus is beyond dispute. What do you think people were going into the collesiums and giving there lives for if not for the Lord. Would these same people then drop their religion on a whim because some Council in Nicea told them so?

        12. Well seeing that the Bible wasn’t compiled and codified until after the Council of Nicea you are correct, but for the wrong reasons lol

        13. Indeed, there is nothing more manly than the Trinity, recognizing that there is more than individual prowess physically, spiritually, and morally is something only true men are capable of (just try explaining it to women and you’ll have rheeing and complaining for weeks).

        14. That’s why God established men as the head of the household to whom the wife must submit herself to. So neither he no us would have to put up with silly female antics.

        15. Unfortunately we were (((led))) astray and are now openly flaunting our disrespect for biblical principles.

        16. There were plenty of pagan christians & christian doctrines before the council of nicea …
          Direct records from the First Council of Nicæa haven’t survived, so we don’t know precisely what happened.
          But it appears that both sides set out their doctrines: Athanasius of Alexandria (a protege of Patriarch Alexander) argued in favor of orthodoxy; Arius argued in favor of the Samosatene doctrine.
          Arius & his followers were in the minority among Literalist Christians of Alexandria. Alexander, patriarch of Alexandria
          , in 323 & 324 hosted local synods (or councils) of bishops from across northern Africa, which denounced Arius & his doctrine.
          the majority sided with Athanasius & Alexander, and the Council voted to denounce Arius & his doctrine
          Another action taken during this Council was a formal denunciation of Gnosticism, as well as some other minor heresies

        17. Many people believe that the Church as an organization was founded by Constantine at this Council. That is not true.
          The Church organization existed prior to the Council. In fact, if not for the existence of a hierachy of bishops and patriarchs, the Council would not even have been possible! (Otherwise, thousands of clerics across the Mediterranean would have to have somehow been assembled — all but impossible at that time.)

        18. As a Catholic we believe the Church is a visible Heirarchical organisation founded By Jesus Christ during Pentecost.

        19. No records exist of the Council changing Sacred Scripture or doing anything of the sort. Heretics are not Christians and even these heretics you speak of acknowlged that Jesus existed.

        20. Thanks for showing your iliteracy ignorance. What’s next? Millions of women were burned at the stake or are you gonna say women earn 77% of what men do?

        21. No one stated direct contact. As many others have stated there are more historical contemporary references of Jesus than those for Plato or Socrates, but of course you will not argue that they were inventions of later philosophical schools…

        22. Yes but Christianity killed the right people – important point.

        23. lol they werent heretics, they were responsible for creating the bible & the christian religion in conjunctiin with rome & the pharisees
          Not one of them mentions jesus in any of their doctrines or ideology before nicea …

        24. So you agree there are no references to jesus when he was alive?
          Only after the council of nicea created the fiction of jesus, is jesus ever mentioned in historical record
          Also references or rumours dont count as evidence for a persons existence

        25. Arianism denies the divinity of Christ not the existence of Christ, same with gnosis. They most certainly were heretics as the Deny the nature of God that God has revealed and furthermore do not worship God in the manner which he proscribed. None of the people you mention had any hand in writing Sacred Scripture as in order to be accepted into Canon the author had to have been an Apostle or close Disciple of Jesus.

        26. You have not provided one iota of proof for your ridiculous ascertaitions which are easily disprove by a cursory look at the historical record. Go away.

        27. The Bible was compiled after Nicea. The individual books of the Bible were written by the Apostles and close Disciples of Jesus during the 1st century. You are an idiot.

        28. The article you provided and the site is not a legitimate source. No footnotes, no citations, no author. My 9th grade English teacher would mark me down if I cited this.

        29. I don’t know am I supposed to have an answer for everything? Maybe it’s because the were written by Jews who didn’t like Jesus and didn’t want to write about him. I’m sure there are a lot of things that were happening at that time that the Dead Sea scrolls dont talk about too.

        30. You’re wrong about everything you wrote here. The Josephus passage is a Christian interpolation, the earliest Gospel (Mark) wasn’t written until forty or fifty years after the alleged death of Jesus. Tacitus was born in 56 A.D. The Gospels are literary fiction.

        31. Nobody knows who wrote the Gospels, but they certainly weren’t written by illiterate fishermen. They were written in highly polished literary Greek, the earliest some two generations after the alleged death of a Christ, by people who did not live in Plaestine and had no geographical familiarity with the area.

        32. “Then said he unto them,
          But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, and likewise his scrip:
          and he that hath no sword, let him sell his garment, and buy one.” – Luke 22:36
          One of my favorite verses whenever I hear a liberal atheist think of Jesus as some cucked out John Lennon figure.

        33. You know, it used to be that there was a graphic that we used on church: There was God (a big umbrella) on top of man (another umbrella, smaller) on top of women and children.
          In short: a man is a god for his wife!
          Unfortunately, that view would be viciously attacked on any christian church today.

        34. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tacitus_on_Christ
          Tacitus “Annals”
          Yeah, this was after Jesus’ death, but, like, we live in the time of John F Kennedy relative to Jesus’ distance from Tacitus, and no-body’s gonna look at our books and say JFK was not real in 2000 years, or are they? The life of Jesus is historical fact. Written like half a century after Jesus died. If someone’s gonna look at memoirs of like James Polk or Davy crocket in 1800 years and say, “yeah, right, the alamo happenned but Crocket’s a myth,” it’s because they don’t want to admit he’s a hero, and should argue his heroism, or legacy, but not his existence. Same as with Jesus. He lived.

        35. Paganism is a pretty primitive form of religion. Its not really a full fledge religion itself, or should I say, not a very defined one. There are many forms of Paganism, and some could be really bad.
          If Someone wishes to make Paganism successful, he will need money, and a clear and well defined doctrine.

        36. lol, and the funny thing is that the Talmud is against Jesus. So if he didn’t exist, why would the Talmud refer to him?

        37. Unfortunately no … Tacitus references jesus after the council of nicea … If you read tacitus, he references customs of christians or rumours by christians, he doesnt state direct contact or state any direct proof for his existence …

        38. I call the Pope’s bull. I think he’s a liberal, more than not, a globalist, a hypocrit, and a meddler. He attacks Trump, supports criminal aliens, lives behind closed doors, and if he is to be belived, thinks he is the only man who speaks directly for God. Doesn’t sound like the kind of guy a skeptic should take at his word. I mean, didn’t the Catholic church just declare that “It’s better to be an athiest, than a bad Christian?” Sounds different than what the Bible says about not judging other men. Sounds like the man in the tall hat thinks he knows better than the book. Might come down to weather you think locked-in written-down doctrine is stronger than, or weaker than subjective morality.

        39. When you realize “turn the other cheek” may mean “is that all you got?”

        40. “Man is sovereign over woman like God is sovereign over Man”
          yup, I would go farther and say that as God is to Man, so is Man to a woman. The Idea that a woman has somehow the right to “access” God directly is just garbage. Men are better, more holy, more spiritual, etc. There is a clear hierarchy.

        41. Yes. He didn’t say “Don’t ever judge”. He said don’t judge hypocritically (as we all sometimes do!!). Later, he clarifies his point by saying “judge with righteous judgment”

        42. I think woman can access God directly, as we all can: through prayer. What they can’t do is lead men.

        43. Not true. Christianity is for all human beings. Phillip it was who baptised an Ethiopian. The wonder of Christianity is that it brings people of vastly different backgrounds, classes, colors to the same spiritual standpoint, and to salvation.

        44. Yes, but didn’t you claim that no one had made any references to Christ before Nicea and that Christ is a fictional character invented at Nicea? Tacitus references Christ in this passage from his annals (English translation available in the article if you don’t read Latin):
          “auctor nominis eius Christus Tibero imperitante per procuratorem Pontium Pilatum supplicio adfectus erat”
          This was written in the second century. Nicea was fourth century, wasn’t it?

        45. Yes, but the OP made the claim that no one every actually referenced Christ before the Council of Nicea. That’s what I was disputing.

        46. Do you have a reference to prove this? My devout Catholic wife will be very surprised to hear this.

        47. Exactly and that “repentance” must be sincere and one must correct ones ways and live according to the scripture. Not religious but this is common sense.
          This fag tolerating, volleyball playing pop band type Christianity really pisses me off!

        48. Nicea was 3rd century, also that text merely references christ, doesnt state direct contact or personal contact of a jesus
          There are quite a few roman texts which reference christ, but none mention direct contact or witness to a jesus

        49. The Greek used in the Gosples was “low” greek. Anyways not all the followers of Jesus were proles. Matthew was a tax collector, Luke was thought to have been a doctor, Paul was a Pharisee before his conversion. They were written after the death of Jesus yes because that’s when the Christian religion started. Furthermore Sacred Scripture was never intended to be the sole foundation of faith and most of the New Testament was produced to combat emerging heresies and keep the startup churches from falling into bad disciplines. Furthermore outside the established historical fact that they were written by the a
          Apostles & Disciples there is plenty of evidence within the texts themselves that the were written in the first century by people who were natives of Palestine.

        50. “About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. ” – Josephus history of the Jews.
          The Gospels were written after Christ dies history is usually written after it happens find me a history book written before and I will give you a million bucks and take it to Vegas. Tacitus may well have been born after but he would have known and met people who were 1st hand witnesses during his lifetime. Just as a historian today can write about WW2.

        51. Yes, but again, didn’t you contend that no one had MENTIONED Christ before Nicea and that he is a fictional character created at the Council? Caps added because you seem to be evading the question, as you seem to be evading the request for a reference to back up your claim elsewhere that the Catholic church has admitted Christ never existed.
          By the way, wikipedia has the First Council of Nicaea as happening in 325 AD. Did you misremember the date or do you not understand that 325 AD would be fourth century?

        52. The first Gospel written Matthew is thought to have been written 40-50 AD Mark and Luke 5-10 years after. The Gospel of St. John is actually the last book written in the Bible and was written about 90ad

        53. Don’t engage the troll dude. There is a real conversation happening amongst intelligent men coming from different walks of life and with different ideas who all have a mutual respect for one another and the topic. You don’t need to response to a pubescent troll who is so green he doesn’t know which side of the bed to piss on

        54. Morning, man, I don’t know what to tell you on that. Thomas edison just wasn’t around back then to record the events so people could know without trusting the current technology. Might not help convince a disbeliever anyway. Do you believe in Bigfoot because of the Patterson Footage? People believe what they want, man. Besides, he didn’t leave a grave, because he left the grave, if you get me. Have you ever heard of Pascal’s Wager?

        55. I don’t understand. On my internet, it looks a lot like spam. I’m sort of apprehensive to click further. The idea of a religious teacher makes sense, but Jesus was so infallible, his teachings survived, even without a Pope, independent of a Pope, as you say it, in spite of a (anti)Pope. The link to holy family monestary looked like a search engine sort of.

        56. I dont have many rules, but one of them is:
          If I see a drum kit in a church, I’m leaving.

        57. This is well spelt out in the bible:
          1 COR 11: 3
          But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
          Infact, it is a Curse to be led by a woman:
          ISAIAH 3:12
          Youths oppress my people,
          women rule over them.
          My people, your guides lead you astray;
          they turn you from the path.

        58. Lets not get nuts – the ‘right’ and ‘wrong’ people is really not our call beyond the most individual levels.

        59. That passage is universally acknowledged by scholars to be a Christian interpolation in the text.

        60. Sorry, but you’re uneducated on these matters. Even Christian scholars admit that we don’t know who wrote the Gospels and have no evidence of authorship of them. Church tradition is no grounds to establish anything.

        61. The New Testament was written in koine Greek, but the Gospels are highly polished Greek literary forms written by people with literary training. They were also unfamiliar with the geography of Palestine and made many mistakes. Jesus moves in a fictional literary landscape and not in the actual geography of the area.

        62. Yep, but that was before i realised there were fragments dating back to 100ad …
          Also the equivelant of christ & jesus were quite common, used by several none christian religions with identical religions to christianity … apparently gods dying on the cross is pretty ancient & not exclusive to christianity…
          Still doesnt prove jesus existed, it proves the existence of the new testament, but the new testament was pretty different back then, compared to kjv …

        63. Raising a chalice of wine into the air, Pope Leo toasted:
          “How well we know what a profitable superstition this fable of Christ has been for us and our predecessors.”
          The pope’s pronouncement is recorded in the diaries and records of both Pietro Cardinal Bembo (Letters and Comments on Pope Leo X, 1842 reprint) and Paolo Cardinal Giovio (De Vita Leonis Decimi, , op. cit.), two associates who were witnesses to it.
          In his diaries, Cardinal Bembo, the Pope’s secretary for seven years, added that Leo:
          “was known to disbelieve Christianity itself. He was guilty of sodomy with his chamberlains; and spent his whole days in the company of musicians and buffoons.”

        64. From what i remember the early texts had no mention of a cross, no trinity & no ressurection …
          So i’m not sure they can be considered as canon …
          Also the catholic church refers to the original authors as anonymous, in their encyclopedia

        65. No there is no universal acknowledgment of any sort: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Josephus_on_Jesus
          Furthermore from what I have read on the matter there is some controversy on that quote in particular but it is amongst liberal historians whose argument pretty much is “well Josephus is a Jew so he could never say those things about Jesus therefore it must be a forgery.” But that kinda begs the question doesn’t it?

        66. I can’t remember which Council established the Canon but ya the author had to have been an apostle or close disciple.

        67. It doesn’t matter if it is true or not. What matters is the lessons that can be learned (in context, of course). Quit the edge lording.

        68. lol lessons … the lack of evidence of a jesus pretty much destroys over 300 years of history & renders it as fraudulent
          It also disproves everything from christianity to catholicism, to islam & judaism
          Hardly edge lording …

        69. Why don’t you shut up stupid dunce? No one in this thread said Tacitus met Christ, he just happened to mention him in the same damned century (less than a 100 years before his death) and one of the earliest if not the earliest independent mention of him.

          Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judæa, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular.
          (Tacitus, Annals, XV.44)

        70. The verse in Isaiah cant be said enough. Any country with a female head of state is one where God allows the men to be bitch slapped.
          Not as symbolic in America (thank God He gave us Trump over Cuntlery) but feminism as rollo puts “female imperative” is “ruling” over us.
          Further reading of that passage in Isaiah is because the people of God were turning away from him and ingnoring his calls for them to turn back.
          The answer is to turn back to God, not towards paganism. Not turning to cuck churchianity, but to the Holy Triune God.
          Side note: people have a different definition of “love” than that discribed in the Bible. Jesus “loves” the church in Revelation to a point where He threatens them with their natural consequences of their actions if they dont turn away from the things He charges them with.
          “Love” for other Christians among Christians is excommunication if they are in sin. First come to a brother privately, then with 2 or more, then the whole body (the church) and if they still refuse to turn away from what ever sin (such as subversive cuck churchianity), then they are to be kicked out (in love) so that Satan can have his way with them, the hope being that Satan fucks them up so bad they come to their senses and repent. That is Biblical love…see how it differs from “western” love?
          There is a lot of crap in church today because people the church hasnt kicked people out (in love).
          Of course, infiltrators will do what they can to nullify the decree of excommunication (yeast of the pharisee type stuff).
          Satan is active in his subversion of the Church (body of Christ).

        71. I’m surprised you weren’t aware that there are many references to Jesus from before nicaea. Nothing that proves his existence of course, but it is generally accepted by most scholars. As someone else put it, there’s roughly as much evidence for Christ as for Socrates or many other ancient figures known chiefly from texts who are generallyaccepted as real.

        72. Theyre not historical accounts merely commentary on christian customs, the gospels dont count as evidence as theyre unverifiable, & the talmud had to update their scripts, ie lie, centuries after the fake jesus died
          There is no historical record for when he was alive
          There is no historical evidence for his death
          There is no historical evidence for him even existing, apart from written commentary
          Christianity is a fake religion just like islam, created by jews to destroy aryan pagan philosophy & white pagan tradition

        73. The counter-reformation Douay Rheims Bible makes this connection explicit in its delightful commentary on Timothy:
          In times of licentiousnes, libertie, and heresie, women are much giuen to reading, disputing, chatting, and iangling of the holy Scriptures, yea and to teach also if they might be permitted. but S. Paul vtterly forbiddeth it, and the [Subnote: S. Chrys. Ho. 9. in 1. Tim.] Greeke Doctors vpon this place note that the woman taught but once, that was when after her reasoning with Satan, she persuaded her husband to transgression, and so she vndid all mankind. [Subnote: Women great talkers of Scripture, and promoters of heresie.] And in the Ecclesiastical writers we find that women haue been great promoters of euery sort of heresie (whereof see a notable discourse in S. Hierom ep. ad Ctesiph. cont. Pelag. c. 2.) which they would not haue done, if they had according to the Apostles rule, folowed pietie and good workes, and liued in silence and subiection to their husbands.

        74. Look sperg, I didn’t say that he was arguing that Tacitus had met Christ. He listed Tacitus as a contemporary of Christ, which he clearly was not, since Christ was dead before he was born.

        75. Well, no evidence. That’s why many people aren’t Christian. Still, that’s not what you were trying to argue originally.

        76. Yes, i admitted my original arguement was wrong, i didnt research the source material … lol
          My next question would be, if you cant prove jesus exists outside the bible, then doesnt it disprove the jesus inside the bible?

        77. I think we already went over this already, but most scholars agree that a person named Jesus existed, although they disagree on key elements, such as whether he really claimed to be the son of God. There’s about as much evidence for Jesus as there is for Socrates and Plato and many other ancient figures who are known only from texts rather than archaeological evidence.

        78. From my more recent research, most scholars think he didnt exist, due to a complete lack of physical evidence.
          Also most of the quotes attributed to romans commenting on jesus, seem to have been frauds by transcribers & the catholic church.
          The lack of physical records, as well as a complete lack of record of his existence apart from highly dubious quotes commenting on his existence, i think proves conclusively he was never a real person.
          If you can provide anything else other then quotes, commenting on his existence, I think the question is pretty much settled…

      2. Yep. Not only is it forbidden but a women who thinks she can pastor a church will almost certainly have many other unbiblical beliefs. I walked out of church when we got our first woman pastor and she used her bully pulpit to lecture us about refugees every Sunday. Sure, refugees are important, but that is not what a pastor is there for.

      3. “I walked out of mine when they got a lady preacher. ”
        My experience exactly – same thing happened when I was in the church and the female pastor talked about “rising and giving thanks to the mother Jesus” I was outta there very fucking quickly.

      4. I will quote that one when telling the wife what to do.
        Anytime my authority is questioned on anything in the home I always tell her, only half jokingly, that it is “written in the bible and that I have God given authority as man.”

    2. I was also at a disconnect with my church staff over their politics. Then I read “Wild at Heart” by John Eldridge. I still pray constantly, even though I neglect regular services. Edit: The disconnect remains. Can’t ‘untake’ the pill, and “Wild at Heart” didn’t compromise, totally masculine.

      1. Check out traditionalist Catholicism or conservative Presbyterianism (I’m an Irish Free Presbyterian, but the Scottish flavor is the really hardcore).

    3. I really like my new church in terms of architecture/ritual/history but always wince when the rapefugees and various social issues are brought up(at least 1-2 times a month). I wish I’d scouted it out on my own first – my girls made friends in Sunday school and my wife is more Liberal than me so I can’t openly say that I’m glad whenever a boat full of military aged men seeking welfare and rape victims capsizes.

    4. I think that many protestant Christians are still biblical. the liberal churches are dying; the scriptural ones are growing. There has always been heresy in Christianity, it just changes with the times.

    5. “edit: it’s not all like that. Only in coast states and/or college campuses”
      IF the usa breaks up to 5 or 6 separate nation states, it would seem the coastal northeast and the entire west coast is going to be on its own. It will be interesting to see how the breakup evolves.

    6. I survived a Lutheran education as a kid. My flawed image of Christianity was a collection of basically well-meaning yet ultimately weak bearded men from the midwest. And a lot of tweed.

      1. I have many a story to tell from my experience in a Lutheran school. For one, said school was tied to a church, so attendance of services was virtually mandatory (though didn’t have to be THAT church; there were Catholic students). I stopped attending Sundays, never felt welcome there, since I am not of German nor Scanda-hoovian descent.

    7. A LOT of churches are in serious trouble in this regard. Beware of those who tell you what you want to hear and the power that they hold over you.

  2. What is the purpose of this article? Is it to get people to abandon Christianity and go ‘pagan’ on a large scale? It’s a completely far-fetched concept that will never happen, so what’s the point of it?
    The Christian readers on this site already reject “namby pampy” Christianity – so for them, suggesting paganism (even masculine paganism) is pointless. Meanwhile, mainstream/blue pill newcomers to this site will see this appeal to paganism as something akin to promoting the witchcraft version of paganism.
    Many Christian institutions have been infiltrated and sent towards liberalism. In the purely hypothetical situation that masculine paganism was adopted on a large scale, this will also be infiltrated at some point and turned into something namby pampy. It is in the nature of all man-made institutions to drift towards the left over time.
    Christianity ought to be commended for sticking to its guns for so long. Why not promote time-tested traditional Christianity rather than some vague concept of masculine paganism?

    1. Agreed. OMG the Nordic pantheon totally needs some goddesses to counterbalance all those males. Even better, let’s make some of the male ones female. Thor, for example, should definitely be a girl! Wait, Marvel already did that…

    2. Let us not forget that even much of the contemporary version of prayer could be viewed as sorcery, but I’m not sure how far Exodus 22:18 stretches. Anyone know?

      1. c’mon….its the OPPOSITE of NWO, as it doesn’t raise the Self and State above God.

        1. whoaaaa. Don’t confuse the elective charity and mercy espoused by Christ as synonymous with the State-Mandated-By-Force “sharing” of collectivism. The Church steered clear of political matters until the corruption of the Western, Roman Church.

        2. False. ELECTIVE means no one is making you do it. Man is an individual charged with free will.

        3. Neither of which matters if you don’t believe. He suggested no EARTHLY recompense for not treating your neighbor as yourself.

        4. The difference between punishment on earth versus punishment after death is not semantics….At no point is earthly punishment suggested, as you would find in socialism, which would replace God with State.

        5. It is not an argument. It is a distinction between two concepts.
          But more importantly – you cant have socialism without a state! NOTHING in Christianity suggests a state or government of any kind.
          You can ignore everything Christ says ans still live a long a happy life. That cannot be said for any collectivist form of government.

        6. Really should have abandoned ship on this one sooner. Like arguing with teenagers who just learned a new word

        7. The point is they didn’t dabble in earthly governance until Rome got ahead of itself…post-schism.

        8. As a former boxer I thought you would appreciate the value of a a little sparring.
          Besides, I couldn’t sleep…

        9. sparring is one thing. This is beating in the teeth of a wise alec cartoon dog while it makes wisecracks. It can’t learn and has nothing of value to add. All you get for the effort is bloody knuckles. A decent spar requires two opponents of relatively equal weight and skill with a mutual respect for both one another and the sport.

        10. socialism
          a political and economic theory of social organization which advocates that the means of production, distribution, and exchange should be owned or regulated by the community as a whole.

        11. …as opposed to the individual, elective practice advocated by Christianity, yes. Thank you.

        12. We have a policy at our church. If someone shows up asking for a handout (and they do quite frequently) we invite them to our next church service. If they show up (<10%), we inform them that we have a policy to help only members of our congregation. They then leave angry.
          Last person we had, she came to church for about 2 months then tried to guilt us into paying for her light bill/rent/whatever. Turned her down and all of a sudden we are a bunch of ‘racists’ even though we welcomed her in and treated her ‘almost’ like a member of the congregation.
          It all boils down to this: The more you help a person the quicker they turn on you.
          The people we’ve helped the least stick with it and make good saints. The people we really go all out for stab us in the back and tell everyone how we mistreated them.

        13. Rmax, of course you know. Bishop Eusebius “Monarchy is superior to every other form of government”, St Gregory the Theologian “The three most ancient opinions about God …”, St Theodore, Theophan of Poltova. And St Basil the Great: “If the heart of the king is in the hands of God (Proverbs 21.1), then he is saved, not by force of arms, but by the guidance of God. But not every one is in the hands of God, but only he who is worthy of the name of king. Some have defined kingly power as lawful dominion or sovereignty over all, without being subject to sin. The difference between a tyrant and a King is that the tyrant strives in every way to carry out his own will. But the King does good to those whom he rules”

    1. Indeed. What always reinforces my faith is that Christianity is the ONLY religion to truly recognize that man is fundamentally flawed and incapable of change. Evil is burrowed deep within our nature and impossible to remove.

  3. Christianity is a fake corrupt NWO religion just like islam
    The original bible had no mention of jesus, the word jesus was inserted into the bible by pharisees & Rome at the council of nicea
    The cross was also an entire fiction, the cross was inserted into the bible 300 HUNDRED YEARS after the council of nicea by white murdering filthy catholics
    There was no mention of a jesus dying on a cross in the original bible, as the cross is a pagan symbol for the sun
    Paganism is the true religion for a white europe …

        1. So there’s a limit to how many “literalys” and “amazings” I can use in a given response?

      1. Ah, the (((echo))) is post Jesus, the Jews lost their chosen status when they abandoned God’s teaching in favor of their new (((religion))).

    1. “The cross was also an entire fiction, the cross was inserted into the bible 300 HUNDRED YEARS”
      …so, 30,000 years??? What kind of chronology are you working off of?

  4. Paganism is fundemantally shallow, that’s why it dies out whenever it runs into organized religion.
    There isn’t actually anything effeminate about Christianity, it is the modern, judiaized version of Christianity that is that follows LITERALLY NOTHING of what the Bible teaches. True Christianity is strictly patriachal and recognizes that man is flawed and that perfection is impossible. Modern liberals who have corrupted and gutted Christianity believe we are only a few diversity lessons and ant-discrimination laws away from perfection.

    1. Actually paganism is vastly more sophisticated then christianity
      Christianity is a more degenerate & dumbed down version of pagan cultures & traditions
      The vast majority of christianity is stolen from druidic & pagan texts, as well as far more superior polytheistic religions as practised by the egyptians & sumerians

      1. I don’t deny that Christianity absorbed beliefs and traditions from other cultures from Egyptians to Celts, but it is still a very independent religion. I also understand your frustration with it, cucks and muds have radically altered much of the church but it does not mean the religion itself is wrong (if you haven’t noticed almost every Western institution has is wallowing in the same cuckoldry).

    2. Catholic Christianity teaches to pray to a woman(mary), that is effeminate. It teaches that a woman, as well as many other women receives our prayers and are the link between a man and God. That is classic catholicism.
      It also teaches that a woman(Mary) is in greater position in heaven than many prophets and men of valor. That is extremely effeminate.
      Unless you are talking about protestantism, then I would say, there is nothing effeminate about it.

  5. Well………..rather than throw out the savior with the swaddling, why not give REAL Christianity a shot first, before we all go back to barking at the moon and throwing perfectly good poontang into the volcanoes?

    1. Because real christianity was created by jews & rome, to wipe out pagan christianity
      The catholic version of christianity went onto genocide millions of white people, their white religions, their white cultures & white traditions
      White people cannot go back to a religion, which destroyed their culture & heritage in the first place
      White people have to rediscover their pagan white heritage & white cultures & traditions, if they are to move forward …

      1. If Christianity was invented by Jews and Romans is sure didn’t have the desired effect.

        1. It is amazing that history has not embalmed for us even one certain or definite saying or circumstance in the life of the Saviour of mankind … there is no statement in all history that says anyone saw Jesus or talked with him. Nothing in history is more astonishing than the silence of contemporary writers about events relayed in the four Gospels.”
          (The Life of Christ, Frederic W. Farrar, Cassell, London, 1874)
          This situation arises from a conflict between history and New Testament narratives. Dr Tischendorf made this comment:
          “We must frankly admit that we have no source of information with respect to the life of Jesus Christ other than ecclesiastic writings assembled during the fourth century.”
          (Codex Sinaiticus, Dr Constantin von Tischendorf, British Library, London)
          There is an explanation for those hundreds of years of silence:
          the construct of Christianity did not begin until after the first quarter of the fourth century, and that is why Pope Leo X (d. 1521) called Christ a “fable”
          (Cardinal Bembo: His Letters…, op. cit.).

  6. As a Christian raised in a traditional church with older generations around, I was shocked by the plaid-wearing panty-waisted acoustic guitar-bearing hipsters that frequent campus churches. I will say that there is a split in the Christian youth. The limp-wristed dorks are directly opposite the rough, country, military types who still carry the type of faith that was inscribed on dog tags and bombed dropped bodies for God and country. We will see soon a bifurcation I believe, between the weak church (which will likely wither) and the nucleus of a new church which will pass on the values for a later generation.

  7. Very good article Michael.
    But I would offer one correction. If Christianity is the religion revealed by God then it follows that man cannot substantially change it, therefore if it has been substantially changed by man (to be effeminate) then the religion which calls itself Christianity today is in fact not Christianity at all. Thus returning to the more “ruthless” order of the past would actually be the Christian thing to do!

  8. I used to have a fascination with Paganism. As a Nationalist, I definitely understand the appeal of restoring native religions. I’d be thrilled if the various Aryan peoples of the Middle East started becoming Zoroastrian again, for instance.
    I’m just not sure Paganism can compete with monotheistic religions that are better-organized and have more in terms of promises of a good afterlife(and the threat of a bad one). Islam literally has built-in mechanisms for stamping out rival religions(jizya, one-way interfaith marriages, etc) and needs to be opposed with the strongest Western faith possible.
    The Orthodox Church seems to have the most Nationalists/anti-refugee priests. Whereas Pope Cucksis is always crying about walls and borders.

      1. Most pagans are lesbian forest vegans who dance around fires like Indians and complain more about social justice than Democrats.

        1. fat chicks who call themselves witches because they can’t fit their hooves into feminine shoes.

  9. When I was 12 I watched my Orthodox family priest bless my Marine scout sniper brother’s rifle before his first Iraqi deployment. Christian liberal pacifism and feminism is pretty much confined to the Western churches. They were founded on heresy, so maybe their embrace of these social heresies was inevitable. It’s definitely not something I recognize within my Church though.

    1. If the U.S. goes to war with Russia some day, what happens if the Russians’ Orthodox Christian priests bless the Russians’ weapons?

        1. I hope otherwise, too. But a US led war on Russia would prove the corruption of America complete and irredeemable

      1. We must resist the elite’s attempts to take us to war with another white nation.
        Its planned suicide for both nations.

      2. why would we go to war with Russia? They are the only sane country on the planet.

        1. Thanks. I thought those were the Hours being chanted. Same thing? I’m a bit at a loss because I have no ethnic/linguistic connection to the Eastern Church. I converted as an adult.

  10. Paganism also connects people with natural cycles, while Christianity alienates man from nature through arbitrary abstract constructs. (Gee, this sounds like the sort of religion a deracinated, nomadic people would come up with.)
    We see the difference in the classic cult film, The Wicker Man, where Edward Woodward’s character, the Christian male virgin cop from the mainland, wonders if he had chosen the wrong side when the pagans shut him up in the Wicker Man and set it on fire as a sacrifice. He can tell that his prayers don’t seem to communicate with the god he believes in.

    1. You’ve got it backwards, paganism is little more than shallow, arbitrary abstractions bound by a few bizarre ceremonies. Christianity is far more grounded in the human psyche being the only religion to tell man how he really he is and that his flaws cannot be overcome, only managed.

      1. Grounded in feminism-perhaps. Its not telling man how he is in the context of relationships….. Woman are not men- so right there the grounding falls down. It was the entire point of the article.

    2. Prayer is not a quid-pro-quo vending machine of divine favors. Its for us, not God. Like meditation ,the object is to tune the mind as best we can to the divine which we cannot comprehend.

      1. The only people who believe prayer is just for God are blacks, they seem to believe that God cares how their crack deal goes or that evidence is racist. They treat God more like a bail-bondsman than a savior.

    3. You might as well say that Greeks and Romans alienated man from nature. Nearly every aspect of Christianity comes from the Ancient Greeks and Romans.
      It was the Greeks and their awesome new philosophies that were responsible for Second Temple Judaism (that led to Christianity) after Alexander the Great conquered the area. It was at that point that the Jews stopped being polytheistic and adopted monotheism.

      1. Wrong. The second temple was built during the Persian Empire, it was renovated during the Greek rule.

        1. I wasn’t talking about when it was actually built. I was talking about the religion itself, which at the time was known as Second Temple Judaism.

  11. There is an interesting book entitled The Germanization of Early Medieval Christianity, by James C
    Russell. This book points out that Christianity didn’t really catch on with the Pagan Germanic tribes because their ancestral religion believed in a heroic warrior morallity in which honor and courage in battle were the highest virtues. So the Christian missionaries altered the story of Jesus to one where he was portrayed as a heroic warrior king and the 12 disciples were his warrior nobles. This made Christianity more appealing to the Germans and they became more likely to convert after that. But still, not everyone was convinced, so all too often the newly-converted kings forced their people to convert at the point of the sword, in the same way that Muslims spread Islam. Charlemagne, for example, ordered the beheading of thousands of Saxon noblemen who refused to give up the faith of their fathers. The Aller River ran red with their blood. Later, in Norway, the king who became Saint Olaf went around his country spreading Christianity through torture, heavy fines and executions.

    1. Not true. Most Germanic tribes converted voluntarily except for the Saxons. It’s not as if they didn’t see a connection between YHWH and Tiwaz, and then Christ and Wotan. Because they did. If you read the Saxon Bible, called the Heliand – it depicts Christ as a warrior god not unlike Odin.
      And the Saxon poem, Dream of the Rood, draws a direct connection between Christ and Odin.

    2. Joseph was a beta cuck …….. who else would believe a story from some lying bitch claiming a virgin birth.

      1. He didn’t. He was going to put her away until an angel of God showed up personally and gave him the run down.
        Now you may not believe the story, but know the story if you’re going to criticize it. That’s only fair.

  12. I wonder how this notion of praying for miracles got started. If prayer worked in the real world like it does in the bible and in other Christian propaganda, at least some Christians on this planet would wield superpowers like wizards, genies or Green Lanterns. The fact that we don’t see such superbeings suggests that prayer just wastes your time.

        1. no one is judging. Just watching. sooner of later folks like American’ cry for god on their deathbed. They get foul mouthed most of the way until they get set straight.

      1. Plus…I’ve had prayers answered. Every Christian has, including some things I would have been hard pressed to explain otherwise.
        God is Our Father. Did your own father give you everything you asked for? No and a good thing too or we would have all died for sugar induced diabetes by now.

    1. I agree partially, but a lot.
      While I don’t condemn prayer as a complete waste of time, it seems that any religion that tells a story of “miracles” and prayers being answered are just plain lies!
      As you said: Where is superman? Where is the answer to my prayers?
      Nothing, not me, not a friend, never seen it.

      1. Prayer is about us getting our will in alignment with God’s Will. We pray for His will to be done and to give us the strength to accept it.

  13. If you are going to be a neo-pagan, don’t do it because you are counter-signaling. And bashing on Christianity for being a “foreign Jewish cult” isn’t accurate either. Nothing changed in the official state religion of Rome when Christianity was adopted. The old religion was plagued with bullshit (Like Jupiter raping Ganymede) and other crazy shit. It was way too tolerant and women were out of control.
    The Romans ALREADY associated the Jewish god YHWH with Jupiter and sometimes with Caelus. This was done going way back to even Ancient Greece when Athenian scholars associated Yahweh at first with Cronus and then with Zeus. Further, someone like Virgin Mary wouldn’t have been strange to the Romans at all. They had Vestal Virgins. Asking a god for forgiveness of sins also wasn’t strange and done by both Greeks and Romans. The idea of Christ also was not strange – you had Dionysus changing water to wine, walking on water, you name it.
    As far as the other gods go, they were “downgraded” to angels and demi-gods to saints. The only thing that really changed was foreign names were added to make the religion “new” but yet familiar. It was a brilliant move by the Roman authorities to save the horribly declining moral fabric of the West.
    And don’t listen to that bullshit you hear about Germanic gods being your pals. They weren’t. Gods are gods. They are to be feared and respected. For example, Tacitus noted that violating a sacred grove for Wotan (Odin) would result in an instant death penalty.

  14. I was a devout atheist during my blue-pilled years. Once I fully ingested the red pill I returned to a more agnostic approach to religion and began to respect Christianity more.
    The last year or so I have watched Christianity stand on the sidelines as the culture it helped to forge deteriorates. I fear that Christianity has become fully cucked.
    At this point I am open to a unifying religion that promotes masculinity, cultural sovereignty, western ideology and an “eye for an eye” attitude to perceived enemies.
    I am eager to see what the ROK community has to say about this.

    1. But is picking a religion out of counter-signaling really the answer?

      1. Not counter-signaling, rather survival, and a rally point for other woke men of action.

        1. church has destroyed a lot of americas males. I am up for anything that changes it.

        2. I suspect there are a lot of us in the manosphere that are eager for a return to a religion that unifies us in solidarity against our very real enemies.
          It must speak real truths about human nature and have distinct black and white views on practices that rot our culture from within.

        3. I don’t think its possible. Its too ingrained in the thinking of the church. You already have the pope saying hey fagggotttss ; who am I to judge? Buddy – you are the leader of the church..JUDGE. Thats what we are asking you to do. LEAD…. This whole- I am equal to the lowlilest morally corrupt doctrine is feminist gone wack job in church mindset..The pope washing the feet of some islamic terrorist. geezes man get a grip…. ……Also, Putting a woman equal to a man in an impossible egalitarian wedding vow is morally corrupt and destructive. Its not nature. It gives woman something that isn’t in their biology as a goal..Hey gal, be honorable and cherish.. although you are 100% hypergamic…… Its church failure and a path to non-recover- this is why the marriage rate is dropping to record lows and the whole church thing is blowing up. .. With feminism- your arguing against the nature to test your manhood. That is what a women is…. The only thing giving into feminism will do for the church is having the bar raised by these crazies and turn this country into a gyno hellhole. The only thing a man can do is hit back or walk away permanently. and pay the fines. Alimony, child support and all the rest of the cash and prizes.

        4. I thought a lot about this, however, I come to the conclusion that we need a very rich person to start such a religion, and it needs to be very mundanely practical, as in, helping people moving nearby, helping getting a job, etc. otherwise, it wouldn’t work.
          It would be like those Chinese sects, where the religion also have a very mundane part to play.

    2. Odinism is the fastest growing white pagan religion in europe, I just wish other countries ditched their NWO religions for localised religions which benefit their people, instead of jews & elites …

      1. fukkin fad because every disenfranchised white loser wants to believe “hes really a viking”
        Same phenomenon behind the popularity of gangster movies….

        1. Its an observation, chief. See, I know the differences between fact, faith and speculation.

      2. Is this the sect that paints their faces in panda-like black and white patterns, makes shitty heavy metal music and burns churches?

    3. “eye for an eye” – Of all the good things in a religion, this one is the most needed.

    4. The church expands through time, and has had major problems even since the NT.
      The official church, as reported by the media, frequently goes lefty. That being said, everyone else, atheist, pagan, etc. does as well.
      However the resistance is heavily Christian at the ground level Breitbart even had an article on why Aquinas would oppose open borders. Christians elected Trump, and most traditionalist reaction is heavily Christian.
      Check out the Orthosphere, Dalrock, and the Social Pathologist among others. Christianity is deeper and stronger then many outside the church and in can perceive.

      1. Agreed. working together achieves great things right up until we’re compelled to do so….
        (another hint on the difference between Christianity and socialism for the nimrods claiming similarity)

        1. “working together achieves great things right up until we’re compelled to do so….”
          I don’t understand what you mean here.

        2. By compelled to do so, I mean forced to live, work , and die “for the common good” like in a collectivist model.
          Left alone, people will naturally elect to work together on the local level.

  15. Believe in God and nothing else. The church is infested with feminism, egalitarianism, and supports third world immigration. Being a gen-x and growing up blue pill- later finding the red pill. I can tell you that I am very disgusted with the church for what its become. It has caused more misery in my life than anything I know. From Marriage to relationships. I think its important that people have a belief and a way of life to become moral, ethical and productive citizens but not this belief system. Its warped all the way to the core.

  16. Unfortunately Christians are slow in learning that their progressivism will cost them dearly with respect to gaining future Christians.

    1. Its like crabs in a barrel -as rollo would say- but fortunately enough males are starting to crawl out of that feminized sesspool.

    2. Why worship a god that let Hitler, Staling, Attila, Genghis khan, Mao, Tojo and onther monster live a long life?

      1. You have utterly failed to grasp everything about Christianity in one fell swoop.

      2. Free Will – God created us with the choice to be or be not an asshole, and live with the earthly consequences…

        1. Well, I believe that almost everyone on earth could do a better job at creating inteligent, peacefull and nice humans without interfering with their free will.

  17. im shocked you wrote this considering you’re a devout catholic…shouldnt you be promoting reforming Christianity or rather-bringing it back to its true roots,rather than abandoning it for paganism?
    there are still Christian men out there who arent being duped by leftism and feminism…the russian orthodox church isnt cucked from what i can tell. at least not while they are under Patriarch Kirill. there are also some protestant pastors who arent drinking the feminist koolaid such as men like Steven Anderson(sanderson1611)…

  18. im shocked you wrote this considering you’re a devout
    catholic…shouldnt you be promoting reforming Christianity or
    rather-bringing it back to its true roots,rather than abandoning it for

    1. Theorizing here, but he just reread GK Chesterton Puritan and Pagans. He does explicitly say he doesn’t mean pagan religion, but I think it might have been a good idea to hammer that out a bit.

      1. shouldnt we be trying to go back to the original christian mindset though? and not the pagan mindset?

  19. “And modern Christian leaders would fight the return of patriarchy with as much vigor as the most extreme intersectional feminist.”
    And then there are those that complain about Islam treatment of women… You know those are the cucks, and they would fight real conservatives with all their teeths.

        1. Better start making a new tombstone for the internet then. Think it would look nice between the Qing Dynasty and the Roman Empire.

      1. Ya know, I never understood these cartoons (or this format of ‘talking beach balls’). I wondered if there was some kind of esoteric meaning behind them. I see these on meme websites on rare occasions, and often get lost in the narrative. Maybe I’m just dense.

  20. Christianity, in no way, is a weak religion. Individual christians often are and they bend the religion over to suit their needs. What makes anyone think that a couple of centuries into a new paganism that that would be any different. The failings of Christianity are human failings. Want a perfect religion, don’t invite people. In the meantime, trying to culturally appropriate something because you think it is most masculine than what you have? Welcome to being a 90 pound suburban white kid listening to rap with his hat on sideways…and yes, everyone does want to knock the wind out of your mouth when you open in. Instead of this nonsense why not everyone just try to be the best version of themselves and stop hoping that some outside force will miraculously make them more manly.
    Anyone who has paid even remote attention to the gospels will know that the apostles themselves didn’t fucking get it. Jesus’s middle name could very well have been Facepalm….Jesus F Christ was so annoyed with Peter and the gang that it is actually palpable and that, my friends, is kind of the point….humans are flawed little creatures who will always fuck up the divine. Asking humans about god is like asking grasshoppers about physics. The ability to recognize ones shortcomings and open yourself to The divinity that is forgiveness and grace is incredibly masculine. The rest of the bullshit is just people peopleing and it doesn’t matter if they are worshiping Christ or the great gazoo, they will fuck it up all the same

    1. My problem with Christianity is that I never heard of any account of a religion gone bad, and recovering.
      They go bad, and collapse civilizations…
      I don’t think there is fixing on what we have. If we unite ourselves under christianity, even if a red-pill version, we would still have to deal with all the evil baggage, and that is way too hard, if even feasible.
      The belief that the bible is The perfect book* is the very reason why christianity can’t be worked with. We will forever discuss over that book, as if we play chess with its versus, trying to do a check mate.
      * – Please, don’t tell me Christians don’t believe the Bible is perfect, that is a ridiculous counter argument that I am tired to hear.

      1. Conversely, the scriptures say they are God-breathed (meaning his words spoken through disconnected authors) and decare that in the begining, the Word (meaning the Bible in some interpretations) was with God, and the word was God. The Bible also constantly says that God is ‘enough.’ Then the Bible is enough, right?

        1. “Then the Bible is enough, right?”
          That is my point. If the Bible is the main and only source for doctrine, then christianity cannot possibly exist forever. As we evolve, we have to abandon it at some point, or remain primitive.
          Same thing with the koran, its impossible to reform that religion, because the koran is the only source of doctrine, not people, neither logic or reason, or experience. only the koran!

        2. Ever seen Chronicles of Riddick with the “space Mecca”? Anyway, no-way do I believe in subjective morality. The book’s strength is that it stands it’s ground, fast, fixed. Look at all the damage the left has done by abusing the constitution as a “living document” that they can modify and interpret on a whim. The Bible is made to last no longer or shorter than God has intended. The epoch in which Jesus appeared can be applied still today, the lessons, locations, allegories, commandments, and character traits mean something special to each reader, too… which is paradoxically close to a defense for subjective morality. The Bible’s strength is it’s consistancy, just like the cosistancy of “I am”, the same in the morning and night, like a good man. Let the women be like waves, you be a dock, like God and his word. Be moored.

        3. Apologist G.K. Chesterton discussed Christian Paradoxes in his book ‘Orthadoxy’, and I was afraid it was blasphemy at first. Some of the paradoxes add flexibility where rigidity would be a weakness. Some of the translations to English will mind-bend you, too. Like how Genesis chapter one in Greek neither confirms or denies evolution (even though I don’t like evolution, I like irreducible complexity theory).

        4. Of the 12 tribes of Israel, yeah, by race, Jewish, even the 13th apostle was an Iraelite (Jew). No other Jews like them theologically back then, though. I hope some day you give the book a shot.
          I’m just grateful to be able to post. I couldn’t get this ‘Disqus’ stuff to work for a long time, and everybody on here’s a strong whit or a strong will. This was good.

        5. Society can grow even if it tried to live by the bible as close as possible. I would surmise that like monetary bubbles that inflate over true GDP and then come crashing down to reality, the same could be said with the morality of society. Like introducing fiat by the trillions into an economy, this leftism and social engineering has blown up its own bubble and it too has seen signs of popping.
          An economy can chug along nice and boring-like without liquidity injections, but progress (we may not have computers at this point under such a system or we could’ve been living on the moon by now. Who knows). And likewise I believe a society that adhered to strict principles based on biblical teachings can progress along in a boring yet sustainable fashion.

        6. Ahhh the ole “I don’t get this so it must be wrong” argument.
          For a sad old geezer living in a garbage dump you sure resemble an over privliaged teenager who just learned the word “condescending” yesterday and will totally use it every chance he can.

        7. I’m doubting you’ve comprehended the vast amount of wisdom within the bible. Even if it wasn’t divinely inspired, there is more wisdom in there than almost any man can acquire in his lifetime. As far as I can tell from my primitive understanding of it, it’s just as applicable now in this age of technology, internet, nuclear weapons and energy, moon travel, solar system exploration and the like. I was a biochemist with a high interest in cosmology and physics and I didn’t learn anything that made the bible irrelevant in any way.

        8. The Bible was never made to be the sole source of religious doctrine. The Christians managed for three whole centuries with just bits and scraps of it. They didn’t have the whole thing packed into a single book until after Constantine came by. Which, by the by, Protestants, is another reason you fools should stop hating on the guy. He made it possible for the Church to compile the Bible together into one package by allowing them to work in the open gathering the proper books and determining which one gets in. Prior to that, they had the teachings of their bishops, the Didache, and the Magisterium of the faith. They also used those things to determine which books get into the Bible and which of them get the proverbial chopping block. Yes, that’s right, evangelicals, the “Christians” that the Catholics persecuted wanted to bring in Gnostic gospels and wanted to get rid of the Old Testament. That’s why we harried them out.

        9. Please explain to me how evolution is anymore irreducible that Christianity. I mean, I can literally explain evolution in one sentence: Features that allow for better survival or more offspring will spread through a population. Its pretty fucking easy to understand.

      2. I see what you are saying and I won’t give out the boring Christians don’t believe the Bible is perfect line.
        I appreciate your position. But mine, in turn, is that there is nothing wrong with Christianity. The problem is with Christians. And if these people become sufis there will be a problem with Sufism.
        I don’t have all the answers, but I believe the begin on taking stock on a personal level rather than the macro level of religions

        1. You are correct. There is also a problem currently with most Christian leaders. They pander.

        2. This is a problem with nearly all leaders. Those who gain power are loathe to relinquish it…the clergy are not immune from this vice. For me, a leaderless and incredibly individual version of Christianity seems smartest. If you keep your faith and do your best to do things as you see them you will find that you won’t have to go far to find like minded people. Like attracts like. For instance, I am a nihilistic, womanizing, lust filled lunatic. When I walk into a bar, guess who I find immediately. Girls who want to be penetrated and beaten and call me daddy. It just happens that way.
          When like minded Christians find each other I think they will find that the need for a leader is moot. Christ is the head of the church as man is the head of the home…..(Corinthians 11ish?)….your small community will never be rich and powerful the way a big southern church group is let alone the way the RCC is, but you will have a basis of likeminded people who will find faith together. I don’t know, that’s just my 2 red pennies on it.

        3. “…I believe the begin on taking stock on a personal level rather than the macro level of religions”
          I just realized why this stuck in my head: in my church they really frown on trying to partake in Communion unless you’ve properly confessed and fasted in recent weeks.
          Its basically a codification of what you’re saying – “get thine own shit straight before approaching something greater”

        4. I think it should say, “Have you met Jesus?” “Well you are about to see him face to face.”

        5. Napoleon said it best : To rise you power you must be incredibly small minded and watch every detail, but intelligent people are rarely any good at that, because they see the bigger picture – so they get caught out on details.
          This is why the corridors of power are filled with talent-less career politicians – many of them lawyers (with attention to every fine detail that leaves their mouth) – but so little intelligence they probably wouldn’t survive in the real world.
          What manosphere needs is a common gathering point. All the hippies used to congregate in Goa- India, Bali and other beach resorts. San Francisco pre silicon valley was a big hippy enclave. They had their geographic preferences. Gay communities also congregate, San Fran and Sydney were the bastions of the gay community. Another example is South Santa Monica and Venice Beach, which was a total shit hole even in the mid 1990s. Same in Notting Hill Gate in London, was a big afro Caribbean community and became very popular with alternative artsy types. Now it’s a stupid trendy nothing.
          In time the underground enclaves became incredibly popular places and although they have changed, they still retain that free wheeling spirit of the original people that gathered there.
          If good men begin to gather in one place that suits their outlook, take on life, approach, attitude, etc. etc. soon they will take over that place – gain positions in the local Govt. law enforcement, banking, important positions in local businesses – just as the hippies and gays did, just as other enclaves have built up.
          Basically we need a good place to center activities in. The go to place for gays is Castro – San Fran and Darlinghurt Sydney.
          Where is the go to place for masculine men ? There isn’t one – it’s fragmented and it’s nothing. At the end of the day no one wants to live in small town Poland for example – or Russia – it’s not a great focal point and unless you particularly enjoy battling with an antiquated Slavic language and 10 months a year of winter it’s a rubbish location regardless of the pussy.
          Pick a beach in Costa Rica or Nicaragua, Panama – maybe Switzerland, somewhere that has that laisse faire attitude. Pick a mid sized town in Texas, or go bush in Montana – Start setting up shop there. Make an enclave. That is what is missing. That’s where the hipsters and the homos won their case, by taking over enclaves – even if they started out in a ghettos like Venice Beach – look at the power they have now.

        6. The problem is with the “Christians” who claim Christianity without reading the teachings and living them. It’s about the same as the white people who claim Buddhism and have no idea what it means or the blacks who claim Islam and burn “prostration marks” on their forehead, refuse pork, yet smoke crack.

        7. It has become strictly about money. The average attendee is a single mother with kids to different dads..she doesn’t want to sit there and take ownership for being a ‘ho. She wants to sit in the quiet and drop her kids off for free daycare for an hour so “She can be a good person” Or it’s a man who bangs what he gets a hold of who doesn’t want to hear that fornication/adultery isn’t the answer even though you have seemed to reach that conclusion by yourselves based on the articles posted here about not bonding with women.

        8. You are 100% on the nose. The Bible even says to meet in the homes of fellow believers. Nowhere does it say to find a building to throw your money at with free coffee and men with long hair playing base “worshiping” God.

        9. It isn’t tough ya know. I tell people all the time, instead of listening to all the bullshit—read the owners manual

        10. Gluttony is a sin…america is fat…fornication is a sin…the media makes a god out of it…divorce…yet we have the nerve to call this a “christian” nation. LOL!

        11. Just saying that is a teaching and as you demonstrated not many want go hear that on a Sunday morning. So the church has begun to twist it’s doctrine.

        12. True, but my point is theres nothing wrong with fornication for men, its ludicrous for a religion to dictate a biological function as a sin
          Even worse they claim men are flawed compared to an imaginary omnipotent being … by their logic all men are inferior to donald duck & bugs bunny …
          Dont even get me started on god giving birth to himself as his only son … lmao …
          Christians are lunatic morons … lol

        13. Agreed. Also the implied sissiness/abdication of duty of modern Christians contrasted with the brutality of reality is funnier too.

        14. I don’t care where you are on the topic but THAT is hilarious. 😀
          Another good one would be:
          “Jesus has a plan for your life.” 😀

        15. that… that defy’s the basic fundamentals of logic. Either the Christian god is real, and Fornication is a sin, or he isn’t, and it isn’t a sin because Christianity is false. The rules don’t apply to some and not others.

        16. “True, but my point is theres nothing wrong with fornication for men, its ludicrous for a religion to dictate a biological function as a sin”
          What you say isn’t right. It isn’t even fucking wrong, because your fundamental premises aren’t correct about the basic understand of the universe, or nature.
          Sex isn’t “wrong” in Christianity. Sex outside of marriage is.
          Sex outside of marriage is not a biological function, sex is a biological function.
          Sex is a biological function for both men and women. I don’t even know how you didn’t notice this, are you genuinely retarded?

        17. this so fucking much man. Modern Christianity is a whimper compared to the booming voice it once had

        18. The concept of sin applies to pagans.
          Christianity has brought us the forgiveness of the sin. That was the new thing.

        19. Nope.
          Christianity is a communist reaction to Paganism.
          They destroyed everything Pagan and replaced it with a similar Christian version.
          They do this to keep with the times. That’s why it changes so often still. So it “can live forever”.

      3. A large element in the rise of Christianity is the wholesale corruption of the Roman religious environment at the time.
        History doesn’t repeat but it definitely rhymes.

        1. yeah, I heard the old religion had become degenerate, which is happening right now with christianity. In my opinion, it should rhyme, and we should just accept the rhyme. got it?
          However, we still need a new religion, and we need someone very powerful to introduce it.
          Sadly, Donald Trump is Christian (or so he says) so it doesn’t apply to him. and Pence, wouldn’t do it. And there is no Rich person anywhere that would do such a thing.

      4. I think the key here would be to refuse to play that chess game with these other Christians. Just pull in the people who want to play on the same side as you and then just beat everyone else. Don’t argue semantics with the enemy. Pull in the greatest number of masculine, intelligent and wealthy men and tell everyone else to fuck off.
        If the world saw a church full of winners, they’d take notice. They’d probably claim conspiracy theories, but they’d take notice.

        1. Yeah, you definetly understood the “playing chess with verses” thing.
          And I like that idea, however, that also mean that such a church would have to be a bit exclusive as to not allow any simple minded person to rise anywhere in the clergy hierarchy, which is fine by me.
          P.S: Another Problem is that such a church would be a little hipocritical, since the high clergy don’t actually base their beliefs on whats written, and don’t try to study semantics with honesty, rather, they just push their doctrine and make the bible fit. That would end up in lots of problems.

      5. The thing is I haven’t heard of any civilization recovering from a fall either.
        Whilst Christianity has seen many civilizations fall it has always survived.
        As a matter of fact in times of peril Christianity only grows.
        Religious groups are shown to be more altruistic and simply tougher to destructive influences then atheistic ones.
        All we really need is suffering and Christianity will take firm hold as a moral guidance again.
        Whilst of course the senseless concept of atheism will be extinct.
        Regardless, what do you mean with “evil baggage” and what is playing “chess with verses” and how is it counterproductive to civilization?
        True progress is like a ladder. You will not get anywhere by chipping away at its foundations.

        1. “The thing is I haven’t heard of any civilization recovering from a fall either.”
          Really? The entire theme of chinese history is repeated recovery and becoming stronger each time.
          “All we really need is suffering and Christianity will take firm hold as a moral guidance again.”
          Yeah that is fucking retarded. Your plan is to basically torture and murder people into believing your religion. You can deny it all you want, but that is fully the implications of the word “suffering”. You know, people don’t need a sky fairy to dictate what is important in life dude…

        2. I wouldn’t consider something so stale to be a success story. Regardless China has never fallen prey to complete degeneracy.
          They have been challenged sure, but any civilization has been.
          What I am saying is there is no civilization that degenerated and came back.
          No, they got annihilated.
          “Yeah that is fucking retarded. Your plan is to basically torture and murder people into believing your religion.”
          That is called a strawman and an emotional one at that. Never did I imply any of this.
          Most obviously I mean it in the concept of war or a disaster.
          Tell me how your acute atheistic mind came up with that step by step.
          Btw your belief that god doesn’t exist is based on nothing. It requires blind faith.
          The logical position is to not have an opinion on something’s existence that doesn’t have any perceived data regarding it.

        3. China is not an civilisation, china is an slave culture. One big King, millions of slaves.

        4. How do you define civilization? I would definite it as any society with agrarian, and then urban abilities. If you really think there is any nation where one person has total power and everyone follows him, you are a fool. That has never, ever, been the situation, anywhere.

        5. “What I am saying is there is no civilization that degenerated and came back.” What is a civilization that fell to “degeneracy”?
          “That is called a strawman and an emotional one at that. Never did I imply any of this.”
          I mean what do you think suffering means? Waiting 30 minutes for your pizza to arrive? When I think of a society that is suffering, I think of Somalia, Syria, Ethiopia in the 1980’s, etc.
          “Most obviously I mean it in the concept of war or a disaster. ”
          Oh okay, so people fucking dying and watching other people die, including their relatives, and loosing all their possessions. Literally exactly what I fucking said. Or, are you perhaps one of those people who think war is like a trivial piece of history, a game?
          “Tell me how your acute atheistic mind came up with that step by step.”
          Stop using a red herring. You admitted that you meant war or a disaster, which means PEOPLE FUCKING DYING JUST LIKE I SAID.
          “Btw your belief that god doesn’t exist is based on nothing.” I never said god does not exist, I think you have no evidence that any god or gods exist, neither does any other religion for that matter, therefor, I use Occam razor to deduce that we don’t know if god exists, and there is no reason to act as if he does.
          “The logical position is to not have an opinion on something that doesn’t have any perceived data regarding it.”
          I don’t have an opinion on god(s), I do however have an opinion on behaviors of people who claim that he does exist, particularly their anti-intellectualism.

        6. Well that’s because atheistic people use to be killed off by the religious people.
          I still get flack from the world for being an atheist/non religious affiliated with any religion on planet earth or the universe(it’s sad I have to include that las bit).
          Fifty years ago if you said you were an atheist you would get your ass beat ridiculed. A hundred or maybe 200+ years back I’m sure you would get lynched and definitely murdered for even saying that you didn’t believe in God.
          I’m sure if we had enough money to build an atheist country we would advance in just 100 years to the technology that would exist 500 years from now.
          It’s my belief that religion holds back science.
          I also believe that atheist deserve a country of their own.

        7. What could it possibly mean to fall to degeneracy?
          A loss of traditional values, fading masculinity and feminity, sexual deviancy, depravity and debauchery and an underlying weakness.
          Civilizations that have succumbed to this have never recovered and got wiped out.
          “Literally exactly what I fucking said.”
          I can’t remember that you fucking said that. You said that my plan is to torture and murder people into believing in my religion.
          That is simply put just incorrect.
          What I am actually saying is that if a disaster or war was to happen people would naturally turn to Christianity again. Of course that would include people dying too. And? What’s you point?
          That I wish that to happen?
          So, that you can make another emotional “argument”?
          “I don’t have an opinion on god(s),…”
          Mindblowing. You are the first “atheist” that I met to have that level of logic.
          Honest congratulation.

        8. I think you are on some misunderstanding trip here.
          I never said that atheists should be put to death or punished in order to turn them religious.
          What I am saying is that if a disaster or war was to happen, people would naturally turn religious.
          As is scientifically backed.
          It is a fact after all that atheism only arises after a religious civilization has achieved prosperity and safety.
          There have never been any atheist civilizations and there will never be.

        9. I’m gonna have to see some links to this “backed” science statement you just made. Seems outrageously dubious, you can’t scientifically proven such a thing as a what if assumption. Just like you can’t prove the what if god exist or any other what if because they didn’t happen oso they can’t be scientifically tested or analyze. We haven’t created a civilizations or Truman show type experiment to even prove such a thing. Nonetheless as a man of reason I will await for the link.
          Also of course atheism came after religion because humans were too dumb to realize that fire came from molecular reactions and lighting came from electrons floating around in the sky. So they had to find an answer that would calm their fears caused by stupidity or better yet ignorance since they were still learning about science and other natural phenomena.
          Like I said in a prior post, not sure if on this thread. Humans are afraid of the unknown and things that they cannot explain or understand. They create pseudo-answers to hbe able to tolerate the fear of not knowing. People rather pray to a non existent god tham to face the fact that more than likely death will be the end of them and that’s it, but since we can’t prove or disprove, we will never truly know, until death even then the living will not know anyways so it pointless argument.
          Atheism will have its own civilization. You can count on it. Sooner or later someone somewhere will find a way or a group of people will group together to get away from religious idiots who will try to kill them because they are brave enough to live a peaceful life without having to pray to a sky magician, who gave us free will but punishes us for eexercising this free will.
          If Jews can get a country them why not atheist. We have been persecuted for ages and still are.
          PS sorry for the errors I’m too lazy to fix it even though I could have done it during the time it took me to write this lol.

        10. More like dynasty. Civilizations may fall but pretty much it’s just the current government that falls. The people are still there just a new government comes in or a fee factions arise and then duke it out until the last one takes over until it falls apart again. It happened with the USSR, China is just one of the best example, but also it happened to Rome. Rome fell but all the people were still there just a new government/king/whatever other leadership took control.

        11. That’s dumb so because I don’t believe in something I can’t have an opinion on it. I’m an atheist and I read religious books in order to have reasonable debates with religious people.
          You can’t prove or disprove god, just like the what if Hitler died as a kid or what if Einstein never was born can’t be analyzed or testedd.
          A lot of people have degrees for shit that don’t exist. Like mythology, there are PhD for mythology. My favorite religion is came from Rome and Greece the old Greek and Roman gods. The gods were more human like and had flaws.
          Anyways, just because there is not factual data on something doesn’t mean there isn’t a lot of made up data created from opinion and or passed down by word of mouth.
          You think anyone really talked to this god. And if he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah why hasn’t he destroy America. America by far is a place inundated with all the sins and then some in over abundance.

        12. I should have worded it more extensively.
          To have an opinion on something’s existence without any perceived data regarding it is illogical.
          With the rest I don’t know what you are trying to get at.
          What does it mean that there is a lot of made up data for one?
          When the perceived data isn’t sufficient that doesn’t change anything.

        13. First of all it is a fact that in times of peril religiousity dominates.
          It is also a fact that there is no atheist civilization.
          Which taken logically can be used to conclude many things.
          Because atheism arises only after prosperity has been reached it can be concluded that if peril was to appear religiousity would arise again.
          This is for multiple reasons.
          One of them is that by punishing religiousity it only grows.
          This can be observed in countries like china.
          It is a fact that religious communities are more altruistic and united you could say. They are able to survive peril unlike any other community.
          “…live a peaceful life…”
          Hah, such “civilization” would be depraved, amoral and weak. I see that you have the sentiment that atheism promotes or atleast isn’t detrimental to morality. Let me crush that.
          Atheism is the ultimate denial of any guidelines and values. How could you think that this wouldn’t be detrimental to morality?
          Your morality is baseless as you make it up as you go. As you find convenient. Morality is nothing to be defined or interpreted or it is worthless.
          Such true dismissal of all values allows for the greatest evils. Now any person can deem what is good evil and what is evil good.
          It is not surprising that atheism is the basis for hitler, Stalin, Mao, pol pot and all the others belief system. Atheism has caused more than 200+ million deaths within merely a hundred years of somewhat recognition.
          For civilization to arise a clear and untouchable system of moral has to be prevalent.
          The very idea of atheism is barbaric and anti-civilization. There will never be an atheist civilization.

        14. “What could it possibly mean to fall to degeneracy?
          A loss of traditional values, fading masculinity and feminity, sexual deviancy, depravity and debauchery and an underlying weakness.
          Civilizations that have succumbed to this have never recovered and got wiped out.”
          I never asked you what degeneracy is, I asked you to point out a society that “fell” because of it, which again, you can’t do, because you have fallen to group-think.
          “I can’t remember that you fucking said that. You said that my plan is to torture and murder people into believing in my religion.”
          I mean your god is torturing people to believe in him. I mean, your god is all powerful, correct? If he can stop it, he is culprit-able in various deaths. Same with you, if you had a button that could cause all the destruction you wanted, you would clearly press it. You are a fucking murder in that case. You clearly lack abstract logic.
          “What I am actually saying is that if a disaster or war was to happen people would naturally turn to Christianity again.”
          Why? What will Christianity do for them?

        15. Hitler was a man of religion however he didn’t like Christianity because it opposed natural selection, aka survival of the fittest, smartest, strongest etc etc.
          You do not need God to have morality. Just like you don’t need cops in order to follow the law. Some people just do the right thing.
          It’s hypocritical to act good just because you fear going to hell . It’s more noble to be good without a reward or a reason or fear.
          A man who acts good while being watched is a piece of shit compared to the man who acts good all the time even when no eyes are upon him.
          If god does exist an atheist will have a better chance of getting through the gates of heaven, due to the simple fact that he the atheist was good even though he didn’t believe in God or because he feared going to hell, he was good on his own will, not fear or obligations to God. A man who is good only because he fears going to hell or because God is watching him is a liar and god can see throw his lies and will have a hard time entering the gates of heaven, you cant cheat god.
          You wouldn’t understand reason because you came into this being bias and also emotionally fueled. That’s the difference between an atheist and a theist he finds solace in logic not emotions and thus reason and understanding flow more naturally, even in the presence of emotions.
          An atheist civilization would be the greatest thing ro ever befall the human race in the entire history of planet earth.

        16. “What nonsense! Here we have at last reached an age that has left all mysticism behind it, and now [Himmler] wants to start that all over again.”
          Adolf Hitler, behind the back of the public.
          He wasn’t.
          “You do not need God to have morality.”
          Sure, except that your morality will only be based on your own desires and ego.
          It makes it completely meaningless.
          “It’s hypocritical to act good just because you fear going to hell . It’s more noble to be good without a reward or a reason or fear.”
          Cute for you to say but pain and pleasure are always prevalent in humans.
          Except that when you don’t get the pleasure anymore or are subjected to pain your morality will be null.
          Whilst even the greatest psychopath will be forced to endure any pain in order to uphold morality as long as he believes in god of course.
          He will learn the meaning of good and evil trough pain whilst in your world good and evil are left for interpretation. Simply they don’t exist.
          “It’s more noble…”
          Case in point, what exactly is noble? Surely, hitler must have felt noble as he ordered kill.
          That is utterly meaningless.
          “A man who acts good [only]…”
          Sure, except that you can’t even define what “good” is factually.
          You can define it according to your ego and emotions which basically means it can be anything.
          As long as it feels food.
          “If god does exist…”
          To some degree you are right there too.
          It is a fact that people that haven’t heard of god and yet act good are easily forgiven.
          However the existence of god predates that objective morality exists.
          That there is some basis of what is good. There isn’t in your world aside from your own feelings.
          No, you have no idea what it means to tackle everything logically. You are a plain hypocrite. Your morality is illogical.
          Why don’t you throw away those dogmas of good and evil? Because it feels good?
          If that is your sole reason, which it is, then you should throw them away as they can also hinder you from feeling good.
          It would make you logical too.
          Also no, an atheist civilization would be a cesspool of depravity, nihilism and hedonism.

        17. “…because you have fallen to group-think.”
          Spare me your ad hominem. What is this bullshit?
          Read “of the rise and fall of ancient civilizations” by Joseph Watson and “sex and culture” by J.D Unwin.
          Shut your shit and look around you. Do you have no historical knowledge?
          What I am saying is blatant truth.
          “I mean your god is torturing people to believe in him.”
          Tell me. What is worse? 80 years of pain or an eternity of pain?
          You shouldn’t talk about things you don’t understand.
          Anything that is good comes from god. The further you are from god the less good you are. You naturally gravitate to those things. The furthest place from god is hell.
          You will end up there when you reject god.
          It is perfectly moral here in the position of god to not prevent suffering from occurring if it helps in the long run.
          “Same with you, if you had a button that could cause all the destruction you wanted, you would clearly press it.”
          Based on what? How does your brain work? Would I not throw myself into hell by doing that? As I am clearly bound my belief of biblical morality?
          How do you “deduce” these things whilst completely dismissing reality?

        18. Are you calling me Himmler lol if so I’m not even close to that but then again I think an atheist nation would protect my kind from your kind who kill us just for not believing in your sky magician.
          Being good and evil is defined by everyone. It’s called having your own mind. Some people think hitting someone is evil while other think it’s mino, some religions condone kkillingand murdering there own kin yet atheist are the morally void ones hahahahahahahajaja dont make me laugh.
          Atheist have no need to kill or desire to kill out or naturally not wanting to. We just want to love life and enjoy it’s pleasures however we want them and like myself some maybe not all would love to put science at the top of human goals and ambitions and not a sky magician who will send me to burn if I make a discovery or experiment in a lab.
          If it’s up to me I’ll make it myself lol money can buy anything

        19. “J.D Unwin.”
          Well Urwin is wrong. For starters, China is not monogamous, and yet they developed a very robust civilization. Also, how does America, such a degenerate society as you call it, manage to have so much productivity? How has its productivity and technology continue to become better and better for the past 50 years. You have yet to explain why such large delays occur between the onset of this degeneracy and the “collapse” of civilizations. The other book I cannot find. Anyways, I said I wanted evidence, not some books. Again, you have yet to point out a single fucking society that fell because of “degeneracy”.
          “Shut your shit and look around you. Do you have no historical knowledge?
          What I am saying is blatant truth.”
          I do, most of your historical knowledge is blatantly innaccurate.
          “Tell me. What is worse? 80 years of pain or an eternity of pain?”
          Well I mean if this guy is supposedly fucking omnipotent, he can literally fucking implant all explanations and proof of his existence into every persons brain in an instant, yet he doesn’t, which leads me to believe one of three conclusions must be true: 1) God does not exist, 2) God does not want us to know he exists, or 3) God is actually just a sadistic jerk.
          “Based on what? How does your brain work? Would I not throw myself into hell by doing that? As I am clearly bound my belief of biblical morality?”
          Well in the “long run” you are saving all those people aren’t you?

        20. No, I am not calling you himmler. That was part of a quote. I simply haven’t pasted this ” correctly.
          “…enjoy it’s pleasures…”
          That is no basis for true morality. Anything can be perceived as pleasurable and desirable.

        21. Very robust? Do you mean stale?
          Frankly, this goes in perfect accordance actually.
          Due to their polygamous nature china remained stable and robust.
          Whilst the monogamy of the western nations has led to instability and aggressive expansionism.
          This too goes in accordance with the degeneracy of an actual matriarchy.
          Yeah, you have no clue about those, do you?
          To keep the male drive low it is custom in such society that a man sleeps with another woman daily.
          Also, what? Do you think that a civilization just collapses immediately?
          In the book “of the rise and fall of ancient civilizations” Joseph Watson examines over 70 civilizations from their rise to their fall.
          First, a civilization sets up rules, values and standards that promote a lifestyle that best guarantees survival and success.
          After success sets in the neccessity to follow those values seems to blur.
          And guess what happens to something great when you remove what made it great?
          It falls.
          Technological successes are meaningless here.
          But frankly, I have had it. Let me give you proof that we are failing as we go against our nature.
          Even you should be able to conclude that if people screw themselves over this has an impact in the society they are in.
          And that not messing yourself up also impacts society.
          Women were happier then men before feminism. I would argue that longterm happiness occurs as you live I accordance to your nature. I would argue that depression is a way of the body to tell you that you are messing up.
          They are twice as likely to be mentally ill.

          Study Shows Young Women Are Twice As Likely As Young Men To Be Mentally Ill

          Conclusively to that women that are being mothers are happiest:
          It is a fact that women are more socially aggressive than men.
          Do not think that this doesn’t affect marriage if the lie of equality is prevalent.
          It is a fact that strong men are likelier to be right wing. And let me phrase it like this:
          Corrupted mind, corrupted body.
          Don’t think that a prevalent mindset of weakness doesn’t affect the civilization as a whole.
          It is also a fact that religious communities are more united, altruistic and able to survive harsher peril in comparison to non-religious ones.
          Or frankly, just watch this video: https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=UxpVwBzFAkw
          “I do, most of your historical knowledge is blatantly innaccurate.”
          Right. You can’t debunk something by dismissing it. Your historical knowledge is embarrassing. Even your kind should at least know of how Rome has fallen.
          God will not interfere with anything in our lives unless we let him.
          “Well in the “long run” you are saving all those people aren’t you?”
          Because that helps make you seem anymore logical. Most obviously I am not omniscient. I am not just and as such I cannot judge other people and punish them.
          Again, I would be thrown to hell. What in the world did you think would be rational about doing that?

        22. “Very robust? Do you mean stale?”
          How so? I mean, maybe now they are stale under communism, but before communism, I would say having the biggest GDP in the world is a pretty big feat, especially before having (such a) large population advantage. Ironically, china is now doing WORSE under a monogamous system, which shows your correlation sucks.
          “Whilst the monogamy of the western nations has led to instability and aggressive expansionism.”
          Are you really this cognitively dissonant? This is the exact fucking opposite of what you said earlier. You claimed that it was monogamy that caused stability and economic growth.
          “This too goes in accordance with the degeneracy of an actual matriarchy.
          Yeah, you have no clue about those, do you?”
          I mean, being that none of them exist…
          “Also, what? Do you think that a civilization just collapses immediately?”
          I think 400 years of continued growth and strength is a pretty big fucking time period. Those numbers are so fucking far apart its fucking absurd that you correlate them.
          I mean, in 1616, the Dutch establish their colony of Essequibo in the region of the Essequibo River in northern South America. What happened 400 years later? Donald Trump was elected President. COINCIDENCE? I THINK NOT!
          “To keep the male drive low it is custom in such society that a man sleeps with another woman daily.”
          Again, what civilization is this? Can you actually name any? Are you just talking about Bonobos?
          “Also, what? Do you think that a civilization just collapses immediately?”
          No, I just don’t believe in societal collapses. It entails that somewhere has civilization, and then its just gone, and it doesn’t exist anymore, its just wild lands hunter gather people. But that isn’t the case at all, almost every society is simply replaced, or adsorbed by another one.
          “And guess what happens to something great when you remove what made it great?”
          Apparently it takes more than 400 years for it to start a slow decline…
          “Technological successes are meaningless here.”
          I mean, they aren’t actually. Technology shows the motivation of your people to invent things, be creative, solve problems, etc. Technology is a perfect indicator of what you are talking about.
          “Women were happier then men before feminism.”
          Okay, this isn’t relevant to me in the slightest. We aren’t talking about feminism, nor am I a feminist, nor was Rome “feminist”.
          “It is a fact that strong men are likelier to be right wing. And let me phrase it like this:
          Corrupted mind, corrupted body.”
          The idea of a left-right wing dichotomy is pure unadulterated bullshit.
          “Right. You can’t debunk something by dismissing it. Your historical knowledge is embarrassing. Even your kind should at least know of how Rome has fallen.”
          Rome didn’t fall, it was absorbed by other groups and reorganized.
          “God will not interfere with anything in our lives unless we let him.”
          True, except, oh wait, all the times in the old testament he fucking killed people.

        23. “…is now doing worse…”
          Because communism is a system that doesn’t oppress expansion at all, does it?
          You are so utterly pointless it’s ridiculous.
          You are misunderstanding here.
          It is a fact that only patriarchal societies came to be civilizations by establishing order.
          With this order now all the expansive energy of men is channeled towards upholding civilization.
          Does this mean that there is nothing more stable?
          Also, stability doesn’t necessarily equate to prosperity or success.
          As such if you want to have absolute stability the best way is to drain male energy via a matriarchy.
          “I mean, being that none of them exist.”
          I wish but, it is only one damn google search away.
          “I think 400 years of continued growth and strength…”
          You seem to focus all your energy on the monogamous patriarchy point.
          Which is just wrong.
          I do not deny that a polygamous patriarchy can achieve success in the first place.
          It is yet also the truth that men with less sexual options are drive to greater lenghts.
          However this is not the point. The point is that a patriarchy with rules and values leads to civilization and that the opposite of that obviously leads to the opposite.
          So, if a patriarchy was to lose it’s qualities civilization would naturally be lost too.
          “But that isn’t the case at all, almost every society is simply replaced, or absorbed another one.”
          What the hell? Of course a failing system causes a power vacuum that is to be taken by a more capable system.
          “Apparently it takes more than 400 years…”
          So what? Have they thrown away all values in those times? Or have they held on to values for the majority as it’s guidance?
          “Technology is a perfect indicator of what you are talking about.”
          No, it isn’t.
          “Okay, this isn’t relevant…”
          It is. You should have been able to tell this by the art of data I provided.
          What is a “civilization” with all the technology in the world when it’s inhabitants are mentally ill, live unnatural and are amoral?
          It is clear that a patriarchy is needed to guide humanity else it always leads to unpromising ends.
          As shown historically.
          “The idea of a left-wing…”
          So what? I don’t care about your opinion.
          “Rome didn’t fall…”
          Yeah, of course it didn’t at all. It is a fact that they lost what made them great and got what was coming for them. The rest is silly semantics.
          “True, except,…”
          Even there it is shown that god doesn’t show himself to people that aren’t open to him.
          For this he uses people that believe in him to do his deeds. That is how it has always been.
          Regardless, your point falls flat.
          What is even your point? What makes you defend degeneracy so fervently?

        24. “It is a fact that only patriarchal societies came to be civilizations by establishing order.”
          Patriarchy the way you are using the term, does not exist. Its made by feminists, there is no such thing as “patriarchy”. Sure, some (and by that I mean every) societies have sexual dimorphism, but that isn’t “patriarchy”.
          “Also, stability doesn’t necessarily equate to prosperity or success.”
          The context I was using it in does. Stability is required for growth. People cannot invest and build value, income, or culture without having stability, its called Maslow’s Hierarchy of needs.
          “I wish but, it is only one damn google search away.”
          Every one of these “matriarchal” civilizations would also fit the definition of a “patriarchy”.
          “You seem to focus all your energy on the monogamous patriarchy point.
          Which is just wrong.
          I do not deny that a polygamous patriarchy can achieve success in the first place.
          It is yet also the truth that men with less sexual options are drive to greater lenghts.”
          “So what? Have they thrown away all values in those times? Or have they held on to values for the majority as it’s guidance?”
          Well they had been having (non-existent) orgies in Rome for hundreds of years… and yet, they didn’t collapse in all that time until the 4th century. Why?
          “What is a “civilization” with all the technology in the world when it’s inhabitants are mentally ill, live unnatural and are amoral?”
          So your whole argument resides on the fact that you need to set very, very non standard definitions. Well okay, I concede. I will you your definitions for everything. However, if this is how you define civilization, then frankly, I don’t give a flying fuck about civilization.
          “Even there it is shown that god doesn’t show himself to people that aren’t open to him.”
          Why? Why can’t he just communicate? He is Omnipotent isn’t he? I was religious for several years, and yet, god never showed himself to me.
          “Regardless, your point falls flat.”
          Every one of your arguments for the religious part of this conversation have been “your wrong because I said so”. You have no warrant for anything you say.

        25. Call it what you want.
          There is no egalitarian or matriarchal civilization that arose that way.
          Truth is that the father is always the head of the family in any civilization that arose.
          “Also, stability doesn’t necessarily equate to prosperity or success.”
          “Stability is required for growth.”
          You are misunderstanding here as I worded it badly. What I wanted to highlight was that a lack of stability doesn’t equate to a lack of prosperity or success.
          Stability doesn’t mean safety.
          My initial meaning of the word “instability” was simply to highlight the high energy the western nations exhibited at the time.
          “Every one of these “matriarchal” civilizations would also fit the definition of a “patriarchy”.
          Yeah, because only women are allowed to be the rulers in those specific societies and men aren’t allowed to order women around.
          How in the world would that fit the definition of a patriarchy? What are you on about?
          “Well they had been having (non-existent) orgies…”
          Because they hadn’t yet screwed up sex roles, had a functioning masculine army and their leaders haven’t yet gone soft.
          “…set very, very non-standard definitions.”
          Shut your shit. That is the very definition of a civilization. It is in the very word “civil”.
          Should I explain you it’s origins?
          What? Do you think that by simply giving a bunch of savages yet unfathomed technology they’d be more civilized than us?
          Hardly surprising seeing your lack of any understanding of social dynamics, logic and good reason.
          “I don’t give a flying fuck about civilization.”
          Have fun with your dysfunctional family then. Keep at it till the destruction of all civilization.
          “I was religious for several years,…”
          And that here is your problem. I couldn’t deny the existence of god even if I wanted to.
          Once you have truly chosen to set your life on the line to finding god you can’t go back.
          “You have no warrant for anything you say.”
          You’re one to talk in the first place. Clearly, the things I said can be backed by the bible one way or the other. For one god has never shown himself to people that aren’t open to him.
          He has also always used people that are open to him for doing that.
          As such it can clearly be concluded that he won’t do it any time soon.
          The assumption here is simple.
          When you close your heart against god he will not take your will even as he easily could.

        26. “There is no egalitarian or matriarchal civilization that arose that way.”
          There are none, Period.
          “What I wanted to highlight was that a lack of stability doesn’t equate to a lack of prosperity or success.”
          Yes it absolutely does correlate. Again, as I said, you can’t have growth without stability.
          “My initial meaning of the word “instability” was simply to highlight the high energy the western nations exhibited at the time.”
          You mean they still do? The world is more high energy now than it has ever been.
          “How in the world would that fit the definition of a patriarchy? What are you on about?”
          There are exactly zero societies on this planet that follow that social structure.
          “Because they hadn’t yet screwed up sex roles, had a functioning masculine army and their leaders haven’t yet gone soft.”
          Okay, so maybe there Empire collapsed because, I don’t know, maybe those things, and not the orgies? How do orgies somehow cause leaders to become soft?
          “Shut your shit. That is the very definition of a civilization. It is in the very word “civil”.
          Should I explain you it’s origins?”
          No, I just happen to use a more literal, academic definition then you. For me a civilization is an agrarian society, you seem to definite it as people who have the same morals as myself.
          “What? Do you think that by simply giving a bunch of savages yet unfathomed technology they’d be more civilized than us?”
          Well using your definition of savage, which appears to be people who are promiscuous, well then well yeah, they will be more civilized than us.
          “And that here is your problem. I couldn’t deny the existence of god even if I wanted to.”
          Neither could you confirm it. However, Quod Gratis Asseritur, Gratis Negatur. What has been asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence, and too date, not a single piece of evidence has been presented for any particular god existing.
          “For one god has never shown himself to people that aren’t open to him.”
          Except he has. Ever heard of someone named Paul? He also clearly showed himself to the people of Jericho. When the residents of the city saw that the Israelis were able to use magic (yes, you can claim it wasn’t magic, but that is the text book definition of magic) to destroy their walls. But then again, what evidence do I have to believe the bible is the true word of god? Why not the Vedas? Why not the Tripitakas? Why not the Kojiki? et cetera.

        27. “There are none. Period.”
          Do you even know the difference between a civilization and just a tribe?
          “The world is more high energy now than it has ever been.”
          There is hardly anything more high energy than a world war. And yes, the world may be high energy right now but not the western part of it.
          “There are exactly zero societies on this planet that follow that social structure.”
          Factually wrong. China for one still has one. But you have shown a record of placing emotion above fact.
          “Okay, so maybe there Empire collapsed because, I don’t know, maybe those things, and not the orgies? How do orgies somehow cause leaders to become soft?”
          You are like a child. I have to explain everything.
          It is most obvious that the expression of indulgence concludes something that is counter to self-discipline which is the root of all toughness. It is a fact that all civilizations before us lived through the same cycles we did. Unsurprisingly we also see such symptoms as an uncannily low reproduction which showcases how broken our families are already.
          “No, I just happen to use a more literal, academic definition then you.”
          And? Does this change anything? It still the truth that all civilizations have lived through the same cycles as we. It hardly changes that the true, age old definition of it is in the very word “civilization”.
          “Well using your definition of savage, which appears to be people who are promiscuous,…”
          Wrong. You will not sidestep here. A savage is someone without order, someone who doesn’t have a set of morality that best aids the rise or maintenance of civilization.
          That he is indulgent is only comes of it.
          “Neither could you confirm it.”
          Spare me. Are you completely incapable of any reasoned thought. What do you think it means if I say that I couldn’t deny gods existence if I wanted to?
          It means at least that it is independent of my emotions. Frankly, you’d believe in god if you’d have had my experiences. Of course that doesn’t mean anything when I cannot demonstrate it to you. However don’t think that I have abandoned logic for it.
          On the contrary the only logical thing is to believe in god according to my experience.
          Your Latin won’t change a simple truth either. It may be that an unbiased theory can be dismissed without basis but it doesn’t mean that you can draw conclusions from it.
          It is illogical to conclude something’s existence or nonexistence without any perceived data.
          “Except he has. Ever heard of someone named Paul?”
          First, Paul already believed in god’s existence even fanatically you could say.
          Also, god has always used humans to show himself to other humans which he did with Jericho too.
          “But then again, what evidence do I have to believe the bible is the true word of god?”
          Let me put it like this. I am not here to evangelize you nor are you. And simply put when you aren’t ready to give it a chance I can hardly do anything about your opinion.
          Nor is that even something done over the internet with success.
          I mean sure I could tell you that there is reason to think that Jesus existed and did the things said of him. However all that will clearly lead nowhere.

        28. “Do you even know the difference between a civilization and just a tribe?”
          A civilization is an agrarian society. A tribe is an ethnic group that exists independent of a state, yet at the same time has a large amount of social coherence. Jews (at least historically) are a perfect example of a tribe.
          “And yes, the world may be high energy right now but not the western part of it.”
          What do you even mean by high energy then? I mean the west has more GDP than the rest of the world combined, how is that not high energy?
          “China for one still has one.”
          LOL! You think China is a egalitarian or matriarchal civilization? China is one of the least equal societies in the world https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_income_equality
          “It is most obvious that the expression of indulgence concludes something that is counter to self-discipline which is the root of all toughness.”
          Well why do you need to avoid sex to become disciplined?
          “And? Does this change anything? It still the truth that all civilizations have lived through the same cycles as we.”
          Again, you keep pushing this claim without giving any examples, its just this and “but muh rÜmoon orgies.”
          “Spare me. Are you completely incapable of any reasoned thought. What do you think it means if I say that I couldn’t deny gods existence if I wanted to?”
          You are saying I have no proof god doesn’t exist, and so I must put forth that YOU have no proof that he does exist.
          “It is illogical to conclude something’s existence or nonexistence without any perceived data.”
          I never said god doesn’t exist, I simply believe that since we have no evidence for a god, there is no reason to entertain you claim that he exists, nor your believes about how other people should live their lives because of that. Your whole argument is the teapot over mars fallacy. I think there is a teapot in orbit over mars right now. What? I need evidence? Well you can’t disprove me, therefor, I am right. That is the logic you are using.
          “On the contrary the only logical thing is to believe in god according to my experience.”
          Has god physically come to you and told you he exists and proved it using is powers? He didn’t? Well then you have no experience to base your belief in god on.
          “First, Paul already believed in god’s existence even fanatically you could say. ”
          A fundamentally different god. Why will god reveal himself to someone who believes in a different god, but not someone who thinks there may or may not be a god?
          “Also, god has always used humans to show himself to other humans which he did with Jericho too.”
          Except when he destroyed there walls with magic.

        29. “I mean the west has more GDP than the rest of the world combined, how is that not high energy?”
          And who has the superior technology and all the brands? No, what I see is that we are apathetic and rely on the success of our fathers.
          “LOL! You think China is a egalitarian or matriarchal civilization?”
          I am about done with you. What about “China still has one” do you now understand?
          Did I say china still is one? What is this bullshit?
          It is a fact that china has a tiny society within it that is led matriarchally as it has been historically.
          “Well why do you need to avoid sex to become disciplined?”
          Complete bullshit. There is nothing wrong with sex if done with a purpose. That aside this is like asking: Why do you have to train to be strong?
          Because it simply is like this.
          “Again, you keep pushing this claim without giving any examples,…”
          Because this is basic knowledge. This basic reasoning. How about you atleast google “cycles of civilizations” or something?
          Let me simply tell you that every civilization that has become to strong to be vanquished from the outside has been corrupted and brought to its end from the inside.
          That is simply the damn truth. Look up Sparta and what not.
          “…I must put forth that YOU have no proof that he does exist.”
          “That is the logic you are using.”
          No, that isn’t the logic that I am using. I usually do this to highlight a certain aspect of the vast hypocrisy of atheists and not to further my position.
          In the sense of “How can you talk about being without belief whilst claiming something that requires blind belief.”
          Turns out you at least don’t have that. Honest congratulation.
          “Has god physically come to you and told you he exists and proved it using is powers?”
          Spare me. You don’t know shit. Let me phrase it like this: You’d have to be willfully ignorant and plain dumb to not believe in god if you’d be in my position.
          “Why will god reveal himself to someone who believes…”
          It’s not about belief, it’s about openness. Clearly Paul had quite the room in his heart for god’s existence.
          “Except when he destroyed there walls with magic.”
          Except that he did it using the musicians of isreal. Fact is god has always done everything in the bible in the immediate radius of someone who is open to him.
          Simply put he has always used people that believed in him.
          Let me ask you something. What is your point? Why do you find it so controversial that discipline isn’t something that you get chasing enjoyment but rather by refusing it?
          Why does it seem unthinkable to you that if a civilization has achieved success and security for an extended period of time it falls under well documented cycles?
          That we are in such a cycle?
          Isn’t it just rational to conclude that if you remove the fundament of something that it falls? That we have made ourselves an unnatural environment that can only produce unnature and is thus increasingly dysfunctional?

      6. “My problem with Christianity is that I never heard of any account of a religion gone bad, and recovering.”
        Then you just haven’t studied the history of religion much. Neo-Confucianism? The gnostic revival? Religions revive all the time.
        “If we unite ourselves under christianity”
        Don’t get me wrong, I’m an atheist, so I don’t really even believe in religion. Isn’t religion about WHAT YOU BELIEVE, not “I think this is cool so imma adopt it in my life”?

      7. The bible is not the perfect book. You believe some stupid shit and don’t listen to other who tell you that you believe this stupid shit is supit shit? How masculine…
        The word of God is not the bible, the word of god is Jesus Christ.

      8. Not really, but I get your point. All you need is a solid foundation. A foundation that no government can move or break under any circumstance.
        The problem with American politics is that judges and politicians view everything as OPEN to interpretation. Thus they can come up with any bullshit excuse to fuck shit up. Make it so that the law cannot be interpreted into anything else but what it is, even if you have to create a declaration that is a million pages long.

    2. To be a non religious man sometimes, you have a better handle on it than the religious.
      I think the hippy Jesus movement is what got good old southern Baptists on the wrong track. Most of the old timers that were at church whenever the doors were open were also men who didn’t believe in taking shit off anybody.

      1. That’s fair enough. However, what the old southern baptists and hippies had in common was that they were all flawed humans who brought their own shit to the religion.
        Are we talking about the softening of culture in general or are we talking about the word of god?
        A little to the point there but the heart of it remains: the religion doesn’t change–only the flaws of man

        1. Should have said this earlier, but this is a great point, humans gonna human.
          Even in the New Testament, the early church had huge problems. An exaggeration but it seems like half the time St. Paul is saying “I love you guys, but WHAT ARE YOU DOING? STOP THAT!”

        2. That’s how the story goes. Man is set up to fail and Christ has an unlimited capacity for compassion and forgiveness. That’s how the game works. So for people to say that earthly Christianity is fucked up, well yeah. Hell, even when Christ walked with the apostles—in person—they didn’t get it…and he was like actually sitting there eating fish, drinking wine and, presumably, being really annoyed st how much they constantly fucked it up despite him being there to spoon feed it to them.
          Of course Christianity is flawed. Even Peter didn’t get it. That’s the whole game.

        3. And as I’m fond of saying: we’re all going to die someday but that doesn’t stop us from trying to live forever. Such it is with Christ’s example – an aim, but an ultimately unattainable goal.

        4. Yeah, you’re right, deserting Christianity and turning everyone into atheist commie heathens is turning out so great for society.

      2. “Most of the old timers that were at church whenever the doors were open
        were also men who didn’t believe in taking shit off anybody”
        ….like “John Wayne toilet paper: It’s rough, it’s tough. It takes shit from no asshole!!”

    3. If we’re talking about the author, he doesn’t mean paganism paganism. I suspect he just reread Puritans and Pagans by GK Chesterton (noted Catholic author), and just didn’t adaquately explain the connection and “pagan mindset” thing he was talking about.
      Puritans and Pagans has this whole theme of the Church baptizing paganism, keeping the healthy universal human impulses under the idea that all truth is Gods truth.

      1. Right; but as you aptly put It above. Humans gonna human. Christ was annoyed that Peter didn’t understand. Paul was annoyed that the people didn’t understand. And this is generation 1.

    4. Best religion explanation ever. Might even introduce my pastor to the face palm middle name. Lol

      1. Sometimes it takes a lacivious, sinful nihilist to lay it out there. Glad you enjoyed

    5. It’s just that on the surface Christianity seems incompatible with war.
      Themes of turning the other cheek, forgiving people who have crossed you, thou shalt not kill, etc, seem in complete contradiction to what is required for war.
      How can Christians justify war? I know Christians have gone to war many times, but I don’t understand if there is a sensible logic to it.

      1. loads of ways to justify anything. I think the easiest way is probably to use the kingdom of ends or possibly the argument that war is a byproduct of a flawed world and man requires forgiveness. TBH I would like to live in a warless world. I imagine most people would. THis is not to say a world where everyone just bends over, but really a world in which war was unnecessary. How a man, a group or a religion justifies their actions and makes themselves right with god is, imo, a very personal thing. Not a one size fits all answer.

        1. sorry, this conversation has an IQ minimum which you do not meet. You must be st least this smart to ride

      2. My understanding is that Jesus said if they strike one cheek, turn the other. He gave no advice on what to do if they strike that cheek as well. Not telling us what to do is leaving it open for a very violent reprisal. Basically, he said in that instance, give them a second chance. No one said anything about a third chance.
        Don’t forget when Jesus violently ran the merchants and money changers out of the temple as well. He used a whip. I’ve always wondered if he didn’t do more as well. Do you think merchants and money changers in the most powerful location (the temple) in all the land (of Isreal) would be selling goods and changing money without armed guards? This was no farmers market in the temple. This would have been like the wall street of Isreal or Judea or whatever it was called at the time. I guarantee you Rome took a bit of the profit to station some Centurions near by (though I don’t have proof).
        Either way, “money changers” would have security. And one angry man with a whip calling the place his fathers house drove them out. Something more happened I believe.
        I digress though, the point is Jesus showed there is such a thing as righteous violence. Sometimes violence is the way. Heck, violence cause his perfect sacrifice. It was apparently the only way.

        1. Jesus was a fiction created by pussified jews & wack job sun worshipping roman cultists …
          Its not suprising christianity makes about as much sense as a badly written chick romance novel …

        2. I’m not a true believer or anything, I just want to understand how people think. And the idea of St. Augustine trying to create such an argument while watching his civilization collapse is interesting in and of itself.
          I lean more secular… But religion seems to be useful for organizing groups and maintaining communities. Do you think another religion is better suited for the job, or that people need to create a new ideology altogether?

        3. The problem with christianity, is that its the only religion with a messiah from an entirely different religion … & it states the chosen ppl arent the ppl who support the religion, but a ppl who worship an entirely different religion …
          What is the point of christianity if your own messiah wasnt even christian … & the chosen ppl arent even in your religion …
          If you look at early christianity, its clear it was a jewish sect who believed they had met someone who claimed be the messiah, it was not christian in any way.
          Basically this jewish sect was used to wipe out & genocide the white people of an entire continent, called europe.
          When this jewish sect failed to achieve the same in africa & the middle east, they created an eastern version of christianity called islam, genociding millions of white pagans fleeing the murderous christians …
          Jews have always used religion & war to wipe out white people, they are an eternal enemy of white people …
          White people who worship christianity, are worshipping a religion directly responsible for a 300 year genocide of their own people.
          You cannot worship a religion responsible for destroying your entire culture & traditions, & waged a genocide of over 300 hundred years on your people. It is a horrible injustice.
          The true religion of white people are the colleges & universities of druidry & paganism, 1000’s of years older then christianity & jews, specifically designed by white people to serve the uniqueness of white people
          Why worship a religion, when you have a religion which has had over a 1000 years to refine itself, & contains 1000’s of years of rich heritage & history written by millions of your own white people?
          It doesnt make sense.
          It also points out how deceived white people have been by christians. White people have to return to their white heritage & create or reclaim a white religion specifically designed to serve white people.
          White people have to reclaim their own identity, & stop taking on the identity of completely alien race, which has hunted them down & massacred them for over 300 years …
          It is a horrible injustice.

        4. I can definitely sympathize with what you’re saying. It is perverted when you stop and think about it.
          My response is that while Christianity was originally created by Jews about Jews and probably for Jews, perhaps the interpretations over the years have taken on a Western character. Cathedrals, high art, traditional communities, etc., have played a positive role in Western history as well.
          I do agree with you and I wish people could discuss this stuff as frankly as you, but I believe most people will find it unpalatable to think like this. Not everyone is capable of re-organizing their thinking based on such radical information.
          When it comes to alt-right issues, and the preservation of the white race, I am a pragmatic. Whatever works I will support. Ideas can change over lifetimes or generations, but if whites lose their racial identity, then they will have nothing concrete to fight for in the future. They wont even exist. It’ll be a mongrel future of Starbucks, taxes, and anti-depressants, until a group with an actual identity comes along and simply replaces them. Who cares about “Western values” really? No one even knows what that means anymore.
          If Christianity can play a role in getting whites to survive, then I will support it. I’m open to alternatives, but if it is impractical, then I wont waste too much energy on it.

      3. There is the concept of Just War, if you turn the cheek once and receive a second attack then you the elbow and the arm follows. The crusades even ticked all the boxes for that. In fact Islam was proven so disastrous to Christianity over the years that even the idea of not fighting should create a brain stroke to the person who hears “Christian” justifications for it.
        In fact Christianity by a small passages, concerning blaspheming against the holy spirit can easily lead to a total war and severe repressions. To understand the holy spirit is essence of christianity as it is the good devil, it taunts you to do good, if you speak against what it represents then you should be slain (consider here promoters of homosexuality, PC(lying), Socialism (thieving) etc.).
        Also the commandements concerning non-violence mostly are meant for other Christians, excluding heretics, and religions that do not prove a threat to Christianity (Budhism) as if one is a threat to the Holy spirit he cannot be pardoned.

        1. No…. They weren’t Skypish manipulation starts somewhere close at the end of the 18th century, In the Case of Poland that happened before the partition albeit because of their corrupt aristocracy.
          Moving the present situation of Protestantic Churches that have come to promote Zionism, something that in the middle ages would have made you a heretic and hence would condemn you to a visit by the Holy Inquisition that would end to you removed by society, removed by your post or executed, by various methods. Today in the USA due to the country having no oficial religion and allowing any cult to grow of course most Christian became Zionists as these groups have access to resources others wouldn’t have.

        2. The crusades whare what? LOL..
          We rescued our christian people. Like we need to do today again.

      4. Here is a link to a free copy of St. Augustine on “Just War Theory:”
        Context: He wrote it around 400AD. His life experience was watching the Roman Empire, into which he was born, disintegrate. With the Dark Ages beginning to descend, ethics and the pillars of civilization were his primary concerns– he was writing about these things in the last moments a human would be able to observe them again for hundreds of years.

        1. That is actually quite profound. Will read this in full when I get the chance. Thanks.

        2. Happy to spread it around. Augustine is the kind of thing that you read once and think about for a lifetime: especially his book called “Confessions.” I find that I have agreed and disagreed with him at different points in my life as I have changed… but I have never been able to escape his thought.

        3. St Augustine observed them, because the catholic church & their inquisitions created the dark ages in the first place …
          Catholics are mass murdering filth … just like the muslims, all owned & run by jews & babylonian child sacrificing occultists

        4. Although your heart may be pure, all your attempts to impregnate your realdoll are, alas, in vain.

        5. “St Augustine observed them, because the catholic church & their inquisitions created the dark ages in the first place …”
          No they didn’t. The inquisition wasn’t formed until many many years after the developement of the medieval era. Which no credible historian calls “the dark ages”.

      5. I’d have to equate the Christian view of war with the Christian view on taking a shit, popping zits, scratching your ass, etc – just another filthy thing requisite with being a fallen creature on this planet.
        Another practice that, while incompatible with the divine, perfect, and/or infinite is nonetheless necessary here on Earth.

      6. “turning the other cheek” – YOUR cheek.
        Not “hey Joe, go turn your cheek” – as a christian you have to defend others who get attacked. And then turn YOUR cheek.
        Read Catechism.

    6. Did someone hack your account and post for you? I never expected something like this being typed out under your name.

      1. ha. no, no Russian orthodox hackers. If you follow my comments, I am usually quite keen to chime in on religious conversations. It is somewhat of a specialty of mine.

      1. I’ve read a little Nietzsche. He isn’t wrong but you don’t understand the point.

        1. Your point is christanity is about forgiveness and grace, but humans are flawed blablabla. What you are defending is weak morals. The reality is the opposite of what you say: the human instinct is right, christianity is flawed

        2. So you advocate a return to the state of nature? Good luck finding fresh fruit in winter and a decent concierge

        3. I agree about a society based on strength and, at least at certain points, I think the Roman Emoire is a good place to look. I do think; however; that you are mistaken in thinking of Christ as a mere childish hippie. It is a common mistake and based on what many Christians over the millennia have turned him into, but a mistake none the less. I think that reading the owners manual without thought to the couple thousand years of bs that polluted it bears me out

        4. A childish hippie…who literally cracked the whip at money changers in a temple??? Are ya sure you got the right guy?

Comments are closed.