I followed a link to this thread: Black flag on the nature of women.

It's utterly pure and focused like a laser beam in summing up how the base nature of women holds them to varying degrees as slaves to their primitive programming no matter how self destructive it turns out to be in this modern world of ours. Much of our recognition of this behaviour lends a powerful inference that suggests evolution is a determining factor. That these self destructive instincts are the result of cave-woman survival mechanisms that have served fem-folk well until all but recent times.

Here is my favourite progression in the tale, coming first from the male witness and then from the woman trying to make sense of her life-destroying choices.

Said he:

Quote:Her last year in law school he proposed there. She wanted to strangle him and toss him in the Amstel; but she couldn’t, because she loved him, right? And he took such good care of her, how could she possibly refuse him? She jilted him two days before their wedding. She couldn’t bear the thought of trying to smother her contempt for him for even a single more day.

What a bitch! What the fuck was wrong with her? She figured she was either the most vile person in the world or the craziest. She immediately engaged a therapist to determine which. He still hasn’t figured it out. For the last five years the fraudulent buffoon’s been banging on about how she must have a daddy issue.

Said she:

Quote:I’ve spent vast sums and countless hours trying to unravel my tortuous logic in the matter. It’s quite amusing really. I should’ve gone to a vet instead. I dare say he could have cleared the matter up in about five minutes:

I found my mate to be insufficiently dominant...

On the first matter I thought to myself the problem is that men are not taught the red pill on woman's primal self until it's too late, and sometimes not at all.

On the second matter I thought to myself the problem is that women are not taught the red pill on their own primal self, for the most part ever.

So I wondered, if we somehow wrested the reins of civilisation from the elites it would make sense to educate both young men and young women on their primitive biological drivers in order to help them make sense of their unhelpful instincts that only serve to fuck everything up. Cheating on providers with alphas. White knighting. Etc. It wouldn't stop every woman from fucking around or every man from defending her when she did so, but it would make a lot of people think twice and count for a great deal of early intervention.

The immediate problem I ran into though is that this would instantly run afoul of a great many creationists who would be hostile to the idea of men and women being thralls to "primitive, animalistic, stone age instincts".

I'm not thoroughly versed in the bible and although it shows that women can be wicked and lured easily by temptation, it's not exactly the Chateau Heartiste blog when it comes to specifics.

I've started this thread for two reasons.

One. I want to know what people think about the idea of teaching first-year-secondary-schoolers about primitive biological drivers as they relate to human behaviour, either as a social science or a facet of biology.

Two. I want to know how Christians reconcile these apparently ancient biological drivers with creationist theory and whether their beliefs would impact how they taught their children or other children about it (if at all).

Thanks in advance, RVFbros. I hope we can discuss this in a mutually respectful manner.

What needs to be reconciled? A classic, ancient christian doesn't believe in the "Creationism" that you refer to. To anyone who has considered the topic, I would hope that they realize in the fallen world, where the primal instinct is fear of limited resources and ultimately death, our earthly selves have evolved various (obvious) characteristics or tendencies. This is the ancestral sin, our tendency is towards falling away, destroying is easier than building, sin is easier than acquiring virtue, etc.

Leonard, you're a great poster but your understanding of Christianity is poor. I have no idea what you're getting at with this creationist thing and connecting it with base biological impulses.

Full stop, before you get any deeper into this you need a full understanding of what is the basis of Christianity.

I want you to go and read the New Testament and ONLY the New Testament. That is what it means to be a Christian. It's short and if you're a fast reader you can get through it in 5 days.

Kid Twist has the right idea.

Honestly, the organized church's unwillingness to account for the true nature of things and bend theology to mesh well with popular secular opinions is a big part of why I've stopped going to church.

I can't take people serious if they choose comfort over pursuit of genuine truth.

"The organized church"? What's that even supposed to mean? If you are talking about the Roman Catholic church, you should state such.

The whole point of Christianity, by the way, is to point out what the "true nature of things" is.

(06-07-2017 12:49 PM)Suits Wrote:  Honestly, the organized church's unwillingness to account for the true nature of things and bend theology to mesh well with popular secular opinions is a big part of why I've stopped going to church.

I can't take people serious if they choose comfort over pursuit of genuine truth.

Stick to non-organized churches or ones which are loosely affiliated with one another. I'm quite fond of the Lutheran Church Missouri Synod. They stick purely to theology and don't have qualms about telling you by boinking another man in the butt is unhealthy.

By organized church, I'm speaking of any church organization, even independent non-denoms.

The point of Christianity might be to seek/share truth, but the actually activities taken and conversations had suggest otherwise.

Lots of churches have no trouble loudly proclaiming the evils of homosexuality. That's easy.

Let's see a church tackle the fact that women are doing a disservice to their generation by prioritizing education/career over building solid families.

I can't remember the last time I was in a church that didn't carefully tiptoe around certain issues to avoid offending sensitive women. Sure, not all churches let women take on certain roles, but none of them are discussing the real reasons why letting women lead is a bad idea.

For those who think that the Roman Catholic Church is the one true church, please consider the reality that the RCC has been cucked for a long, long time. Your king sits on a gold throne. I don't remember Jesus doing that here on earth.

It seems to me that the wisdom books of the Old Testament (Job, Proverbs, Ecclesiastes) lay the groundwork for discovery of any harsh truths about the temporal world, including relationships between men and women.

The vast majority of the Protestants and Orthodox Christians I know have no problem articulating the differences between roles of men and women, and the men don't really have to be dicks about it because the women fully buy in.

I don't leave Catholics out as a slight, I just only know female left-of-center Catholics, so obviously they are going to combine commie pope worship with prog ideals. But there must be some principled hardcore Catholics out there who are cool, too.

I think it was CS Lewis who said that the truth of God can contain all other truths, including science and blah blah blah. Facts may not be contradictory even if they initially appear that way, we may just not be wise enough to see how one set of facts nests in another.

Organized anything is going to get watered down. It's up to each individual to not get complacent, but there is certainly nothing in Christian scholarly tradition nor in the everyday living of a Christian community that should prevent the understanding of biology.

(yes, in practice, a lot of people on both sides are going to be whiny bitches about it)

Ease up, lads.

I'm not necessarily talking about what's contained strictly in the bible but what's taken as acceptable education in a Christian society.

The teaching of evolution to children has been a major political flashpoint in many Christian areas and my request was based on how people would react in general. I wasn't making inferences to what's specifically housed in the scripture.

The practice vs the theory as it were.

It could be that we just don't have enough "regular" Christians here for this question to make much sense. I suppose most of you guys are too well read and versed in the book to understand how the more common folk would react.

Christianity does not dispute micro-evolution (eg. variations within a set species, traits can be selected and passed down genetically, etc.). What Christianity disputes is macro-evolution (ie. that a bacteria can evolve into a fish who can evolve into a monkey, etc.).

(06-07-2017 10:50 PM)John_Smith Wrote:  Christianity does not dispute micro-evolution (eg. variations within a set species, traits can be selected and passed down genetically, etc.). What Christianity disputes is macro-evolution (ie. that a bacteria can evolve into a fish who can evolve into a monkey, etc.).

That's unfortunate, because due to our ability to conduct DNA studies, it's now pretty clear that macro-evolution is a thing.

Christians were able to live in denial for a good long time, but now that scientific inquiry has provided rock solid evidence for many things that would ruin a Sunday School picnic, the Christian church is now the refuge of those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

(06-08-2017 12:18 AM)Suits Wrote:  

(06-07-2017 10:50 PM)John_Smith Wrote:  Christianity does not dispute micro-evolution (eg. variations within a set species, traits can be selected and passed down genetically, etc.). What Christianity disputes is macro-evolution (ie. that a bacteria can evolve into a fish who can evolve into a monkey, etc.).

That's unfortunate, because due to our ability to conduct DNA studies, it's now pretty clear that macro-evolution is a thing.

Christians were able to live in denial for a good long time, but now that scientific inquiry has provided rock solid evidence for many things that would ruin a Sunday School picnic, the Christian church is now the refuge of those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

I'd much, much prefer my fellow citizens and denizens of the world to be cognizant of human behavioral/cognitive variation and ignorant of macro-evolution, than vice versa.

In other words, Christian Creationism is much more palatable to me than Liberal Creationism.

The former just results in conversations that make me laugh when discussing Jurassic Park or Ligers.

The latter damages, destroys lives: In relatively more benign cases, blocking high-achieving people out of workplaces and schools via affirmative action, seizing money from the productive to give to the unproductive; in less relatively benign cases, gang-raping women in the streets and scattering the remains of children upon fellow concert-goers in the name of Allah.

Even if you literally believe in creationism 100% as according to chapter of Genesis in the bible, there's nothing in the holy scripture that tells you that God created women as anything different than what they really are. The bible is full of unfaithful cheating women constantly getting into trouble with bad boys, starting with Eve herself.

I don't it's necessary to assume that evolution caused women to be the way that they are and have always been. If you believe in a christian/jewish/muslim creator God, he may have well made females this way from the day they were created.

The real issue with Christianity is that it associates uncovering hidden knowledge (especially about women's true nature) as a form of cooperation with (and using the methods of) the devil.

In that sense Christianity seems to want to keep you in a state of ignorance and/or innocence about many topics by force. They do a good job of telling you what's not allowed, but they often do a terrible job of telling you why it's not allowed.

In the end it boils down to the fact that, as a man, inadvertently commiting sins yourself (though theoretically forbidden) is actually indispensable to acquiring real knowledge.

Quite the paradox.

Christianity got out of that "catch 22" with the well established practice of endless confession and repentance.



Your morals and principles will always be more guided by your own experiences than anything you read. Meaning your own sins are always more powerful in shaping your knowledge and subsequent righteousness, than reading about other people's sins. Gotta make your own mistakes to be able to get it right. Once you have your own kids, the cycle begins again, as it hurts you to see them make the same mistakes you did.

Leonard your suspicions are right, I will argue to make a contrary point to most replies here.

Indeed Christianity is incompatible with Red pill knowledge about human behavior, Creatonism or not. I myself ceased to practice Christianity for this reason.

Most people here have a slight level of hypocrocy here and are defending Christianity even while they constantly disobay it's tenets and practice sexual relationships outside of marriage. They do so because they want to preserve western culture against Islam and cultural marxism. So they cling to defend Christianity as one of the foundations of western civilization. Most people here would attack Christianity instead if we were not under siege of Islam and marxist multiculturalism. Were mass imigration not a grave problem of our times all these international players would be more open to criticistm and mocking of Christianity, now they all defend it to maintain western traditionalist identity.

Christianity teaches that everything wrong with a man is original sin, that before that man was perfect and holy. All Christians believe that Creationists or not. That idea is not compatible with evolutionary psychology, nieuroscience and red pill knowledge about human nature. It is not compatible with an idea that we evolved from beasts and are actually getting better and more humane as evolution goes on while still having a lot of beast buried in our ID under our civilized masks.

Sure Old Testament holds red pill ideas on how Adam was banished from Paradise for disobaying God and lisening to his wife who was easily decieved like all women are. This is a red pill depiction of things, but remember that Old testament is not a Chrsitian book. It was a book where ancient Jews put in a lot of their knowledge about the inner workings of human soul. It is adobted by Christians and it's meaning twisted to make Jesus look like a God. Most Christians do not interpret OT in a red pill way. Most Christians are blue pill as fuck and only defend traditional moral values "beacause God commanded thus" and not because of any understanding. Christians also only defend moral values they find in Bible, they ignore other traditional values not clearly outlined in bible - for instance no Christan will argue that in 21century women should not vote or that a woman should recive blessing of her father when choosing her husband. We know this to be of great importance because we know that woman make poor choices on their own because of their instincts choosing dominant males over good providers. But Christians have no clue about this because it is not in Bible. Christians only fight against female clergy(some don't even do that), abortion, homosexuality and sex outside of marriage because there are passages in Bible against these things. But Christians have no understanding why these things are really that bad and they will not defend any red pill idea not clearly mentioned in Bible.

Christianity is much much better then Islam or Communism or atheism, but it is not perfect and it is not truth in it's highest instance. Anyone who argues to the contrary wile sleeping around with women or exploiting red pill knowledge in any other way is a hypocrite. If the world would solve it's Muslim and Communist problems and only Christianity remained - it would become the enemy of red pill truths about nature of human beings not an ally. It is another superstition to be surpassed, but we make an alliance with it for now because much more primitive and ignorant ideollogies are attacking us right now. The problem is hardcore Christians do not see us as allies at all, but as blasphemers trying to explain divine commands with science and knowledge.

Thanks, Mage. This is the kind of thing I'm talking about and I appreciate you playing the ball on this. As I said before, we've got the smartest of Christians here but the median would almost certainly be far more hostile toward the red-pill on human evolutionary behavioural traits.

I suppose there could be a track forged toward framing the entire concept as the various pulls of the devil but it would be a theological nightmare to enact and in any case it would require that those in religious authority over such teachings were aware of the naked truth in the matter or else they would invariable alter the teachings (whether in good faith or not) and the important stuff could be lost once more.

(06-07-2017 08:57 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  On the second matter I thought to myself the problem is that women are not taught the red pill on their own primal self, for the most part ever.

So I wondered, if we somehow wrested the reins of civilisation from the elites it would make sense to educate both young men and young women on their primitive biological drivers in order to help them make sense of their unhelpful instincts that only serve to fuck everything up.

I'm not sure this would work so well for a functioning Christian society, because the hamster would say,
"So my natural, biological, and rightful place is in the harem of the most alpha male I have ever met, seen, or heard of? Ok!"

I know that would suit some of the dudes here, but I'm not overly keen on the idea. Women don't care about facts unless they match their desires, so sometimes they need fairytales. Papa Patriarchy knows best.

The teaching would be in the context of how these drivers negatively impact society and why they need to be identified and suppressed.

I'm sure most if not all of us here have allowed these instincts to lead us down troubled paths in our youth, partially because we never knew why we really did the things we did.

Imagine teaching an entire generation of young men that, speaking in primal terms, women keep beta orbiters as a means for survival despite having no intentions whatsoever of "mating" with them. How many guys would find themselves in a position to play Lancelot and then say "hold on just a second..."

Meanwhile girls can get the more practical version. "Your ovaries are going to make you want to be part of an alpha's harem, but in the modern world that just means you're going to end up as a single mother with no looks and no prospects, so keep that shit under control, yeah?"

(06-08-2017 07:32 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  The teaching would be in the context of how these drivers negatively impact society and why they need to be identified and suppressed.

I'm sure most if not all of us here have allowed these instincts to lead us down troubled paths in our youth, partially because we never knew why we really did the things we did.

Imagine teaching an entire generation of young men that, speaking in primal terms, women keep beta orbiters as a means for survival despite having no intentions whatsoever of "mating" with them. How many guys would find themselves in a position to play Lancelot and then say "hold on just a second..."

Meanwhile girls can get the more practical version. "Your ovaries are going to make you want to be part of an alpha's harem, but in the modern world that just means you're going to end up as a single mother with no looks and no prospects, so keep that shit under control, yeah?"

These are fun things to imagine, actually. I laughed when I read it. Maybe at some point women will be ready to hear such a thing, but as most of us have mentioned off the forum, it's almost not worth it to even bring it up. Most are incapable of hearing it, especially if female. If they are capable, they probably already hold your position ... ironic how that works itself out.

(06-08-2017 01:31 AM)Mercenary Wrote:  Your morals and principles will always be more guided by your own experiences than anything you read. Meaning your own sins are always more powerful in shaping your knowledge and subsequent righteousness, than reading about other people's sins. Gotta make your own mistakes to be able to get it right. Once you have your own kids, the cycle begins again, as it hurts you to see them make the same mistakes you did.

This is why rationalism fails in life and in religion, at least as far as meaning goes. It is another tool for us to be become more informed, no doubt.

A place where you frame the argument incorrectly (unnecessarily) is when you say what Christianity "allows".

True christianity exists and it doesn't use these juridical terms, precisely for the points you make. Furthermore, clearly you are "allowed" anyway, regardless of what any elder, or even tradition, says. Just as a child in development doesn't understand much and has to be subject to authority (at first), that's how humans in their development in understanding and theology go. Eventually, the understanding transcends "just being told" and goes to the virtues being why one does or doesn't do something. In fact, that's the whole point.

Religions that teach all authority all the time are in the child stage, and remain that way. Real christianity does not.

Female primacy in all things is a recent trend. The church can't help but be affected by the culture around it and as a result, the modern church is mostly cucked.

I would say the primary obstacle to real talk like this is that people need something to believe in to get up in the morning, even if it is mostly an illusion.

Teaching society not to believe in women, even the terrible ones of today, might end up making things worse.

Where would Dante have ended up without that bitch Beatrice?

Not saying it won't work, it might, just be gentle with the lads. Maybe listen to them when they talk about girls their age, and ask Socratic questions to lead them to understanding, that is, let them think they are figuring it out for themselves.

As for the women, I can't see how letting them in on the joke would do anything other than provide a rationale for getting worse than they are. Men are so god damned open with their thoughts and their arguments, they really make it easy for the enemy.

If you were going to do this, only tell the boys, and swear them to secrecy.

Let women figure us out for a change.

Warning Wall 'o Text incoming

(06-08-2017 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  Leonard your suspicions are right, I will argue to make a contrary point to most replies here.

Indeed Christianity is incompatible with Red pill knowledge about human behavior, Creatonism or not. I myself ceased to practice Christianity for this reason.

Most people here have a slight level of hypocrocy here and are defending Christianity even while they econstantly disobay it's tenets and practice sexual relationships outside of marriage. They do so because they want to preserve western culture against Islam and cultural marxism. So they cling to defend Christianity as one of the foundations of western civilization. Most people here would attack Christianity instead if we were not under sige of Islam and marxist multiculturalism. Were mass imigration not a grave problem of our times all these international players would be more open to criticistm and mocking of Christianity, now they all defend it to maintain western traditionalist identity.

Christianity teaches that everything wrong with a man is original sin, that before that man was perfect and holy. All Christians believe that Creationists or not. That idea is not compatible with evolutionary psychology, nieuroscience and red pill knowledge about human nature. It is not compatible with an idea that we evolved from beasts and are actually getting better and more humane as evolution goes on while still having a lot of beast buried in our ID under our civilized masks.

Sure Old Testament holds red pill ideas on how Adam was banished from Paradise for disobaying God and lisening to his wife who was easily decieved like all women are. This is a red pill depiction of things, but remember that Old testament is not a Chrsitian book. It was a book where ancient Jews put in a lot of their knowledge about the inner workings of human soul. It is adobted by Christians and it's meaning twisted to make Jesus look like a God. Most Christians do not interpret OT in a red pill way. Most Christians are blue pill as fuck and only defend traditional moral values "beacause God commanded thus" and not because of any understanding. Christians also only defend moral values they find in Bible, they ignore other traditional values not clearly outlined in bible - for instance no Christan will argue that in 21century women should not vote or that a woman should recive blessing of her father when choosing her husband. We know this to be of great importance because we know that woman make poor choices on their own because of their instincts choosing dominant males over good providers. But Christians have no clue about this because it is not in Bible. Christians only fight against female clergy(some don't even do that), abortion, homosexuality and sex outside of marriage because there are passages in Bible against these things. But Christians have no understanding why these things are really that bad and they will not defend any red pill idea not clearly mentioned in Bible.

Christianity is much much better then Islam or Communism or atheism, but it is not perfect and it is not truth in it's highest instance. Anyone who argues to the contrary wile sleeping around with women or exploiting red pill knowledge in any other way is a hypocrite. If the world would solve it's Muslim and Communist problems and only Christianity remained - it would become the enemy of red pill truths about nature of human beings not an ally. It is another superstition to be surpassed, but we make an alliance with it for now because much more primitive and ignorant ideollogies are attacking us right now. The problem is hardcore Christians do not see us as allies at all, but as blasphemers trying to explain divine commands with science and knowledge.

Mage, I genuinely appreciate your writings and opinions, but I wholeheartedly disagree with your entire premise here. I'm going to reply to each point you've brought up. First and foremost, we've got our terms all over the place and they need defined.

What are we defining as "red pill"? In my mind, I view the red pill as old school patriarchy ie understanding base human impulses and using that knowledge to mitigate the potential harm that can come from that.

Now that we've fleshed that out, i'm going to define what it means to be a Christian? At its simplest, all you need to do is practice and believe these two things:

1. That faith through Jesus leads to salvation.
2. Practice the golden rule.

Quote:Luke 10:25-28
25And one day an authority on the law stood up to put Jesus to the test. "Teacher," he asked, "what must I do to receive eternal life?"
26What is written in the Law?" Jesus replied. "How do you understand it?" 27He answered, " ‘Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul. Love him with all your strength and with all your mind.’(Deuteronomy 6:5) And, ‘Love your neighbor as you love yourself.’ " 28"You have answered correctly," Jesus replied. "Do that, and you will live.".

That's it. Nothing more nothing less.

(06-08-2017 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  Indeed Christianity is incompatible with Red pill knowledge about human behavior, Creatonism or not. I myself ceased to practice Christianity for this reason.
[...]

Christianity teaches that everything wrong with a man is original sin, that before that man was perfect and holy. All Christians believe that Creationists or not. That idea is not compatible with evolutionary psychology, nieuroscience and red pill knowledge about human nature. It is not compatible with an idea that we evolved from beasts and are actually getting better and more humane as evolution goes on while still having a lot of beast buried in our ID under our civilized masks.

There isn't anything written in the new testament that runs contrary to evolutionary psychology, neuroscience, and red pill knowledge. Christianity teaches that this is a fallen world poisoned by sin in that what one person defines as "utopia" would be another person's hell.

Take a second to read my mini thesis that sin and evolution go hand in hand. /thread-54219.html

Sin serves a purpose as a means to drive us from our basil instincts to a more, dare I say it "evolved" level of understanding.

Sin is bad mkay. However, salvation after sinning provides perspective and wisdom. I wouldn't trade my previous sinful choices for any others on the mere basis that it has provided me with the wisdom I now have today. If anything sin is a natural response to a being forced into a world where scarcity is the rule.

(06-08-2017 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  Sure Old Testament holds red pill ideas on how Adam was banished from Paradise for disobaying God and lisening to his wife who was easily decieved like all women are. This is a red pill depiction of things, but remember that Old testament is not a Chrsitian book. It was a book where ancient Jews put in a lot of their knowledge about the inner workings of human soul. It is adobted by Christians and it's meaning twisted to make Jesus look like a God.

No, this is wrong and an incorrect interpretation of why the old testament was written. The old testament, beyond its basis as the holy books of Judaism, is a "testament" of God's promise to the people of Israel. The promise that God's chosen people will inherit a great nation and be reworded greatly for their faith with a messiah who will usher in these great rewords.

It was "adopted" simply on the basis that Jesus was the one promised to the Israelites as the one who will make this great kingdom. The old testament is shown in the bible as proof that Jesus was God's answer to that. It's also why in the first few chapters of the New Testament you see mention of Jesus' family being descendants from so and so all the way back to King David. The blood line is important in solidifying that claim.

(06-08-2017 03:02 AM)Mage Wrote:  Most Christians do not interpret OT in a red pill way. Most Christians are blue pill as fuck and only defend traditional moral values "beacause God commanded thus" and not because of any understanding. Christians also only defend moral values they find in Bible, they ignore other traditional values not clearly outlined in bible - for instance no Christan will argue that in 21century women should not vote or that a woman should recive blessing of her father when choosing her husband. We know this to be of great importance because we know that woman make poor choices on their own because of their instincts choosing dominant males over good providers. But Christians have no clue about this because it is not in Bible. Christians only fight against female clergy(some don't even do that), abortion, homosexuality and sex outside of marriage because there are passages in Bible against these things. But Christians have no understanding why these things are really that bad and they will not defend any red pill idea not clearly mentioned in Bible.

Mage, the bible isn't a guidebook on how to make a perfect society here on Earth. If that's what you're looking for then I suggest you look into Islam (yuk yuk yuk).

Christianity at its base is a simple guide for feeding the spiritual aspects of one's psyche. Jesus goes so far as to mention this with his "two kingdoms". (ex Render unto Ceaser what is Ceaser, render unto God's what is God's).

The magic of Christianity is that it provides a solution for two types of people. The risk averse (avoid doing this and you won't get hurt) and those who think they know better, go out, get burned by sin, and then come back beat and broken. Christianity provides a framework for healing the wounds caused by those actions. Jesus talks about this in the parable about the prodigal son.

Red pill (or old school patriarchal values) and Christianity go hand in hand. Unfortunately, most Christians fail at applying the golden rule (hey it's hard). Old school patriarchal values have been forgotten which also doesn't help either. If Christians at least stuck to the golden rule 50% of the time the lack of patriarchal values wouldn't hurt as much. This isn't a fault of Christianity as the only "red pill" advice found in the New Testament comes from Paul (outlining what it takes to make a healthy church community, succeed in marriage, and define why sexual urges can lead down a path of sin). This is all just further proof that even though we've "evolved" so far as to not be as violent as we were in the past, we still have a great very long way to go before we can claim we've undid the truly detrimental aspects of our Id/sinful natures.

As for your first bit about men here being hypocrites, I agree. I've committed great acts of sin when I was slaying poon and it eventually weighed heavily on me. I sought out Christianity again to heal the wounds caused by me cavorting with dysfunctional females.

There's a clear divide between those who frequent the game forum and those who spend a majority of their time in EE, Politics, and the Deep Forum. There are a handful of characters here who I view as animals who are driven only by their base desires. Still good dudes, but pretty animalistic in their drives. Others are a bit more enlightened. It's a spectrum, but beyond simple evangelizing with some old school patriarchal values thrown in there isn't much I can do to change their behavior. It's up to them to make that decision on their own. Their lives are their own choices and that's the magic of this world. Thankfully, we live in a time where the external culture forces are there to allow you to come to that decision willingly instead of coerced (like in Islam).

Here's what I suggest to you Mage and Leonard. Read the new testament and see what you find in the text. You may find something, you may find nothing. Either way, you'll have a better understanding of what it means to be a real Christian. Don't rely on what you think you understand, heard from some pastor somewhere, or remember if you read it many years ago. I'm sorry to say, but a lot of what you wrote seems to be by a man who came to that decision from hearing other people talk about scripture. Hell, when I became an atheist years ago that was my same path too. I thought I "knew" what it meant and until I read it as an adult, almost 98% of all of the clergymen and women I listened to previously were utterly useless.

Once you've done that out, it's up to you if you want to find a healthy church community. A good community of like minded people will help foster your ability to maintain a healthy and balanced life where you aren't driven as much to seek out unhealthy impulses (seriously it works). The ones I've frequented happened to be full of traditional virginal women who gasp went through higher education in big blue cities and still want traditional marriages. The good communities don't allow female clergy, don't marry gays, and above all encourage chastity before marriage. Those are the ingredients you need whether it's a Lutheran, Baptist, Methodist, Orthodox, etc .

I know you all aren't perfect, nor should you feel immense guilt because of it. This isn't a perfect world. But if you find a good church community, nothing is more enticing to a chaste Christian woman than a reformed bad boy who knows how to push those buttons to make 'gina tingles.

Do you like the Christian values that the west was founded on? Do you want a healthy life long marriage? Afraid of losing the west to barbarians who pump out more kids then you?

All it takes is one Christian woman to make many kids and a good church community to keep the children (wife included) in line and turn the decline around.

The choice is yours.

It's kind of a strange question, Leonard. You're essentially asking, "Should we tell women about original sin and the dangers of giving in to their sinful desires?" Except you want to leave everything associated with God and Christianity out of it. You've just substituted the terms "base nature", "primitive programming" and "evolutionary psychology" for sin. So this is well-trod ground. And the answer is yes, you should tell young women about sin. You should also tell young men about sin. You should tell everybody about sin. From a Christian perspective, understanding sin is absolutely crucial to understanding our relationship with God. People who don't understand sin and/or who don't view themselves as sinful feel like they don't need God. The entire concept of a savior doesn't make sense to them because they don't see what they need to be saved from. People who deny their sin are thus alienated from God (see 1 John 1: 5-10).

Therefore we have no need to reach for the preposterous canard of evolution to explain the so-called "base nature" of women. It is explained very clearly in the Bible as being a consequence of the fall of mankind. To quote:

Genesis 3:16-19 Wrote:Unto the woman he said, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow and thy conception; in sorrow thou shalt bring forth children; and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee.

And unto Adam he said, Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life;

Thorns also and thistles shall it bring forth to thee; and thou shalt eat the herb of the field;

In the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground; for out of it wast thou taken: for dust thou art, and unto dust shalt thou return.

Adam & Eve's disobedience brought a curse upon mankind that would extend through all of humanity. Prior to the fall they had been perfect physical creatures in total spiritual harmony with God. After the fall they became corrupted physical creatures who were spiritually alienated from God.

Let's unpack the specifics of the curse of sin. First, with Eve:

"I will greatly multiply thy sorrow"

Any man with a modicum of experience with women can certify that they are essentially miserable creatures at their core. Their happiness is entirely externally generated. They are therefore constantly chasing happiness and distraction in an effort to outrun the misery inside of them. This is their curse.

"thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee"

Women crave male domination and leadership, yet at the same time resent it and will constantly seek to rebel (being miserable at heart). This is the fallen state of women. They are forced to submit to men (fathers, brothers, husbands) by both necessity (being physically and mentally/emotionally weaker) and by a natural desire they cannot deny. Every daughter of Eve is cursed - placed under the dominion of man, a position which she both craves and rebels against, doomed to be sorrowful all her days.

Of course, men didn't fare much better. We were also cursed, but our curse was different because Adam's sin was different:

"Because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee, saying, Thou shalt not eat of it: cursed is the ground for thy sake; in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life"

What does this mean? Basically: "Because you were weak and listened to your wife instead of my clear instructions, and therefore abrogated the responsibility I gave you, I have cursed the Earth, and your existence henceforth shall be one of miserable toil. You will eke out an existence through the sweat of your brow your entire life long. And you will receive no reward for all of this work, no ultimate victory. One day you will simply drop dead and be consumed back into the dust of the earth that you battled all your life."

This is also clearly a curse, and one that extends to the present day. Work is the curse of men. The vast majority of men must toil for their daily bread, and even those few who are financially in a position to not have to work soon find themselves pursuing some activity or other with great intensity. Men are cursed with the need and the desire to make themselves useful in this world. We simply cannot "just be". We must always be accomplishing more, acquiring more, making ourselves greater in some capacity. An endless hunger for money, fame, sex, glory, pleasure drives us. So we toil on, day after day, on an endless treadmill chasing the satisfaction that is just outside of our reach, until finally one day we drop dead and the whole pitiful charade comes to an end.

This is the state we find ourselves in: cursed by sin and alienated from God. This is not a uniquely female problem, it's a human problem. Therefore as I said earlier, yes, we must teach the doctrine of original sin. And no, there is no need to frame it in terms of evolution in any capacity.

There is no conflict inherent with Christian doctrine in teaching young women that they are sinful creatures, and that their sins and temptations are different from those of men. This is actually a core Christian teaching, which is literally right at the beginning of the Bible. The fact that most churches don't emphasize this says nothing about real Christianity and everything about how far we have strayed from the truths clearly laid out for us in Scripture.

To sum up this post: this wouldn't be an issue if people simply read the Bible, took what it said at face value and instructed their children based on its teachings. It's really that simple. Any desire to further complicate things past that point is just further indicative of humanity's endless capacity for rebellion, self-delusion and folly.

(06-08-2017 12:18 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's unfortunate, because due to our ability to conduct DNA studies, it's now pretty clear that macro-evolution is a thing.

Christians were able to live in denial for a good long time, but now that scientific inquiry has provided rock solid evidence for many things that would ruin a Sunday School picnic, the Christian church is now the refuge of those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

Christianity is not anti-evolution in the slightest. The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution.

The historical relationship between science and Christianity is a complex one. This is actually my dissertation topic, believe it or not.

(06-07-2017 10:50 PM)John_Smith Wrote:  Christianity does not dispute micro-evolution (eg. variations within a set species, traits can be selected and passed down genetically, etc.). What Christianity disputes is macro-evolution (ie. that a bacteria can evolve into a fish who can evolve into a monkey, etc.).

No, it doesn't. There are many Christians who work in biology who would strongly dispute that. Many mainstream forms of Christianity, regardless of their other issues, believe that God can operate through the process of evolution, what they call "theistic evolution" or "evolutionary creationism."

(06-08-2017 10:37 PM)Truth Teller Wrote:  

(06-08-2017 12:18 AM)Suits Wrote:  That's unfortunate, because due to our ability to conduct DNA studies, it's now pretty clear that macro-evolution is a thing.

Christians were able to live in denial for a good long time, but now that scientific inquiry has provided rock solid evidence for many things that would ruin a Sunday School picnic, the Christian church is now the refuge of those who prefer to stick their heads in the sand.

Christianity is not anti-evolution in the slightest. The Catholic Church accepts the theory of evolution.

The historical relationship between science and Christianity is a complex one. This is actually my dissertation topic, believe it or not.

That sounds awesome (not being sarcastic), very interesting. Can you talk more about it?

One of the last "humanities" papers I ever submitted in my life was in undergrad about how Liberal Creationism was but a deranged version of Christian Creationism, that Liberal Creationists essentially took the "Great Chain-of-Being" and Human Exceptionalism concepts (among other things, hard for me to remember at this point) from legacy Christianity scaled it up to eleventy!!111, but fucked it up more.

That undergrad was very liberal and my instructor was a young Nice White Woman, but she loved it.

I also submitted this same paper to job offerings that demanded a writing sample.

Perhaps it sounds a bit provocative the way I summarize it now (especially given our political climate), but I traced this stuff through primary literature, so it was not inflammatory nor offensive as all (hence why I didn't bat an eye as submitting it as a writing sample).