Post: #151

(03-30-2019 02:41 PM)lex the impaler Wrote:  I don't understand why the atheists feel the urge to contribute, even though they've been asked politely not to. Interesting path for you Roosh. I wish you the best. However, how will you reconcile the fact that your earlier books are leading men to sin? I might be wrong, but I view your situation as similar to that of St. Augustine.

Because atheists think they're smarter than us rubes who believe in God and can't help but come in and proselytize their bleak,depressing, nihilistic world view. All I have to do is look around me at all of the cultural and moral rot to see what a dismal failure the religion of "woke" atheists has wrought upon us.

Post: #152

(03-30-2019 03:28 PM)Gotti Wrote:  How do Christians reconcile that the Bible is a book written by men yet is claimed to be the word of God? How do we know that this book is actually God's words? Further, how do we know God's true meaning in the passages when the language can be interpreted in so many different ways?

I grew up Christian but could never reconcile the above. I always found the interpretation of the Bible to be arbitrary in my studies. I've never "spoken to God". All I know about God is what the Church and Bible have told me.

The old standard was:

Deuteronomy 18:21-22

Quote:21You may ask in your heart, “How can we recognize a message that the LORD has not spoken?” 22When a prophet speaks in the name of the LORD and the message does not come to pass or come true, that is a message the LORD has not spoken. The prophet has spoken presumptuously. Do not be afraid of him.

Biblical prophets also predicted events in the near-future and within their lifetimes and within their own generation. So as to be able to ensure their accountability during the time they are alive.

He must also at the time do miraculous signs and wonders like Moses. If he doesn't then he would get executed.


Deuteronomy 18:17-20

Quote:17The LORD said to me: “What they say is good. 18I will raise up for them a prophet like you from among their fellow Israelites, and I will put my words in his mouth. He will tell them everything I command him. 19I myself will call to account anyone who does not listen to my words that the prophet speaks in my name. 20But a prophet who presumes to speak in my name anything I have not commanded, or a prophet who speaks in the name of other gods, is to be put to death.”

I find many of those prophecies valid and definitely from God because they line up with historical events. As per the video on the book of Daniel.

Post: #153

(03-30-2019 07:20 PM)doc holliday Wrote:  

(03-30-2019 02:41 PM)lex the impaler Wrote:  I don't understand why the atheists feel the urge to contribute, even though they've been asked politely not to. Interesting path for you Roosh. I wish you the best. However, how will you reconcile the fact that your earlier books are leading men to sin? I might be wrong, but I view your situation as similar to that of St. Augustine.

Because atheists think they're smarter than us rubes who believe in God and can't help but come in and proselytize their bleak,depressing, nihilistic world view...

Is it any wonder some of us feel compelled to join the discussion when we're apparently described with such flattering terms by some of the Christians around here?
Hardly surprising that debates between very religious people and atheists never go anywhere positive - not much common ground can be found, there's obviously almost never any convincing of view points to realistically accomplish, and both sides think the other is a little... off.

I've been reading most of this thread and made a few posts myself, and I don't really remember any of us heathens heavily criticizing those who choose to believe in a god, most of us merely made a few counterpoints on specific areas or said a little about our own experiences and why we might have a very hard time turning to religion (I don't think you can will yourself to believe in a god, or God - that desire has to be genuine and be ignited by something, if you haven't grown up with it), despite its many historical societal and personal benefits.

In any case, I apologize for my posts here. I find the topic interesting, started reading and when I felt compelled to post a few opinions and experiences of my own, I forgot Roosh's original statement that he wanted the thread to be for believers.

Post: #154

It seems preferable to believe in gods for whom we are but mere play things than in a God who loves us as a father.

Post: #155

(03-30-2019 07:50 PM)MikeS Wrote:  In any case, I apologize for my posts here. I find the topic interesting, started reading and when I felt compelled to post a few opinions and experiences of my own, I forgot Roosh's original statement that he wanted the thread to be for believers.

You're right. He did open it up with exactly that: "This is for people who already believe in God and want to get closer to Him. (Atheists are free to create their own thread)."

The trouble here is that you can believe in God and not be fully aligned with a particular belief system or God Pill, as is being introduced. You can also "get closer to Him" by being honest with your intentions about seeking Truth.

Quote:The way of Inquiry
The Buddha warned strongly against blind faith and encouraged the way of truthful inquiry. In one of His best known sermons, the Kalama Sutta, the Buddha pointed out the danger in fashioning one's beliefs merely on the following grounds: on hearsay, on tradition, because many others say it is so, on the authority of ancient scriptures, on the word of a supernatural being, or out of trust in one's teachers, elders, or priests. Instead one maintains an open mind and thoroughly investigates one's own experience of life. When one sees for oneself that a particular view agrees with both experience and reason, and leads to the happiness of one and all, then one should accept that view and live up to it!

Maybe a better name for the God Pill is the Jesus Pill? Better to be clear than ambiguous. And if it's the Jesus Pill / Christianity... then what faction of Christianity is being encouraged and promoted? This way I and others can see if it's appropriate to contribute to the discussion or not. In any case, an Atheist who seeks Truth can also come to know God in time.

Post: #156

Mike, my problem with non-believers is that they more often tend to be even more zealous in their views than religious people. Atheists really do think that they are smarter than everyone else and can answer all of life's questions with their pseudo science. Again, take a look around you at modern day Western society. It' s not a pretty sight is it. Degeneracy, self-centered behavior, moral relativism are all the fruits that have fallen from the tree of the atheist religion. On this forum, we have countless numbers of men who go to foreign countries outside of the realm of the Western world in search of places with more tradition, more spirituality, more community and stronger familial bonds. It is not an accident that the people who live in many of these places are far more religious than in the Western world where atheism is strong. These places have maintained their religious and spiritual traditions and Westerners are flocking to these places to try and find some meaning to their lives that their atheist societies back home have failed miserably in giving them. Feminism, LGBTQism, Climate Changism are all merely variants of Atheism in my opinion and these constructs have successfully poisoned the well in the West.

I respect your choice of non-belief but I find it difficult to see what good the arrogant dismal of God has done for our civilization. The Founding Fathers, upon creating the Constitution stated that it was meant only for a religious and moral people and that it is wholly unsuitable for any other kind of people. People in our society are broken, there can be no doubt about this and in my mind there is no doubt that it is the spiritual void promoted by the powers that be that is the primary cause. Atheists can worship such things as Hollywood celebrities and Barack Obama if they choose because, kid yourself not, the desire to believe in a greater power than themselves is innate to the human experience. Atheist can choose to worship these fake human constructs but I will choose to believe in God. With all due respect to you MikeS.

Post: #157

What is this? Enjoying a night out drinking, partying, and having a bit of fun is now Satanic? Are we seeing the Devil in everything? I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm just trying to understand. Will the God Pill recommend men and women avoid anything that's not godly as it takes you further away from God? Say it ain't so. Many pleasures in modern life would not be condoned through a strict interpretation of the bible. I'll give it a rest for a few days and see how things evolve on this topic.

Post: #158

(03-30-2019 08:07 PM)FrankR Wrote:  It seems preferable to believe in gods for whom we are but mere play things than in a God who loves us as a father.

Read the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

1. is imperfect, and wounds your ability to love God. In time, you should be bought out of it. People who get stuck here often think their sins are unforgivable, sinning against Charity, because they're really experiencing a form of Pride: they still can't humble themselves before God.

2. is imperfect, and God eventually withholds consolations of us to wean us off loving his gifts. He wants us to love Him alone, not his 'sweets'.

3. is known as Holy Fear, but the danger here is still in thinking your sins can 'wound god', meaning you love him tentatively

The Second Conversion and the (often times ridiculously-coincidental) guidance of the Holy Spirit seems to be steering me towards a fourth option, and a possible way out of the dark night of the senses. Probably too early to explain it yet, but it's there all throughout the Gospels. You love the Father with the audacious, unconditional love of a child.

I noticed this at Holy Hour recently: the strong, tall, bearded Alpha Widow Father scolding his young daughter, 4 or so, who had been misbehaving. A small tantrum. A minute or two later, she moves closer and reaches for his hand. He, without looking down, lifts her up, she puts her arms around his neck and rests against him, sure of his love. All is forgiven and forgotten.

This took me into Contemplation. I remember how unconditionally I loved as a child. At how easy it was to say "I love you" with full abandon.

----

This morning I woke up thinking I probably needed to explain to a friend who is having trouble approaching God due to his past sins the beauty of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

I was also thinking about this concept that is playing on my mind: Parrhesia.

As I waited for mass to begin, I'd brought a book with me: "The Third Spiritual Alphabet" by Francisco de Osuna. This is obscure Spanish Mysticism from the 1500's. I was guided to buy it by a series of coincidences-that-weren't, and, reading the back blurb today, I understand exactly why: it's about recollection vs abandonment, exactly when I need to be figuring out which path to take.

I flicked it open at a random page, Page 46. It was describing what I was thinking Parrhesia is using the story of the Prodigal Son. I only got to read two pages or so, when mass started.

Today's Gospel, Novus Ordo Liturgy, Year C: The Parable of the Prodigal Son.

Note that I'm so used to this kind of thing by now, that I can't really say I was surprised.

I flicked back to the Osuna book just now. He suggested to read the parable and understand that this joyous reaction is how God welcomes a hardened sinner begging for mercy, not someone who is sincerely searching for him.

Not bad for a bunch of Snake-worshippers, really.

Post: #159

(03-30-2019 06:59 PM)Zevs Wrote:  For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son.
That whosoever believes in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life.
John 3:16
That is it, nothing else needs to be done, Christianity is the only religion, that calls for faith, every other religion calls for good works.
6 But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
Isaiah 64:6
Our good works will not earn us a place in Heaven, only Faith in Christ.

I started as an atheist and nihilist. Once I determined that the universe and history had a pattern to it, I began to search for God. As I evaluated each major religion, I kept finding this... If you do X, God will give you Y, equation built into each of them. That seems to me as if it's designed to control human behavior and nothing more.

I want to point out that faith is itself a good work. It is my belief today that faith comes from God. If a man like Roosh is moving towards faith, it's because God is calling him as a leader of men. I think that may be one of the reasons why Atheists hate Christianity more than any other religion. The idea that God has granted them faith, but has rejected the Atheist is... I am sure infuriating. I'm sure that makes many want to feed those who are chosen to lions... or failing that persecute them in some other way.

Read this and think on it.

Romans 8:28-30 n (ESV)
28 And we know that for those who love God all things work together for good,[a] for those who are called according to his purpose. 29 For those whom he foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, in order that he might be the firstborn among many brothers. 30 And those whom he predestined he also called, and those whom he called he also justified, and those whom he justified he also glorified.

Post: #160

(03-31-2019 01:32 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  This morning I woke up thinking I probably needed to explain to a friend who is having trouble approaching God due to his past sins the beauty of the Parable of the Prodigal Son.

This parable is great for your friend, but is often uncomfortable to those who continually do things right.

Becoming closer to God requires an abandonment of arrogance and discarding the human idea of fairness.

Post: #161

(03-31-2019 12:50 AM)Avoy Wrote:  What is this? Enjoying a night out drinking, partying, and having a bit of fun is now Satanic? Are we seeing the Devil in everything? I'm not trying to make this personal. I'm just trying to understand. Will the God Pill recommend men and women avoid anything that's not godly as it takes you further away from God? Say it ain't so. Many pleasures in modern life would not be condoned through a strict interpretation of the bible. I'll give it a rest for a few days and see how things evolve on this topic.

No, Roosh is repairing a dysfunctional interior life. The 'Party' stage is being rejected for the illusion it is. What he is describing is seeing Truth via the Grace of God.

You'll know it when it happens to you. 4:30-5:30 here, but the whole thing is worth a listen.





Also, this, in this video:

"I can't go on like this. If I continue living the way I'm living, I'm going to die like this".

Watch the whole thing. Don't be distracted by the initial triteness: he knows his audience is young. He does a masterful swerve into depth.





"Mine."



Of course, there's helpful Protestants in there telling him he's a Satanist, and how we're all going to hell. How can they can hear something so beautiful, so true, and react that way?

Post: #162

From what I get as a whole here on the forum, we're all getting older.

You're only a couple of months older than me and we're staring down 40 at this point.

My uneducated opinion on it is as we get older we understand the finality of it all, meaning as we get older we realize we only have a limited number of days left on this planet. What do we do with those remaining days and how do we handle it all...

I think as we get older we understand we're only here for a certain amount of time. What do we do with that remaining time which is dwindling by each passing day is up to us, I guess, since that remaining time becomes more valuable.

Tastes change, people change, and I think it's a function of age at this point.

Your journey through life has been a great one to follow, and you've been here to document that change, and I do admire that.

I think I'm asking myself the same questions at this point in life and to be honest with you, I've come up empty so far.

In terms of religion I'm nominally a Catholic but given recent events being as I'm at ground zero of all of the scandals plaguing this part of the church, in that respect it's as if I don't know where to turn to find the "answers" so to speak.

Maybe in time I'll find the answer, and granted, that time is running out, but I think you may be on to something in terms of your own development and it's something I might be able to learn from.

Only time will tell, but, unfortunately, as I said, time seems to be running out at our age, or at least we perceive that, if that makes any sense.

Post: #163

(03-31-2019 02:04 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  This parable is great for your friend, but is often uncomfortable to those who continually do things right.

Becoming closer to God requires an abandonment of arrogance and discarding the human idea of fairness.

You've misunderstood the parable. Re-read it more closely.

The Prodigal Son returns, confessing his sins and begging forgiveness.

The 'Righteous' son mistakenly believes he's without sin and has nothing to ask forgiveness for.

Remember: Even the Just Man falls seven times a day.

Remember my Stalker, upthread? Thinks everyone in the Church but him is a Sinner, for a variety of petty reasons. "Don't tell me about humility! I'm humble! I hate it when people tell me something I already know!"

Pay closer attention. The Faux-Righteous Son is invited to the feast - but refuses to go in. The Father pleads for him to enter, but he chooses to stand outside, because he can't forgive.

Look even closer. The Prodigal Son calls his Father his Father, and the Father calls him Son.

The Faux-Righteous Son never calls his Father, 'Father', and whom he should rightfully call 'Brother' he calls 'this son of yours'.

Note that Jesus doesn't resolve the story. Does the Faux-Righteous Son forgive his Brother and enter the feast, or does he stubbornly choose to stand outside forever due to thinking his own judgment is superior to the Father's?

This is why people choose Hell, rather than being sent there.

Post: #164

(03-31-2019 02:27 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  

(03-31-2019 02:04 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  This parable is great for your friend, but is often uncomfortable to those who continually do things right.
Becoming closer to God requires an abandonment of arrogance and discarding the human idea of fairness.

You've misunderstood the parable. Re-read it more closely.
The Prodigal Son returns, confessing his sins and begging forgiveness.
The 'Righteous' son mistakenly believes he's without sin and has nothing to ask forgiveness for.
Remember: Even the Just Man falls seven times a day.
Remember my Stalker, upthread? Thinks everyone in the Church but him is a Sinner, for a variety of petty reasons. "Don't tell me about humility! I'm humble! I hate it when people tell me something I already know!"
Pay closer attention. The Faux-Righteous Son is invited to the feast - but refuses to go in. The Father pleads for him to enter, but he chooses to stand outside, because he can't forgive.
Look even closer. The Prodigal Son calls his Father his Father, and the Father calls him Son.
The Faux-Righteous Son never calls his Father, 'Father', and whom he should rightfully call 'Brother' he calls 'this son of yours'.
Note that Jesus doesn't resolve the story. Does the Faux-Righteous Son forgive his Brother and enter the feast, or does he stubbornly choose to stand outside forever due to thinking his own judgment is superior to the Father's?
This is why people choose Hell, rather than being sent there.

You have wisdom my friend. As an atheist boy in school, I remember feeling that this parable proved the unfairness of God.

I would only add to your statement that while most of the "faux-righteous" are just that, there exists some folks who have honestly followed God's path from very young and have never strayed far. I see now how important it is for those folks to understand and admit to themselves their own broken nature. To admit that although some have strayed far... all steps away from the path require forgiveness. Finally that the words Jesus gives to the older brother are thus:

My son, you are always with me, and everything I have is yours. But we had to celebrate and be glad, because this brother of yours was dead and is alive again; he was lost and is found (Luke 15:31-32).

So, for those who are truly righteous, they should be comforted by the fact that God is always with them, and be truly happy that a lost brother is coming back to the fold. The idea of what is fair and what is not should be put aside.

Post: #165

(03-30-2019 02:10 AM)AnonymousBosch Wrote:  Be prepared: the Saints write it's not unusual to be hit with great physical trials during this stage. I went almost fully-deaf last June and now walk with a cane. Father Ripperger says "Be prepared for him to make your life a living hell for a while." He wants to know if you'll abandon him.

Also, heed this warning: God will trial you and elevate you, but only take you as far in the interior life as you are prepared to give him. It's possible to burn off your imperfections in this life: God will attempt to strip you of your attachments but if you cling to them, he'll eventually leave you to a lesser, intermittent version of knowledge of him. You're not abandoned: he just sees it is beyond you to give yourself fully to him in this life, so doesn't push you beyond what you can handle.

This is a repeated-warning given by the Mystics of the Church to the Religious.

Thus the parable that lies behind the Arthur Miller play The Crucible, at least as it was told to me a long time ago in a Catholic school:

A Christian man is unrefined gold, placed in a crucible to melt. God is the goldsmith. Gold has any number of imperfections, bits and pieces within it, and the initial melting allows the easiest, biggest chunks to rise to the surface, where the smith can skim them off and dispose of them. But to find and remove the deeper imperfections, the initial temperature is insufficient; so the smith turns up the heat higher. Deeper imperfections rise and are removed. So the process continues, the temperature going higher and higher, the deepest imperfections rising to the top to be skimmed off and disposed of by the smith.

When does the smith know the process is complete?

When he can look into the crucible and see his own face reflected within.

Two points, though: one is that it is for God to supply the heat, not Man. Gold cannot refine itself.

The other: the gold by itself is nothing. That it reflects the smith's face does not make it the smith.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #166

(03-31-2019 02:54 AM)EndsExpect Wrote:  You have wisdom my friend. As an atheist boy in school, I remember feeling that this parable proved the unfairness of God.

See if this helps:

I was at a Class where the Parable of the Workers at the Vineyard was being discussed early last year, and everyone was discussing how it didn't seem 'fair'.

Meanwhile, I'd thought it was a beautiful story, and said as much. "It doesn't matter who arrived first, and who worked harder, just that they've all come, and they're all saved. There's hope for everyone."

The Priest said "I guess you're just holier than us, Bosch."

... which wasn't my intention. The girls in the class then got it though. It's a gift, freely-given, available to all. I invite you think about the infinite kindness and love of a Father who will forgive someone at even the last possible second, and give them the same reward as those who faithfully-served him for decades. These last comers could have been eternally-damned, which I wouldn't wish on anyone, and he welcomes them in with as much love as the others. Do you see a grand, incredible love in action?

----

Quote:I would only add to your statement that while most of the "faux-righteous" are just that, there exists some folks who have honestly followed God's path from very young and have never strayed far. I see now how important it is for those folks to understand and admit to themselves their own broken nature. To admit that although some have strayed far... all steps away from the path require forgiveness.

Genuine Righteousness always walks hand in hand with humility, so it wouldn't be a problem for them to admit their faults. It's a way for us to detect, in our limited fashion, who is genuine and who is in Simulation. If you discuss anything potentially-grandiose graces with a Religious, they'll always feel you out in terms of humility versus spiritual pride, and it's why the Religious take me seriously when I ask them questions about the Interior Life, because I understand I've done nothing to earn my graces, and they're all a gift, freely-given, available to all. I'm not 'special', I just was so resolute and pathetic in my sin that he was drawn to me out of Infinite Mercy.

For anyone who wants to protect themselves against Spiritual Pride: you want to pray the Litany of Humility. Pay attention to the line about 'make others holier than me as long as long as I'm as Holy as I should be.'

Back to the Righteous: What you repeatedly see in the Lives of the Saints is usually the feeling that they're the biggest Sinner in the Room. As St Therese of Lisieux was in the process of dying, her lifelong Spiritual Confessor admitted that he couldn't seem to get her to truly-understand that she'd never in her life committed a mortal sin.

It's a good rule of thumb in the beginner life: don't speculate about the holiness of anyone else, and understand that everyone you meet, no matter how sinful they outwardly appear, is a Child of God, and a perpetual conduit for grace, particularly as Jesus died for everyone. It makes it easier to forgive people, and if you're doing any kind of Active community work, you're going to be helping non-believers and more obvious sinners.

There might even be people in this thread who could end up as Great Saints, even though they don't currently believe in God.

Post: #167

Kudos to Roosh for taking this leap forward. The God Pill is indeed the next step in the Blue Pill -> Red Pill -> Black Pill progression (if not necessarily the only one).

- Blue Pill: The modern world's popular ideologies: feminism, egalitarianism, liberalism*, scientism, etc.
*in the classical sense, not the sense of US politics

- Red Pill: Game and the nature of women. The manosphere's origins.

- Black Pill: I consider this to be embodied by Samseau's article from 2014, Game Or Prostitution Cannot Save Western Civilization From Collapsing. The summary is that game is a zero-sum game, and thus will not fix all the problems on a societal level, even if it can improve one man's situation on an individual level (see Red Pill). Self-improvement only works for you because most other men are not doing it.

IMO The Black Pill paints a more dismal picture than most people in the manosphere realize. Even if you took away female empowerment, obesity, empowerment, and all the other stuff that the Red Pill is supposed to counter, you're still left with fundamental problems in the SMP such as:
- Birth ratio is 105:100 M:F.
- If one woman is taken, that's one fewer woman from the pool available for other men.
- Male fertility window is much longer than women, hence there is more male sexual demand than female sexual supply.
- Someone will end up marrying the ugly women.
- People still buy into the notion that your wife is supposed to be your soul mate, or the "one man one woman" cliche (see birth ratio).

These problems can be possibly mitigated through science, such as through selective breeding in a patriarchal society. However, this would be too bitter of a pill for the majority of the population to swallow, because it goes against so many of their Blue Pill (and even allegedly Red Pill) beliefs. Nobody would back such a plan that requires shattering so many of their deeply held assumptions about life.

At the end of the day, the honest Black Piller should at least accept that humanity is fundamentally flawed. These problems cannot be permanently fixed (short of maybe genetic engineering, and that's a whole new can of worms to open), only restrained and mitigated by structuring society in a certain way (patriarchy).

That sounds like the Christian concept of Original Sin. As in, the origins of societal problems and discord come from not just immoral decisions made by individuals who can't help themselves, but from fundamental properties of human nature. Just as gravity causes things to fall, magnets cause metal to move, and heat and oxygen causes things to burn, so does human sexuality cause competition and problems on a society.

This opens the door to the God Pill. Humanity is flawed and cannot save ourselves from that flawed nature. We need intervention from a greater power to transcend that flawed nature. This is how the concept of the divine can enter into the human consciousness. From there, you get the concepts of salvation, redemption, resurrection into a perfect body, etc. That sounds like Christianity, although as Roosh said in the OP, there's room in this thread to share similar God Pills in other religions.

The critics of belief in a higher power need to do better than to say that religion is false, because unless they come up with their own counterpart to the God Pill (e.g. through genetic engineering as I explained earlier), the best that they can do is stay in the Black Pill stage. At least the rest of us are open to moving beyond that stage.

Post: #168

I recently came across the term Muscular Christianity on wikipedia.

Thought it would fit into this thread:

Quote:Muscular Christianity was a philosophical movement that originated in England in the mid-19th century, characterized by a belief in patriotic duty, the moral and physical beauty of athleticism, discipline, self-sacrifice, and manliness.

The movement came into vogue during the Victorian era as a method of building character in students at English public schools, and is most often associated with English author Thomas Hughes and his 1857 novel Tom Brown's School Days, as well as writers Charles Kingsley and Ralph Connor. American President Theodore Roosevelt was raised in a household that practiced Muscular Christianity. Roosevelt, Kingsley, and Hughes promoted physical strength and health as well as an active pursuit of Christian ideals in personal life and politics. Muscular Christianity has continued itself through organizations that combine physical and Christian spiritual development. It is influential within both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Muscular Christianity can be traced back to Paul the Apostle, who used athletic metaphors to describe the challenges of a Christian life. However, the explicit advocacy of sport and exercise in Christianity did not appear until 1762, when Rousseau's Emile described physical education as important for the formation of moral character.

The term "Muscular Christianity" became well known in a review by the barrister T. C. Sandars of Kingsley's novel Two Years Ago in the February 21, 1857 issue of the Saturday Review. (The term had appeared slightly earlier.) Kingsley wrote a reply to this review in which he called the term "painful, if not offensive", but he later used it favourably on occasion. Hughes used it in Tom Brown at Oxford; saying that it was "a good thing to have muscled, strong and well-exercised bodies," he specified, "The least of the muscular Christians has hold of the old chivalrous and Christian belief, that a man's body is given him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes, and the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men."

In addition to the beliefs stated above, muscular Christianity preached the spiritual value of sports, especially team sports. As Kingsley said, "games conduce, not merely to physical, but to moral health". An article on a popular nineteenth-century Briton summed it up thus: "John MacGregor is perhaps the finest specimen of muscular Christianity that this or any other age has produced. Three men seemed to have struggled within his breast—the devout Christian, the earnest philanthropist, the enthusiastic athlete."

The idea was controversial. For one example, a reviewer mentioned "the ridicule which the 'earnest' and the 'muscular' men are doing their best to bring on all that is manly", though he still preferred "'earnestness' and 'muscular Christianity'" to eighteenth-century propriety. For another, a clergyman at Cambridge University horsewhipped a friend and fellow clergyman after hearing that he had said grace without mentioning Jesus because a Jew was present. A commentator said, "All this comes, we fear, of Muscular Christianity."

By 1901, muscular Christianity was influential enough in England that one author could praise "the Englishman going through the world with rifle in one hand and Bible in the other" and add, "If asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire."

Never heard about that before, but might be interesting to some of you.

Contained a link to this book from 1904:

The manly Christ, a new view.

Reading the first chapter now, "The Feminizing of Christianity".
Looking good so far, there really is nothing new under the sun.

Post: #169

Relevant:

This is the only non-terrible Buzzfeed article ever written

https://www.buzzfeed.com/expresident/mos...t-atheists

People like 'the Amazing Atheist' really put me off calling myself one. These fedora-wearing, neck-bearded losers continually talk in that annoying high-school debate speak

Anal retentive, miserable and snarky

Post: #170

Technically, I guess I'd be called an atheist, but I always had good examples of Christianity around me. People who really loved god and the people around them. I sort of took that for granted as a kid but I'm grateful for that connection as an adult.

This always kept me from fully embracing viurlent atheism. This is not to say I'm not an atheist, but I think one can be securely atheistic while still being able to engage religious suppositions without resorting to ad hominems and casual dismissals. I really hate the smug attitude many atheists approach spiritual topics with.

I find it immensely useful to ponder the "what ifs" from the perspective of a religious person. That's really where Sam Harris sometimes loses me. For a guy so smart, I sometimes feel like he "doesn't take the question seriously enough" as Jordan Peterson so succinctly put it on that Joe Rogan episode.


I actually have a question for you guys:

Do you think it's possible to be so intimately aware of how sinful we are that we lose sight of our ability to do good? I'm not talking about the guys who are so shitty that they completely fall to vice, but the guys who are aware of how horrible they were, stopped being horrible, but also just sort of disengaged with the world to such a degree that they close themselves off from being better in the process.

instead, they linger in a state of suffering because of how caught up in the past they are.

Post: #171

(03-31-2019 07:14 AM)Fortis Wrote:  Do you think it's possible to be so intimately aware of how sinful we are that we lose sight of our ability to do good? I'm not talking about the guys who are so shitty that they completely fall to vice, but the guys who are aware of how horrible they were, stopped being horrible, but also just sort of disengaged with the world to such a degree that they close themselves off from being better in the process.

instead, they linger in a state of suffering because of how caught up in the past they are.

A roundabout way of answering:

In virtually all instances of reported demonic possession I have read, there is a common element: where the demons speak through the mouths of the vessels they have hijacked, one of the commonalities of their diatribes are that they know all our sins, that we are scum, we are nothing, that everyone the listeners know are in hell already, and so on.

Whether you believe in that particular phenomenon or not, it also has a Biblical analogue: the idea of Satan as the Accuser of Man, the fallen angel whose temptation of Christ himself always took the same "If/then" format. If you are Christ, then turn these stones into bread. If you are beloved of God, then throw yourself down from this mountaintop, because angels will stop you from dying. And finally, the outright offer: worship me, and all these nations will be yours without you needing to say a word, feel an ounce of your coming pain, shed one drop of your human blood.

The theme is the same: convince man that he is nothing but shit. And in particular, if man asserts himself as holy -- by which I mean, as something loved by God -- then always try and reframe the man's measure of holiness into holiness as the world defines it.

Saying that someone's being aware of sinfulness results in them being "sort of disengaged with the world to such a degree that they close themselves off from being better in the process," with all due respect, is to misjudge what God calls being 'better' for what man calls being better. It is an appeal to personal pride, and it is a powerful one. Because pride keeps a man focused on what he was - and not on what he is and what God has available for him.

Hence why Jesus says give without thought of reward; do not let your left hand know what your right hand is doing; do not make a great show of one's holiness like the scribes and Pharisees who sit up the front row in the temple and so on. Hence why Jesus said by a man's fruits shall you know who is a follower of Christ: not by looking at the man, but by what comes of the man's actions. Hence why Jesus said the man who would be saved was not the man standing up the front of the temple saying "Thank you, God, that I'm not like these other automatons marching to their doom", but the dirty beggar who crept into the back of the church saying "God, have mercy on me, a sinner."

Intimate awareness of one's sinfulness is what brings most sharply into focus the extent and breadth of God's love. That is what makes the incarnation and Christ on the cross so central to the faith: for God so loved the world that he sent his only Son, that Man should not die, but have everlasting life.

That is what brings Jesus's commandment into focus: love one another, as I have loved you. Not 'love one another and feel better in the process and be sure of being acclaimed by all your buddies around you', Christianity is not so much about personal growth but about straight-out salvation and alleviation of human suffering on Earth.

God save us from people who mean well. -storm

Post: #172

(03-31-2019 06:09 AM)Belgrano Wrote:  I recently came across the term Muscular Christianity on wikipedia.

Thought it would fit into this thread:

Quote:Muscular Christianity was a philosophical movement that originated in England in the mid-19th century, characterized by a belief in patriotic duty, the moral and physical beauty of athleticism, discipline, self-sacrifice, and manliness.

The movement came into vogue during the Victorian era as a method of building character in students at English public schools, and is most often associated with English author Thomas Hughes and his 1857 novel Tom Brown's School Days, as well as writers Charles Kingsley and Ralph Connor. American President Theodore Roosevelt was raised in a household that practiced Muscular Christianity. Roosevelt, Kingsley, and Hughes promoted physical strength and health as well as an active pursuit of Christian ideals in personal life and politics. Muscular Christianity has continued itself through organizations that combine physical and Christian spiritual development. It is influential within both Catholicism and Protestantism.

Muscular Christianity can be traced back to Paul the Apostle, who used athletic metaphors to describe the challenges of a Christian life. However, the explicit advocacy of sport and exercise in Christianity did not appear until 1762, when Rousseau's Emile described physical education as important for the formation of moral character.

The term "Muscular Christianity" became well known in a review by the barrister T. C. Sandars of Kingsley's novel Two Years Ago in the February 21, 1857 issue of the Saturday Review. (The term had appeared slightly earlier.) Kingsley wrote a reply to this review in which he called the term "painful, if not offensive", but he later used it favourably on occasion. Hughes used it in Tom Brown at Oxford; saying that it was "a good thing to have muscled, strong and well-exercised bodies," he specified, "The least of the muscular Christians has hold of the old chivalrous and Christian belief, that a man's body is given him to be trained and brought into subjection, and then used for the protection of the weak, the advancement of all righteous causes, and the subduing of the earth which God has given to the children of men."

In addition to the beliefs stated above, muscular Christianity preached the spiritual value of sports, especially team sports. As Kingsley said, "games conduce, not merely to physical, but to moral health". An article on a popular nineteenth-century Briton summed it up thus: "John MacGregor is perhaps the finest specimen of muscular Christianity that this or any other age has produced. Three men seemed to have struggled within his breast—the devout Christian, the earnest philanthropist, the enthusiastic athlete."

The idea was controversial. For one example, a reviewer mentioned "the ridicule which the 'earnest' and the 'muscular' men are doing their best to bring on all that is manly", though he still preferred "'earnestness' and 'muscular Christianity'" to eighteenth-century propriety. For another, a clergyman at Cambridge University horsewhipped a friend and fellow clergyman after hearing that he had said grace without mentioning Jesus because a Jew was present. A commentator said, "All this comes, we fear, of Muscular Christianity."

By 1901, muscular Christianity was influential enough in England that one author could praise "the Englishman going through the world with rifle in one hand and Bible in the other" and add, "If asked what our muscular Christianity has done, we point to the British Empire."

Never heard about that before, but might be interesting to some of you.

Contained a link to this book from 1904:

The manly Christ, a new view.

Reading the first chapter now, "The Feminizing of Christianity".
Looking good so far, there really is nothing new under the sun.

I recommend the series. "Church Impotent the Feminization of Christianity"

http://podles.org/church-impotent.htm


The problem is Bridal Mysticism. Of which the believer relates to God as if he is Husband of the individual Soul rather than the church as a whole. And introducing a erotic elements into the relationship between the individual and Christ.

Making the relationship between man and Jesus homoerotic.

And also forcing men to pretend to be the woman in the relationship with Jesus' as Monks and other religious men attempted to incorporate this doctrine.

Making relating to Jesus perverted. And of which only women are comfortable with.

Quote:The use of erotic language to describe the relation of the believer to
God was not unprecedented, but Bernard, for reasons that will become
clear, did not choose to acknowledge his intellectual debts. Bernard claimed
that


“if a love relationship is the special and outstanding characteristic of
bride and groom it is not unfitting to call the soul that loves God a bride.”



Realizing that this application needed defense, Bernard explained that:
although none of us will dare arrogate for his own soul the
title of bride of the Lord, nevertheless we are members of the
Church which rightly boasts of this title and of the reality that
it signifies, and hence may justifiably assume a share in this
honor. For what all of us simultaneously possess in full and
perfect manner, that each single one of us undoubtedly possesses by participation.
Thank you, Lord Jesus, for your kindness
in uniting us to the Church you so dearly love, not merely that we
may be endowed with the gift of faith, but that like brides we may
be one with you in an embrace that is sweet, chaste, and eternal.



Having established the principle for the use of such language, Bernard
then elaborated. He referred to himself as “a woman” 5 and advised his
monks to be “mothers”—to “let your bosoms expand with milk, not swell
with passion” 6 —to emphasize their paradoxical status and worldly weak-
ness.


Bridal mysticism has its patristic precedent in Origen, whose het-
erodoxy makes him a dubious authority. Probably for this reason, Ber-
nard neglected to acknowledge the source of his ideas in Origen. Origen’s
Commentary on the Song of Songs was “the first great work of Christian
mysticism.” 8 Following rabbinical tradition that saw the bride as Israel,
Origen saw the Bride as “the Church” 9 or “the whole rational creation” 10
and also (with no explanation for the extension) as the individual soul.

And given women's greater relationship with Christ than Men.

The doctrine of women's moral superiority along with her higher rank in comparison to men is born.

From this we get the idea that men who become Christian must be womanly in order to be truly virtuous.


The chain of events set off by bridal mysticism set the groundwork for today's demonization of masculinity since its out of accord with the ideal that has been set up by this doctrine.

Quote:The essential element in a religious attitude is a “passive re-
ceptivity,” because “in this readiness for self-sacrifice and in this coopera-
tion of the creature, all that is truly religious in humanity is revealed.” 5 Of
Mary, George T. Montague says, “she is response and instrument.” 6 Peter
Toon writes “it is femininity rather than masculinity which symbolizes the
right attitude of the whole person before God” because God wants from
both men and women “a feminine response—that of humble reception of
his initiative of grace and ready and willing submission to his gracious and
perfect will.” 7 Femininity is obedience, and active, assertive masculinity is
an obstacle to grace. This notion has been such a commonplace that few
questioned it before modern feminism.

Quote:Mary’s obedience to Christ, not Christ’s obedience to the Fa-
ther (from which Mary’s obedience draws its whole meaning), takes
on a new prominence as a model for Christians. The early Domini-
cans attempted to preserve the peace of the community by soft-
ening rough masculine aggressiveness. The common good was
founded “most of all on the monks’ attempts to model their own ori-
entation to the masculine Christ according to Mary’s example of yield-
ing, willing acquiescence.”

Quote:Masculinity in this view is an obstacle to union with God. The logi
cal consequence is that Christian men must renounce their masculinity.[ A
modern Dominican, Brother Antoninus, wrote:
Annul in me my manhood, Lord, and make
Me women-sexed and weak,
If by that total transformation
I might know Thee more.
What is the worth of my own sex
That the bold possessive instinct
Should but shoulder Thee aside?
What uselessness is housed in my loins,
To drive, drive, the rampant pride of life,
When what is needful is hushed acquiescence?
“The soul is feminine to God.” 10

The origin of angelic woman compared with the demonic man comes from here.


This is also I suspect the ultimate origin of the demonization "Toxic Masculinity" as people now refer to. When they are talking about real masculinity.



As well as the other earlier cultural iterations of masculinity being evil somehow compared to the good of womanhood.


The feeling that Christianity is creepy in my younger days now makes sense. Like there is something wrong that I can't quite put my finger on.

Post: #173

As per the thread about women wearing yoga pants to mass, whether it be the chicken or the egg that came first, since women are considered above criticism in our society they are sainted by default and therefore the church adopts total submission to the feminine agenda. In many church settings anyone who cannot be accused of sin is by default placed in a position of prominence over those who may be judged rationally. My wife's former congregation was like this. The women were serial gossips and adulterers but because they flattered the priest on Sundays they were held in utterly high esteem. The men they slept with were castigated as sinners but every woman that attended was functionally treated like Mary herself.

It may be considered crude, but forbidding priests to marry or have sex has utterly led to many of them to being beta-cuck white knights at best (or at worse, something far more awful). Being a patriarch of a household is something that has to be experienced to be understood and I don't trust anyone who isn't a husband and father to speak of God in those terms or act as the patriarch of his own flock.

Men that don't understand what it takes to keep women in line and who don't have the balls to follow through on it will end up doing what my wife's former priest did. Using the power of the church to castrate men while handing their balls to women acting like harlots.

Prominently in every church should be a representation of an apple with a single bite taken from it, just to remind everyone of what's what.

Post: #174

This is a good step for Roosh.

Next step is have the family find the devout 18 yo virgin from old country Armenia, get married and make babies.

Post: #175

(03-31-2019 08:59 AM)Leonard D Neubache Wrote:  It may be considered crude, but forbidding priests to marry or have sex has utterly led to many of them to being beta-cuck white knights at best (or at worse, something far more awful). Being a patriarch of a household is something that has to be experienced to be understood and I don't trust anyone who isn't a husband and father to speak of God in those terms or act as the patriarch of his own flock.

To be fair, Protestant churches suffer from the same problems with their leaders despite the lack of a celibacy requirement. Traditional monogamy doesn't prevent subversion by the feminine imperative.

Take this Bible verse for example:

1 Timothy 2:12-15 Wrote:But I do not allow a woman to teach or exercise authority over a man, but to remain quiet. For it was Adam who was first created, and then Eve. And it was not Adam who was deceived, but the woman being deceived, fell into transgression. But women will be preserved through the bearing of children if they continue in faith and love and sanctity with self-restraint.

Back when I used to go to church, I had never heard a clear, unapologetic presentation of this part of the Bible. But there were plenty of times when women were allowed to teach, including teaching young men about how to attract girls.

It turns out that the only group of people in Western society who would readily take this part of the Bible at face value are PUAs. "Do not take relationship advice from women" and all that. It's the same idea. And it's a sad commentary on the state of the church that PUAs with field experience are better prepared to understand Paul's above teaching than anything one learns by following the Christian playbook.