Post: #51

(11-30-2017 01:53 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 11:28 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  snip

Wrong.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/do...vowams.htm

No, Right. Those early examples cite Christianity still living under the rule of Romans - they weren't in much of a position to do anything else but passively resist, but that was a temporary measure for self preservation, not a tenant of the faith.

You do realize you're quoting from a group that traces their roots to, among others, a preacher who seriously thought Jesus Christ would reappear sometime in the 1840s, don't you?

Quote:The Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller, who in 1833 first shared publicly his belief that the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur in roughly the year 1843–1844.

In fact, upon his death, the founder of Bible Student Movement you cite also gave rise to the Jehovah Witnesses, not a group known for their accurate histories of other religions and histories or mental stability. Let's not even discuss their slavish devotion to Zionism.

Regardless, all of the leaders mentioned in my earlier quote were Christian men, some vociferously so. The Church was right there with them when they held off Atilla the Hun and any number of Islamic hordes - where were the pagans and their armies when civilization needed them?

The Swiss Guards to this day protect the Pope with very real guns and bullets. Up until the 1870s, Vatican City even had a standing army. In spite of modern depictions to the contrary, Christianity is not about absolute pacifism. No amount of door knocking conversion attempts, refugee-welcoming happy-clappy mega churches and gutless false teachers looking for donations can erase that reality.

Post: #52

(11-30-2017 10:40 PM)Delta Wrote:  Women do not understand the first thing about men. Remember being a pimply faced teenager thinking that girls were these mysterious creatures? That's how they see us. We're weird and mysterious to them too. The key difference is, they couldn't care less if they understand us. There's literally nothing in it for them.

Furthermore, no woman, not even the most kind-hearted and ostensibly caring, is capable of empathizing with a man. Women do not give a shit about male struggles, hopes, and desires. Showing weakness to a woman under the guise of "opening up to her" is always a bad idea. Every woman, even one you think is your "soul mate," would be repulsed if you expressed your innermost thoughts to her. The only attitude women respond to positively is a strong, dominant, don't-really-give-a-fuck demeanor. (And it's not because they're bad people. It's nothing to get bitter over. Women are naturally programmed in a certain way, just like we're programmed to love hot cheerleaders instead of fat frumps.)

This principle explains many societal tendencies, for example:
-It explains why disproportionate male loneliness, suicide, and workplace fatality are non-issues while women having their asses grabbed is seen as a major national crisis.
-It [partially] explains the staggering correlation between boys being raised by single mothers and having negative life outcomes.
-It explains why women insist so hard upon "male privilege." They naturally dismiss male struggles because they have zero respect for any man who tries to convey them.

This one realization has given me so much clearer a picture of reality.

Excellent post. I'd like to add a simple red pill fact, one that I recognized early on even when I was nowhere near "woke."

As a young man in high school and early college I was of course unsuccessful with girls (for reasons we already know, no need to elaborate) but I noticed a few of my friends would occasionally hook up with 3s and 4s. As desperate as I was I could NEVER have dated these women, some of whom were so fat/ frumpy that I honestly wondered if I could even perform for someone like that.

The lesson I learned was that guys will fuck anything. It was an example of "the thirst is real" before I knew what "thirst" was, and judging from the shitty way some of these hideous women treated my friends, most of who were as desperate if not more desperate than me, I recognized it as a serious problem. In fact, I think it's the biggest problem of all, the foundation upon which is built our feminist, progressive society.

Post: #53

(12-01-2017 10:03 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 01:53 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  

(11-30-2017 11:28 AM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  snip

Wrong.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/do...vowams.htm

No, Right. Those early examples cite Christianity still living under the rule of Romans - they weren't in much of a position to do anything else but passively resist, but that was a temporary measure for self preservation, not a tenant of the faith.

You do realize you're quoting from a group that traces their roots to, among others, a preacher who seriously thought Jesus Christ would reappear sometime in the 1840s, don't you?

Quote:The Millerites were the followers of the teachings of William Miller, who in 1833 first shared publicly his belief that the Second Advent of Jesus Christ would occur in roughly the year 1843–1844.

In fact, upon his death, the founder of Bible Student Movement you cite also gave rise to the Jehovah Witnesses, not a group known for their accurate histories of other religions and histories or mental stability. Let's not even discuss their slavish devotion to Zionism.

Regardless, all of the leaders mentioned in my earlier quote were Christian men, some vociferously so. The Church was right there with them when they held off Atilla the Hun and any number of Islamic hordes - where were the pagans and their armies when civilization needed them?

The Swiss Guards to this day protect the Pope with very real guns and bullets. Up until the 1870s, Vatican City even had a standing army. In spite of modern depictions to the contrary, Christianity is not about absolute pacifism. No amount of door knocking conversion attempts, refugee-welcoming happy-clappy mega churches and gutless false teachers looking for donations can erase that reality.

So early Christians don’t count? Throw out the disciples then. Oops, there goes your line of apostolic succession, and your whole religion.

Post: #54

Did you follow even one word? They acted that way out of necessity in the early days, not doctrinal adherence to a religion based on pacifism.

Post: #55

(12-01-2017 03:32 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  Did you follow even one word? They acted that way out of necessity in the early days, not doctrinal adherence to a religion based on pacifism.

Looks like you didn't read the sources yourself, bro.

Putting in as much effort as you are here.

Post: #56

I did, and by your bio you've got a bit of an axe to grind with Christians, generally. That's ok. Bro.

Post: #57

(12-02-2017 06:57 PM)SlickyBoy Wrote:  I did, and by your bio you've got a bit of an axe to grind with Christians, generally. That's ok. Bro.

Clearly not. If you abide by the tenants of Christianity (scripture, apostolic succession, and tradition) then you’d agree that the only violence agreeable to Christians is against pagans and in the attempt to claim the holy land. Aside from that, Christians do not have families, do not generate value, and do not defend their tribe (but do defend (((the tribe)))). It is the ultimate blue pill.

Post: #58

As I suggested, if you'd quit judging Christianity based on the scribblings of some Jehovah Witness linked splinter group, you'd have a more accurate perspective. The Catholic church is simultaneously accused of being antisemitic and blue pill defenders of Israel. Which is it? And while you may not like the genetic stock, there are plenty of Christian families being produced worldwide, albeit no longer in first world nations. How many are the fat Pagan broads down at the trailer park with blue hair and crystals around their necks producing?

Charles Martel is the most important example of a Christian who got Europe's collective act together to reverse the tide of the invading islamists. This was not a defense of the holy land, but the home land. If it were not for guys like that, we'd all be facing Mecca and praying five times a day. Pagans at the time couldn't stop burning their yule logs long enough to notice. Don't take my word for it, do a search on Pagan military leaders and all you'll find is articles about the US Military capitulating to allow Wiccan (read: mostly male feminist) clergy to join the ranks.

For me to judge Odin by the same standards as that is about as accurate and fair as it is to lump the modern false teachers of Christianity in with what the religion is supposed to be - which is not a lifelong act of submission.

Post: #59

Again, you didn't read the sources. I conveniently gave you English translations as I presume you can't read Greek and Latin like I can. If you'd like I'll send those to you. You can't pick and choose what parts of Christianity you agree with. It's all or nothing.

Post: #60

(11-27-2017 01:24 PM)Robert Augustus Masters Wrote:  

(11-27-2017 07:16 AM)Cobra Wrote:  I highly doubt you have the balls to walk into a room full of men "in the forces" and ask them why they are another man's bitch. You couldn't do it.

A few nights ago I met three Canadian policemen who are presently training Ukrainian police. They looked completely out of their element and were simultaneously fidgiting and name-dropping non-stop. Next time I see them in a Blues Bar on Mikhajlovskaya I will ask them exactly that - "Why have you decided to be some Trudeua's bitch?" and report the outcome here.

By the way, I did ran into the one I called a bitch a few weeks later at the local Russian bakery while off-duty. I turned out to be 100% correct - his balls were in his wife's purse!

Pretty easy to trigger immaturity. It didn't take much.

As long as trolls are there, I hope I'm there to hunt them.

Post: #61

(12-03-2017 01:55 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Again, you didn't read the sources. I conveniently gave you English translations as I presume you can't read Greek and Latin like I can. If you'd like I'll send those to you. You can't pick and choose what parts of Christianity you agree with. It's all or nothing.

The web link you provided here: http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/do...vowams.htm
is in English, as are all of the footnotes at the bottom of that page, to include pretty basic volumes such as Encyclopedia Americana, Colliers Encyclopedia, Encyclopedia Britannica, etc. I've no idea what Greek and Latin sources you are talking about but it sounds like a bit of soft bragging to drop notes about your Greek and Latin ability when neither is needed. Regardless of language, the particular people you highlighted (Origines and Tertullianus [sic]) are not the best sources, one Origines, even being anathematised.

The Council of Nicea, which happened in 325AD (after all of the events you listed), made clear what the doctrine was - unless that qualifies as several hundred bishops picking and choosing also. Neither there nor in any of Jesus's quotes is there anything denouncing military service or calls for a life of absolute pacifism. The next several centuries of armed conflict at least demonstrated the church had no qualms about using military force per se, though it can be argued which conflicts were morally inconsistent. I don't understand why that bothers you so much, it's just history.

Post: #62

The things I've quoted are originally in Greek and Latin. For your convenience, I sent an English translation. But, according to you, those founders are irrelevant, which takes out the whole religion.

Since you're unwilling to put in the effort to actually study Christianity, I find it amusing you sing its praises so loudly.

Post: #63

(11-30-2017 01:53 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  [quote='SlickyBoy' pid='1691811' dateline='1512059313']
snip

Wrong.

http://www.heraldmag.org/olb/contents/do...vowams.htm

Quote: II. THE EARLY CHRISTIAN CHURCH CONSCIENTIOUSLY OPPOSED TO MILITARY SERVICE

A. General Historical Perspective

"The rise of Christianity led to a rapid growth of conscientious objection. Accordingly to A. Harnack, C.J. Cadoux, and G.J. Herring, the most eminent students of the problem, few if any Christians served in the Roman Army during the first century and a half A.D.; and even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors."5

"The many early Christians accepted the injunctions of the Sermon on the Mount quite literally

....

Do you have anything from the Bible that forbids military service? I'm not exactly a biblical scholar, but I can't remember anything. Granted, there is some apparent pacifism in the New Testament, but there is also Jesus taking a hand-crafted whip to the money changers and saying that he came not to bring peace but a sword. There's also a centurion in there who manages to save a member of his family through his faith in Christ, IIRC. I've always supposed that Roman solider became a follower of Christ.

The sources you mention are interesting, but not biblical and therefore not necessarily true Christian doctrine. My wife and I are reading through Paul's epistles right now and it's evident that already in the apostles' time Christians were already falling away from the true faith. Who knows how far some of the various sects out there had gone astray by the second and third centuries. Even then, the source you quoted above just says "even in the third century there were Christian conscientious objectors" not that most early Christians objected to military service.


Getting back to the original topic, understanding women has been my epiphany from the red pill. I understand women and am surprised that most guys seem to consider doing so impossible. "Men are given a choice, to love women or to understand them" as a very honest Frenchwoman once said.

Post: #64

Your initial premise also destroys the basis of Christianity. If a source has to be absolutely biblical, (i.e. Sola Scriptura) then you have to define scripture, which at the time indicated is very, very different from what it is now. Paul wouldn't count as scripture, most of the gospels wouldn't, and revelation wouldn't exist. Kind of hard to base anything and everything on scripture when it has been constantly changing for 2000 years, let alone all the edits made to the old testament after Israel genocided their kinsmen and wrote them out of the Torah.

Again, the three necessary tenants of Christianity are scripture, apostolic succession, and tradition. Take out any single one, and the whole thing falls. You took out two.

Post: #65

(12-05-2017 07:45 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Your initial premise also destroys the basis of Christianity. If a source has to be absolutely biblical, (i.e. Sola Scriptura) then you have to define scripture, which at the time indicated is very, very different from what it is now. Paul wouldn't count as scripture, most of the gospels wouldn't, and revelation wouldn't exist. Kind of hard to base anything and everything on scripture when it has been constantly changing for 2000 years, let alone all the edits made to the old testament after Israel genocided their kinsmen and wrote them out of the Torah.

Again, the three necessary tenants of Christianity are scripture, apostolic succession, and tradition. Take out any single one, and the whole thing falls. You took out two.

This is just sophistry. Obviously from a very early date all followers of Christ weren't 100% in agreement on Christian doctrine. Why? I don't know, human nature and God allowing his children free agency, I suppose. Even during Christ's ministry he often has to correct the apostles themselves because they constantly get things wrong. Yes, there was no universal agreement on the cannon of scripture, but Paul's epistles are clearly intended to guide the early churches and keep them on the right path. I wonder if you've actually read the Bible.

As far as tradition, the page or two of quotes you copied and pasted is hardly the entirety of 300 years of Christian tradition, and who's to say that the tradition those particular quotes represent isn't apostate or mere personal opinion?

Post: #66

So you admitted I’m right, passive aggressively say that the intent of the letters shows they simply have to be canon and that clearly I’ve never read the Bible if I believe otherwise, then say because you’ve never actually studied the material of early Christianity, you’re not sure if it’s all the evidence you need.

May I suggest studying, at the very least, John chrysostom, tertullian, and Augustine of hippo. This is of course only an introduction to proto-orthodoxy, which was actually a heresy from Gnosticism, the most popular form of Christianity for the first 300 years, but naturally you’ll pick and choose calling Gnostics devil worshippers or something along those lines.

Post: #67

In recent times, realizing that the media, sports, celebrities, big well-advertised companies (could go on) are all a big lie to encourage consumerism instead of creating and attack the family unit (no time together, staring at TVs, encouraging broken families). Everyone seems to be living vicariously through someone. Need to get all that shit out your life. As each day goes past it makes a huge difference.

Post: #68

(12-06-2017 05:57 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  So you admitted I’m right, passive aggressively say that the intent of the letters shows they simply have to be canon and that clearly I’ve never read the Bible if I believe otherwise, then say because you’ve never actually studied the material of early Christianity, you’re not sure if it’s all the evidence you need.

May I suggest studying, at the very least, John chrysostom, tertullian, and Augustine of hippo. This is of course only an introduction to proto-orthodoxy, which was actually a heresy from Gnosticism, the most popular form of Christianity for the first 300 years, but naturally you’ll pick and choose calling Gnostics devil worshippers or something along those lines.

Heh. You're actually the one admitting I'm right. That's crazy, man. See how that works? Not a bad rhetorical technique for a sophist.

I have studied early Christianity quite a bit. Why would you just jump to conclusions and assume I haven't because I disagree with you on your pet obsession about pacifism and military service?
I'm fascinated by the history of the early church and I read Latin fairly well and made an attempt at learning Koine Greek (that didn't get very far). I have never come across anything conclusive that shows that early Christians agreed that pacifism was necessary and military service was somehow sinful. You're just picking and choosing quotes here and there to support a pet belief of yours. Admittedly, you have to pick and choose a bit because of the vast amount of writings out there and vast diversity in opinion among early Christian writers.

The wife and I were reading the epistle to Titus last night and Paul specifically warns against this kind of thing, getting bogged down in details about fine points of doctrine ("avoid foolish controversies and genealogies and arguments and quarrels about the law, because these are unprofitable and useless") and that's just among Christians, let alone sophistry from someone who is openly hostile toward Christianity.

Again, it sounds like you haven't even read large parts of the New Testament. Paul's epistles contain frequent warnings about apostasy even in his time. So yes, it seems perfectly reasonable to suppose that the Gnostics had strayed from the truth.

Let me say here that I'm not a Nicean Christian either and I don't consider myself a strong believer. Were I bit more close minded, I'd probably be an atheist or a Nordic pagan (of the LARPing kind...can't see myself actually believing Thor exists) because frankly, a lot of the core Christian mythology is pretty hard to believe. Water into wine, raising the dead, etc. I just look at the fruits, as the Bible puts it, especially at the difference between good Christian women and women in general. That suggests to me that there's actually "something there" although I'm not sure what exactly its nature is.

Post: #69

Yes, the Christians were so diverse in opinion about it, that constantine couldn’t convert until his deathbed when he had given up the emperorship and gone through severe absolution for all the men he killed.

If you could come up with absolutely anything showing early Christians allowed into military service of Rome, I’d be greatly impressed. The record shows every bishop disallowing it, severe penance the punishment, and Christians preferring martyrdom. So far it seems you are pulling things out of thin air, including your supposed background of early Christian history.

Post: #70

(12-06-2017 09:47 AM)YoungBlade Wrote:  If you could come up with absolutely anything showing early Christians allowed into military service of Rome, I’d be greatly impressed. The record shows every bishop disallowing it, severe penance the punishment, and Christians preferring martyrdom.

Out of curiosity, how early do you mean by early?

I don't claim to be an expert, but I've read more on early church history than most people, including several books of Augustine's Confessions and City of God in the original Latin. I read Charles Freeman's "The Closing of the Western Mind" quite a few years ago, and I don't remember the topic of military service and its being forbidden even being mentioned. Vidal's "Julian" (historical fiction I know, but supposedly very well researched) has Julian talking about his Christian Asians troops and pagan European troops, etc.

Also, can you show specific and clear references of early Christian bishops disallowing military service? You might have already posted some of those, but the quotes you copied and pasted were very long and I didn't see that in there from skimming them. Even if you've got references that show that, many believe that apostasy was already rife in the days of the apostles. I know you don't believe that the Bible is authoritative for Christians for some reason, but again, there's nothing forbidding military service in the Bible and that should be good enough for Christians.

Why is it so important to you to show that Christians must be pacifists anyway? If you want to attack Christianity, why not choose something like loving others as you love yourself? That's always seemed like a weak point to me, and something I've struggled with. How am I supposed to love the SJW fat activist who wants me fired or worse for preferring thin women and refusing to pretend that obesity is anything but unhealthy and unsightly, for example? It's a part of Christian doctrine I've never fully understood. Or attack chastity. That's another one I haven't worked out fully. I get how it's good for women but chastity generally makes men miserable laughingstocks in the real world. Or in game terms, high notch count good for men, bad for women. I can see ways you could reconcile that with Christ's teachings, but nothing 100% solid or unassailable. You might actually have something interesting to say on those topics.

Post: #71

I already cited both theologians and bishops banning military service, but since you ignore those, here's someone else citing them.

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/13/13.1/13.1.1.pdf

Your case is falling apart by the minute.

Post: #72

(12-06-2017 09:57 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  I already cited both theologians and bishops banning military service, but since you ignore those, here's someone else citing them.

http://cdn.theologicalstudies.net/13/13.1/13.1.1.pdf

Your case is falling apart by the minute.

Didn't ignore, just didn't have time to carefully slog through your very long list of quotes, especially since you (very strangely) seem to consider early bishops a higher authority for Christians than the Bible.

I actually found the link about Maximilianus too, but a quick Google search on "early christianity and military service" seems to indicate that the main objection was to idolatry, not serving in the military per se. I'd supposed before Googling that that why you seemed to be couching by specifying ROMAN military.

And again, who cares? If you read Paul's epistles, it's clear that apostasy was already happening in the first century. Tertullian might be right, he might be wrong, but it doesn't matter. Followers of Christ follow Christ, not early bishops, and like I've pointed out already, there's nothing prohibiting military service in the Bible.

It's an interesting pet theory and I'll admit you've got some interesting quotes there, but nothing that proves a good Christian has to be a pacifist. Why do you care so much anyway? If you're out to prove that Christianity is "blue pill" there are so many better angles of attack you could take.

Post: #73

Yet again, ignoring apostolic succession and tradition. The only military service allowed to christians is against pagans and heretics.

For some reason, you just can't bring yourself to read anything. Hence my doubt of your Latin ability and your supposed repertoire of early Christian literature.

Post: #74

(12-06-2017 10:41 PM)YoungBlade Wrote:  Yet again, ignoring apostolic succession and tradition. The only military service allowed to christians is against pagans and heretics.

For some reason, you just can't bring yourself to read anything. Hence my doubt of your Latin ability and your supposed repertoire of early Christian literature.

In your link about Maximilian, the Roman military official tells the boy "that there were plenty of Christians already in the army and a protest on religious grounds was unjustified." Did you actually read your own source? It's clear that some Christians served in the Roman military, some refused. Try not to be emotional about this ("You can't bring yourself to read ANYTHING *sniff*"). People are going to look at the same sources and come to different conclusions than you, especially when your pet belief is fairly esoteric, as in this case. A man is able to deal with this kind of thing.

As to doubting that I've studied Latin, I suppose I'll have to live with that.

Again, you keep ignoring Paul who clearly states that there is already an apostasy in his time. John too, in the first chapters of Revelation. There is nothing that indicates with any certainty that Tertullian's pacifism is correct Christian doctrine or that any "tradition" in the subsequent centuries is. I'm not sure why this is so hard to understand or why you're so obsessed with this pet theory of yours. If you hate Christianity and want to prove that it's not masculine or that it's "blue pill" there are much better arguments you could use.

Post: #75

Just because Christians did serve doesn't mean they were allowed to by the church. Again you ignore what the source says. They could not be actual Christians as soldiers, they would be penitents and catechumens, forced to do various penances such as lie face down weeping while listening to a sermon, could not partake in communion, etc. Their souls were still damned according to Christian doctrine until the bishops saw true repentance.

You'd be more convincing if you actually looked at the same sources. But a cursory glance and then spending hours coming up with just the right retort seems to be your forte. Shame it's useless.