Educate Yourself thread

JohnQThomas

Woodpecker
This line of evasion is complete fallacy. It's like a someone saying "read chapter one of this textbook" and then claiming "I'm not a teacher, I'm just giving people textbooks".

You're not picking these videos at random. You clearly have a personal bias. By curating a list of videos and asking people to watch them you are by definition attempting to teach, even if it's through the words of others.

I am saying straight up that you are not remotely qualified to pick out material that others should be swayed by and that in fact you are more likely than not to lead them down a path of heresy. But perhaps I can just say "that's not an accusation, it's just an opinion".

Christianity being treated like some sort of bong-session brainstorm is an insult to the centuries long lineages of holy men that came before you. By what measure are you qualified to tell people to pollute their minds with this Youtube garbage or that Youtube garbage?

For anyone else reading this, let me give you some advice which in any other endeavor in life would seem like plain old common sense.

Don't approach Christianity, one of the most important things you will ever grapple with, by way of your own feelings while chasing Youtube garbage down endless rabbit holes, many of which are designed deliberately to appeal to your weaknesses and lure you into sin.

Do what any smart man would do when he wants to learn something important. Find a professional from a long line of professionals and learn from a professional.
Are you saying that formal credentials are a necessary indicator of qualification to teach?
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
66NGqdn.jpg

LOL, this is a real hoot. Takes me back to the labyrinthine Dispensationalist diagrams from old books from my mom's family (she grew up in Berachah, a wacky independent fundamentalist church in Houston.) Baptists are not the "one true church!", they've only been around since the 17th century and JM Carroll is incredulous revisionist history.

That's not to say that Baptists don't have a legitimate expression of faith (they do), but performing historical Twister to try to connect them to various Christian movements and churches that believed all sorts of different things different from 19th century Baptists is just dishonest.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Are you saying that formal credentials are a necessary indicator of qualification to teach?

EasyGranularDuckbillcat-small.gif


What is the source? What are the filters?

I can teach something from the Bible that has been handed down through hundreds of years of careful interpretation by men wiser than anyone here on the forum. I am not doing any interpretation myself. I'm not even remotely qualified by comparison. Nobody here is. But I can pass on the curated knowledge of wiser men based on their credentials and the credentials of their institutions.

When the source is The Bible and the filter is "this Youtube video" as presented by "some first generation rando Christian" then you are heading down the wrong road.

It is in a sense unfortunate that the manosphere was birthed in a state of rebellion because rebellion is a sinful mindset to approach God with. There is a kneejerk reaction among most men in the manosphere to reject prior knowledge and try to build something from scratch in the image they desire. This makes sense when you are facing earthly structures that ought to be subordinate to your authority. Man>woman>child.

But you cannot approach God with this mindset. In that frame you are the subordinate and your petty will has no bearing on the order that flows from above. God>Church>Man.

So when you see a bunch of men sort of spitballing what they think this or that verse in the Bible really means it's no different from a woman saying "I don't need no man to tell me what to do, I can think for myself, I'm free and independent, fuck the patriarchy!"

Now we have a new slew of Christians, and despite being able to shop through a thousand denominations for whatever pleases them the most *vomit* they STILL can't bring themselves to submit to a priest or preacher of their own choosing.

"I'm non-denominational" is the new "I don't need no man telling me what to do".
 

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
Or, as several Catholic authors put it : man always has to worship something.
The Curé d'Ars used to say that if you leave a countryside Christian parish without priests, in ten years' time they'll start worshipping animals.

Monotheism and the prohibition of idolatry make much more sense when one realizes that.

I stumbled about this book written by a Catholic priest that was called "The Gods of Atheism" once. A part of the summary in the dusk jacket caught my attention and I still remember it to this day. It said that there's there's a reason why the first commandment is "You shall have no other gods before me" and not "You shall not be an atheist". The reasoning is man will always end up worshiping something. Look at how many militant atheists end up becoming some sort of secular humanist which is the worship of mankind in an almost gnostic sense (ie. unlocking more and more knowledge and secrets of the universe will lead to man becoming more enlightened and advanced)
 

myrica

Pigeon
Such as?

As an aside, myrica, why are you here? I'm not asking in an accusative manner (at least not yet), but I am curious why you would register for a website that is focused around the exact opposite of how you perceive the First Cause 'origins of the universe' to be.
because i was checking roosh for a long time. We share many similar views except god.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
If normative Catholic practice has long included local church independence, how is the Catholic Church different from some Protestant churches—especially the Congregational movement? (My guess is that according to Catholic teaching, the local priests and churches were sometimes in error—right?)

The difference is modernity and modern means.

A parish in the middle of nowhere could be in error, but that error was circumscribed and limited in its implications. If a local priest started teaching heresy and lead his whole congregation to heretical thought and practice, you could even assume (I do at least) that God would be merciful towards the deceived as He still is today. But the Church hierarchy would probably send someone to check out what's going on, and remove the heretical priest, or correct him. Cut off the infected arm so as not to allow the infection to spread.

With larger problems a more organized approach is needed, and that was the case too.

The Church dealt with many heresies and heretical sects in the past through the councils, but it did not deal in this systematic manner with individual priests teaching one false thing or another. A sect had to be extremely organized to become large and pose a threat to the theological basis of the Church during its first 1500 years. At its base, however, early heretical sects like Arianism are exactly the same as the 'reformers' - they are still based in a dispute which should have been kept internal and discussed within Church hierarchy but instead was purposefully spread to the masses to cause confusion, scandal and division. If the 'reformers' really wanted to reform, they would have dealt with it within the Church, not nailed their ideas for everyone to see and cause scandal. That's not reformation, it's revolution. Like all revolutionaries, some of their complaints were not only valid (again, in my view), but of the utmost importance - a bit like the complaints of the early socialists against the impoverishment of the working classes during early industrialism. But they weren't interested in fixing the problems with the institutions, they were interested in tearing them down and building their own - which, predictably, ends up not only in the same type of error but adds a whole bunch of new ones.

But none of it would have lasted, or spread the way it did, if not for the recent democratization of the printing press. Whereas before the Church could cut off the arm before the whole body was infected, now half the body was lost very quickly. Supposedly Luther did not intend his thesis to be copied and spread, but I find that very suspicious. For sure he was aware that by making it public in the way that he did the thesis would be spread - the same way someone who claims to want to keep a family dispute within the family but then posts on social media about it for everyone to see. For sure he knew of the power and scope of the printing press, because just like now any new technological development, especially in communication, is enthusiastically embraced - especially for blasphemy (and pornography, which was also among the first things published once the printing press was democratized). It is no coincidence that the 'reformation' occurred exactly in the cultures in which the printing press was democratized (some Italian states being the exception, but an easily explainable one due to the proximity to the Vatican).

At the same time developments in war and agriculture were providing princes with more independence from the old patchwork of medieval interdependence, which included the Church, and hence, they felt safe backing the revolutionaries (one could say 'co-opting' them, like bankers, industrialists and politicians co-opted early socialist movements to steer them away from fixing the problems of industrialism and into revolution against the very institutions that could fix those problems).

Error and heresy, like sin, have always existed and will always exist. What changed back then were the means available to spread them. That made, and still makes, a literal world of difference.
 
Last edited:

Wutang

Hummingbird
Gold Member
But none of it would have lasted, or spread the way it did, if not for the recent democratization of the printing press. Whereas before the Church could cut off the arm before the whole body was infected, now half the body was lost very quickly. Supposedly Luther did not intend his thesis to be copied and spread, but I find that very suspicious. For sure he was aware that by making it public in the way that he did the thesis would be spread - the same way someone who claims to want to keep a family dispute within the family but then posts on social media about it for everyone to see.

The image of him posting the theses on a church door for anyone passing by to look at is the way the event is depicted in popular culture. That isn't what actually what happened based on what I've read. Instead, the theses were posted on what was basically a bulletin board that wasn't meant for making announcements to the public at large. Rather, the posting was directed towards other people within his order and also the other local clergy with the intent of wanting to hold a debate over theological issues - with the intent of keeping in "within the family". Now once he broke with the church completely, he did make sure to use the full power of the printing press to spread his books and pamphlets but at that time, he was still making all the attempts he could to stay within the church.
 

ilostabet

Pelican
The image of him posting the theses on a church door for anyone passing by to look at is the way the event is depicted in popular culture. That isn't what actually what happened based on what I've read. Instead, the theses were posted on what was basically a bulletin board that wasn't meant for making announcements to the public at large. Rather, the posting was directed towards other people within his order and also the other local clergy with the intent of wanting to hold a debate over theological issues - with the intent of keeping in "within the family". Now once he broke with the church completely, he did make sure to use the full power of the printing press to spread his books and pamphlets but at that time, he was still making all the attempts he could to stay within the church.

I'm still convinced his intention was not mere debate within Church hierarchy but to cause scandal while avoiding, at least initially, full commitment on his part - by cloaking it in debate form he could and did claim to be merely exploring possibilities and not defying the Church openly. But ultimately his intentions shouldn't be important to us, only to God. For our understanding it's the fruits that count.
 

Sitting Bull

Woodpecker
But ultimately his intentions shouldn't be important to us, only to God. For our understanding it's the fruits that count.

Indeed. According to Hilaire Belloc, Luther or any other Reformation leader were probably unaware that they were creating the Protestantism/Catholicism divide ; a break in the unity of Christendom was unthinkable to them, as it was to everyone else in the Christian world at the time.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
I'm still convinced his intention was not mere debate within Church hierarchy but to cause scandal while avoiding, at least initially, full commitment on his part - by cloaking it in debate form he could and did claim to be merely exploring possibilities and not defying the Church openly. But ultimately his intentions shouldn't be important to us, only to God. For our understanding it's the fruits that count.

Seems like basic gamma male behavior which is driven almost entirely by demonic influence. In the rare instances a gamma male is infernally provoked to confront an alpha male in a debate he will always seek an audience, because whether consciously or subconsciously he knows he cannot impress the alpha, but he can manipulate the betas and omegas with appeals to right-seeming fallacy.
 
Luther was right about some of his complaints. He wrote to his Archbishop to let him know about the sale of indulgences, not realizing that the Archbishop was the one who authorized that practice in the first place. That was the beginning of the eventual split. Unfortunately he was also a sell-out to the secular political powers of the time, and he should have just become Orthodox instead given that he even once claimed "the truth is with the Greeks."

Even more unfortunately, few if any Protestants today have anything remotely approaching the more traditional and orthodox side of Luther's beliefs, such as structured liturgical prayer and the Real Presence of Christ in the Eucharist. Luther also believed in the Ever-Virginity of Mary, which you will rarely find any Protestant agreeing with today.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
Of Luther.

"Neither the Church nor the pope can establish articles of faith. These must come from Scripture," he said. "A simple layman armed with Scripture is to be believed above a pope or a council without it."

He would have been miserable among the Orthodox too, and been a thorn in your side instead.
 
I'm not a Protestant, with that said:

Soon after the reformation movement was initiated, Luther's worldview began to change as he started to maneuver the political landscape. This is apparent in a comparison of the texts of his 1534 translation of the Bible vs the later/final 1545 revision, in the way he refers to the Jews either directly or contextually. Let's also not forget the 1543 publication of "On the Jews and Their Lies", which I would assume served as inspiration for the title of Michael's book.

My point is this - between 1517 (publication of the 95 Theses) and the early 1540s, certain developments may have occurred which altered his view of the Jewry and their influence in Europe. While I do not wish to speculate, the Pope at the time of the publication of the theses, having hailed from a wealthy banking family, may have demonstrated misaligned loyalties that lead to the German electors lending their support to Luther.

It is all speculation on my part, and regardless of what the outcome of the reformation was, I tend to not focus on Luther as an enemy of humanity as I do not believe he was one. I would wrap up this post with the disclaimer that he is neither Holy nor recognized in my Church, thus my view is purely based on a historical and geopolitical basis.
 

Jünger

Ostrich
Alexander Dugin has made this ‘link and tie’ with Nominalism and the USA:

““…The church as the “mystical body of Christ” was destroyed and replaced by hobby clubs created by free consent from below. This created a large number of disputing Protestant sects. In Europe and in England itself, where nominalism had borne its most thorough fruit, the process was somewhat subdued, and the most rabid Protestants rushed to the New World and established their own society there. Later, after the struggle with the metropolis, the United States emerged.”
 
Top