NEW RULES: Casual sex and hooking up can no longer be discussed on the forum

Status
Not open for further replies.

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
Mage said:
Now please stop avoid answering the question. You claimed that your religion has strong answers to all questions. Prove it or admit your religion is not as perfect as you claimed.

Except what you're asking was addressed by St Thomas Aquinus in the 13th Century in his Summa Theologica. It also in the Catechism of the Catholic Church - I was able to put a friend's mind at ease recently about her miscarriage - and I have a vague suspicion it was also in Dr. Ludwig Ott's mid-20th Century theological mainstay 'Fundamentals of Catholic Dogma'.

Your argument...

If babies go to hell or permanent limbo God is not loving to them.

If babies go to heaven or temporary limbo God is not just to the living.

... isn't remotely what the Catholic Church teaches, which teaches there's both a Merciful and Just fate for the souls in question.

As Michael suggested, it took me 30 seconds with a search engine to find this Vatican Document. The Catholic Church's current teachings on the matter are based on the Greek Fathers of the Orthodox Church:

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/c...aith_doc_20070419_un-baptised-infants_en.html

Since I've commented on this kind of behaviour from you in the past - arguing in bad faith by attempting to arrogantly-dismiss theology whilst being completely-ignorant of it, all in the effort to share a self-constructed morality you pridefully-believe is superior - I'd share Michael's summation :

But given your last response to me, amounting to "whatever, who cares, I already know what I believe," I am not particularly interested in writing you an essay on the topic.

-----

I've commented before the Holy Spirit operates in me by allowing me to notice repeated thematic patterns in daily experience that highlights a topic and forces me to look closer. It's usually Three Times. So, two days ago, I stumbled across the video I linked earlier in the thread on people believing they're 'The Exception to The Rule'.

Last night, reading St Therese of Lisieux, writing a letter to her Mother Superior, this leapt out:

"Mother, you know yourself that those souls are rare who don't measure the Divine Power according to their own narrow minds: people want exceptions everywhere on earth."

I'll keep my eye out for the third one. I suspect the lesson that is being reinforced is how coming to the Father requires a necessary act of humble submission through being obedient and following the rules a religious superior has placed upon you, rather than creating a religion for yourself.

I was deep in Contemplation a few weeks back and was graced with a beautiful realization about Mary in relation to St John of the Cross' 'Mount of Perfection' and, as he suggests, getting lead astray whilst chasing the spiritual goods of heaven. It's probably beyond the level of discussion here, unless anyone is really curious, but, short version, Humility and Obedience were, once again, stressed.
 
If I had to guess this has little to do with an actual lifestyle change and everything to to do with being shielded from harassment by the clown world homoglobo agenda.
 

Dr. Howard

Peacock
Gold Member
Mage said:
MichaelWitcoff said:
And you know what the weirdest thing is? It keeps proving itself to be true. If you

...

I have spent over a decade studying religion and philosophy and have never seen anything close to it. Everything else has holes in it - except for this. In my opinion, it’s the umbrella under which everything else makes sense and fits into place.

What about fate of stillborn / aborted children? Does orthodoxy explain that in a way that satisfies requirement of God being both loving and just?

Note:

If babies go to hell or permanent limbo God is not loving to them.

If babies go to heaven or temporary limbo God is not just to the living.

All of Christianity struggles with this question. Is orthodoxy different? You tell me.

Only reincarnation satisfies the question of baby deaths with God's love and justice.

^ Mage, definitely one of what I consider the original religious posters on RVF. A great critic of organized religion, while being very capable of defending his own path at the same time.

I just wanted to add in an answer to the above as it was a long time coming for me as an intellectual man as many others on the forum are.

I don't know what happens to aborted or stillborn babies, I probably will never know and I won't agonize over not knowing. The things that I can't know remind me to rely on my faith in God. I have faith that God is righteous through his laws, and is compassionate through an example of Jesus.

If I agonize or am suspicious of God, that maybe I'm missing some kind of deception and the aborted are being tortured by God in some kind of back room of heaven then it shows a weakness in my faith.

So again, I don't know what happens to dead babies, but I don't need to know. I have faith that God is just and is doing the right thing.

For the doubters, don't take faith in God as naivety . Blind faith in God does not mean blind faith in mankind, rather the opposite. Mankind is born of sin and is more likely to take the easy or selfish path when no one is looking. Proof, correction and accountability are good things to require from others as a result. There are many sad examples in the Church especially when people put a Godly faith in a man, or woman and tragedy is the outcome.
 

Mage

 
Anonymous Bosch - I was asking this question to an Orthodox - why did you came up with your Catholic answers and accuse me of not aking into account Catholic thinkers?

The Catholic and Orthodox opinions differ in this one slightly and I actually like the Orthodox opinion better.

But, generally, all Christianity shows the weakness of their heaven / hell model trough this question about babies.

For those of you who don't get it:

If dead babies go to Hell then it means God created them just for damnation and God doesn't love them.

If dead babies go to heaven, then they get unfairly priviged, because the risk of sinning is removed from them. This means God is unfair to anyone else who must spend time in temptation and that is not just. This also means that the best thing you can do for a baby is to abort it and send it straight to heaven, which I consider too absurd to be true, therefore dead babies cannot go to heaven.

Therefore I conclude that the fairest thing to do for dead babies is to give them another life, where they can make choices.

However if you set precedent of reincarnation for babies then you can extrapolate that to everyone easily because there is no clear border on when does a person becomes fit enough to make choices and permanent choices.

This is one of many reasons I believe in reincarnation over heaven/hell.

Dr. Howard - you put a lot on emphasis on faith in your post. Faith is congruent with heaven/hell model. You must believe stronger to increase chances of heaven. It is a static model, based on fear, you must hold on to your belifef, because one moment of doubt - coupled with death at that same moment - can doom you for eternity.

Faith is not congruent with reincarnation model. I myself am not a person of faith. I value knowledge and experiance of truth. I have changed opinions many times in my life as I have learned more and more about it. I seek to be brave in always seeking the next more precise iteration of truth. This is incompatable with fear of doubt and dying in moment of weak faith. I believe in a world where we continue to develop endlessly going trough as many lives as necessary, trough many iterations of beliefs, doubts and questions. This is the spice of life. To stay frozen in faith, to fear losing your current opinion, to obey authority without question is spiritual death.
 
< Frankly this change of heart does not even have to be motivated by Christian scripture - or even explained by it.

There is no condemnation of hooking up, casual sex or eternal Playerdom if that is your wish. But Roosh simply does not want to use his platform for the promotion of all of it.

The reason for this frankly can even be taken out of pure science-based awareness of what is healthy for a society. Church elders in most societies understood the importance of monogamy/early marriage. The tribes who practiced highly directed sexual instincts - as in marry early and then fuck like rabbits like the Amish do - they survived and concentrated the rest of their energy on world-creation. If the Amish had instead of opting for an adherence to old technology instead turned to massive promotion of futurism on top of old-age morals, then those buggers would be dominating the US by now as some kind of devout techno-purists - with lots of converts on top of it.

All examples of history show us clearly that degenaration and total promiscuity - especially among the women - that this leads to the downfall of every civilization. Men to a certain extent bear responsibility for that.

Personally I am divided on it and don't have to embrace all steps in my own life. But I don't see much value in sharing pick-up techniques online, because after you learn it, then your only value is to find a wingman. And that is something you can still do.

Plus - I do honestly believe that a good society would teach Game & Red Pill, but not actively promote the lifestyle - especially for women. This would automatically curb the options for men. The few who make it work as men would not matter as the wide majority of women would be off the market in stable relationships.

Whether this change makes a difference - well - that is up for debate, but you have to realize that some men boycott one brand because of ideological reasons, why shouldn't a man boycott the spread and promotion of more civilization-weakening actions on his platform?
 

Hermetic Seal

Kingfisher
Gold Member
RustinCohle said:
If I had to guess this has little to do with an actual lifestyle change and everything to to do with being shielded from harassment by the clown world homoglobo agenda.

If that was really the case, ceasing to talk about Jews would get Roosh a lot further than pretending to give up womanizing.

On the subject of infants: My perspective is that I don't know. Though I guess I'd be considered protestant, I find the whole "age of accountability" concept popular in most evangelical churches to be total bunk.

If I had to give an answer, I'd lean on Molinism as the most convincing explanation of God's foreknowledge (essentially, neither the anachronistic determinism of Calvinist theology, nor total free will.) Essentially, Molinism posits that God knows counterfactual situations (i.e., all of the outcomes for any given situation.) God's counterfactual knowledge of how the child would grow up and choose to believe would be the basis of their fate. I think it's similar in the situation of those who die without ever having heard the Gospel - God knows how they would respond and decides based on this. On the other hand, the fact that Christians are urged to share the Gospel is suggestive that our "intervention" could change the outcome for people who hear and believe, and isn't just superfluous. But the mechanics of how exactly this works are a mystery.

In other words, I believe that God has considerably more information than we do, and can make just decisions on these cases based upon that. I just don't think we're really in any position to judge whether God is being unjust or unfair in these cases. I think that if a Christian is challenged on this point (and doesn't feel like learning the history of Calvinism, Armenianism, and Molinism), it's perfectly acceptable to say "I don't know, but I have faith that God will work it out justly."

On the subject of "slaves", there is a world of difference between what the New Testament means by this term and "slave" in Islam (and in the American south.)

The Greek word "doulous" is usually translated as "slave" but might be better rendered as "bondservant," indicative of a very particular type of Greco-Roman relationship. The doulous is more like an indentured servant whose freedom/autonomy is exchanged for a place in his master's household, and whose loyalty is reciprocated by receiving food, shelter, some measure of the master's status, security, etc.

In a time without social security nets like welfare, this could be the difference between life and death for plenty of people. The small-scale, decentralized level of this institution and honor of the patron hosting these slaves also avoids callous exploitation, like modern-day companies that ditch their tenured employees for cheapo foreign labor, and exploitation by the doulous, like in the modern centralized welfare system. In other words, being a doulous was often a good deal for you and your family.

It's also worth pointing out that this status wasn't permanent, but would allow your freedom after a certain period of time (seven years? I don't recall off the top of my head.) However, a doulous could choose lifelong loyalty to his master by having an awl driven through his ear to the house's doorpost - a dramatic gesture of loyalty.

The doulous imagery shows up in Scripture over and over again because it illustrates an admission of our own weakness and dependence upon God's patronage, in a way that would be easily grasped by the first-century audience of the Bible. This is often missed in the modern, western world because we don't value honor, patronage, or ritual purity, to name a few, like people in the ancient world did.

Meanwhile, chattel slavery as we know it in the American south is a completely different institution with its roots in the Arabic slave trade, which is reflected in Islam and its correspondingly harsher imagery. This is never endorsed or even present in the New Testament, and anybody who's tried to use Scripture to justify this kind of slavery is utterly lacking in contextual awareness and does not know what he is talking about.

I'm not particularly worried about the reliability of the Old Testament historical accounts. Although I do believe in inerrancy, it's not a necessary believe to come to faith in Christ. Nor am I surprised that the largely nomadic and itinerant peoples of the ancient Near East don't leave more archaeological evidence behind. Nor am I surprised that Egypt might have been a bit embarrassed about the whole Hebrew situation, or that subservient people wouldn't be a major part of their written history. Aside from archaeology generally affirming Old Testament historical accounts (like the Hittites, though to be Biblical fiction until archaeological discoveries showed otherwise) over time, the OT historical accounts are so uncomplimentary and unflattering that it's hard to read much of it as historical embellishment. It doesn't just make big players look bad, it makes Israel as a whole look bad, and Jesus' opponents largely kept repeating the same mistakes the prophets spent hundreds of pages condemning.

The morality of major players in Hebrew history is sketched in shades of grey, with even the greatest figures occasionally blundering in very embarrassing ways. Hardly anybody comes out looking too great, aside maybe from Joshua and Samuel. Therefore, I believe that even without holding to inerrancy, we can be reasonably sure we're getting the relevant points about the character of people from the OT.
 

AnonymousBosch

Crow
Gold Member
Mage said:
Anonymous Bosch - I was asking this question to an Orthodox - why did you came up with your Catholic answers and accuse me of not aking into account Catholic thinkers?

The Catholic and Orthodox opinions differ in this one slightly and I actually like the Orthodox opinion better.

You know I linked a Vatican Document explaining how the current Roman Catholic teaching has shifted over time to match the Orthodox Church teaching, right?

For those of you who don't get it:

If dead babies go to Hell then it means God created them just for damnation and God doesn't love them.

If dead babies go to heaven, then they get unfairly priviged, because the risk of sinning is removed from them. This means God is unfair to anyone else who must spend time in temptation and that is not just. This also means that the best thing you can do for a baby is to abort it and send it straight to heaven, which I consider too absurd to be true, therefore dead babies cannot go to heaven.

Oh, I get it. It's just an incredibly-stupid argument, completely-demolished by masterful theology written over 700 years ago, that you're too intellectually-lazy to study whilst believing you're a subject matter expert. Which wouldn't be so bad, but when you then obnoxiously-browbeat users over what is just your ill-formed opinion, don't act like you're wining the intellectual battle when someone refuses to waste his time engaging you.

----

Oh, I sat down for 10 minutes to start on an older translation of 'The Confessions of St Augustine', and the third event in the sequence happened. This is a beautifully-written piece on the need for Community and Obedience.

Taking religion in a wide sense as the bond between the human soul and God, it may be regarded under three principal aspects: the institutional, the doctrinal and the personal; according as we study it in its organised systems, in its body of dogmatic teaching, or in the private revelations which exist between the individual soul and God. Most of us find in our actual experience that one or other of these aspects is pre-eminent for us in interest and importance; but we must never allow the other two to pass out of our religious life, if that life is to reach its fullest and truest development. And here, precisely it is that St Augustine stands out so wonderfully, for he combined in himself, in a supreme degree, all three of these great aspects of religion, and his Confessions are consequently a document of the highest value, alike from an institutional point of view, as showing the necessity of union with Christ's mystical body, the Church, which is the only authorized way of life for a Christian; from a doctrinal point of view, as evidence of the power of that Church to meet by her teaching every religious need of the human mind and heart; and from a personal point of view, as a guide book or map to succeeding generations, who work out their salvation along the way of life, as he has shown himself to have done with such convincing truthfulness and wonderful psychological insight.

No, wait.

I was going to type the following two pages that explain how these three aspects are entwined together like a rope rather than being compartmentalized, and how the beauty of Augustine is his experiential testing of Catholicism across these three aspects, clearly spelling out the necessity of not ever thinking you're the exception the rule, but, I've reached a point where I'm simply weary of trying to explain Objective Thought on the internet to a world of overwhelmingly Subjective Thinkers. There's absolutely zero value in it for me any more, compared to the deep enjoyment of the Higher Truth found in reading Theology, and the simple peace of Resting in God.

Not feeling any desire to instruct or guide others will also protect me from, as Debeguiled implied yesterday, Spiritual Pride.

I think I did predict a few weeks back that the Dark Night of the Senses would likely resolve itself soon. Huh.

Leonard, shoot me your email privately: I'll answer your request off-forum.
 

Mage

 
AnonymousBosch said:
Mage said:
Anonymous Bosch - I was asking this question to an Orthodox - why did you came up with your Catholic answers and accuse me of not taking into account Catholic thinkers?

The Catholic and Orthodox opinions differ in this one slightly and I actually like the Orthodox opinion better.

You know I linked a Vatican Document explaining how the current Roman Catholic teaching has shifted over time to match the Orthodox Church teaching, right?

So you admit Catholic Church is fallible?

Reformation, 2nd Vatican council, now this. How many times do these guys have to change their rules while projecting image of some divinely inspired infallible authority?

And no I didn't click your link. I don't have time to click on every link especially ones that do not promise anything interesting. I know of Catholics capitulating to Orthodox in this regard. There are still many Catholics clinging to notions of limbo trough.

AnonymousBosch said:
Mage said:
For those of you who don't get it:

If dead babies go to Hell then it means God created them just for damnation and God doesn't love them.

If dead babies go to heaven, then they get unfairly priviged, because the risk of sinning is removed from them. This means God is unfair to anyone else who must spend time in temptation and that is not just. This also means that the best thing you can do for a baby is to abort it and send it straight to heaven, which I consider too absurd to be true, therefore dead babies cannot go to heaven.

Oh, I get it. It's just an incredibly-stupid argument, completely-demolished by masterful theology written over 700 years ago, that you're too intellectually-lazy to study whilst believing you're a subject matter expert. Which wouldn't be so bad, but when you then obnoxiously-browbeat users over what is just your ill-formed opinion, don't act like you're wining the intellectual battle when someone refuses to waste his time engaging you.

You are losing your temper here.

If my argument has been rebuked please show how.

You cannot call a person lazy for not reading something, you consider of importance. There are a million of books out there. There surely are books I have read, but you haven't.

You provide no arguments, only insults. Do you feel threatened?

You claim my argument is rebuked 700 years ago, but you just said that Church recently did change their position in this question.

You certainly seem to be educated in Catholic Theology, but you also seem to be raised in a barrel and meeting opinions of people who spend time reading other things with indignation.

AnonymousBosch said:
Oh, I sat down for 10 minutes to start on an older translation of 'The Confessions of St Augustine', and the third event in the sequence happened. This is a beautifully-written piece on the need for Community and Obedience.

Taking religion in a wide sense as the bond between the human soul and God, it may be regarded under three principal aspects: the institutional, the doctrinal and the personal; according as we study it in its organised systems, in its body of dogmatic teaching, or in the private revelations which exist between the individual soul and God. Most of us find in our actual experience that one or other of these aspects is pre-eminent for us in interest and importance; but we must never allow the other two to pass out of our religious life, if that life is to reach its fullest and truest development. And here, precisely it is that St Augustine stands out so wonderfully, for he combined in himself, in a supreme degree, all three of these great aspects of religion, and his Confessions are consequently a document of the highest value, alike from an institutional point of view, as showing the necessity of union with Christ's mystical body, the Church, which is the only authorized way of life for a Christian; from a doctrinal point of view, as evidence of the power of that Church to meet by her teaching every religious need of the human mind and heart; and from a personal point of view, as a guide book or map to succeeding generations, who work out their salvation along the way of life, as he has shown himself to have done with such convincing truthfulness and wonderful psychological insight.

A member of Church preaching Obedience to Church. How surprising.

AnonymousBosch said:
No, wait.

I was going to type the following two pages that explain how these three aspects are entwined together like a rope rather than being compartmentalized, and how the beauty of Augustine is his experiential testing of Catholicism across these three aspects, clearly spelling out the necessity of not ever thinking you're the exception the rule, but, I've reached a point where I'm simply weary of trying to explain Objective Thought on the internet to a world of overwhelmingly Subjective Thinkers. There's absolutely zero value in it for me any more, compared to the deep enjoyment of the Higher Truth found in reading Theology, and the simple peace of Resting in God.


Again nothing but insults from your part, no arguments. You exit the stage with head raised up in empty vanity to not display vulnerability in your arguments.
 

Leonard D Neubache

Owl
Gold Member
What is your demand?

"Convince me"?
"Convince the audience"?
"Convince reality"?

You seem to indicate that you are a religion of one man on an individual quest to find truth or God or whatever, and damn anyone who's given it so much as a thought before you because none are as wise as you.

You seem to think that you're qualified to determine who should enter heaven by virtue of what you define as "fair" at the ripe old age of, what, 30?

40?

A man is born to wealth and stature and never knows want or pain and lives free of sin.

A man is born to grinding poverty where he is forced to steal to survive or suffer hideously cruel starvation.

Who is the sinner? Who goes to heaven? How does some autistic measure of "fairness" manifest itself?

Are you serious that your bugbear with Christianity is that aborted babies go to heaven? That it's not "fair" on people that suffer earthly troubles and struggle to be good?

Sounds retarded, man.

In fact, while we're looking at these matters objectively and in light of the severe levels of narcissistic rage we've witnessed these last few days, let's all ask ourselves an honest question.

How much of our autistic nit-picking about Christian orthodoxy is driven by the pursuit of truth and how much of it is driven by a desperate flight from having ourselves held to any objective standard of moral behaviour?
 

911

Peacock
Gold Member
Mage said:
...don't act like you're wining the intellectual battle when someone refuses to waste his time engaging you.

...

You are losing your temper here.

...

You provide no arguments, only insults. Do you feel threatened?

...
A member of Church preaching Obedience to Church. How surprising.

...
Again nothing but insults from your part, no arguments. You exit the stage with head raised up in empty vanity to not display vulnerability in your arguments.

Spare us the crappy passive aggressive snide argumentation.

Your whole ideology (can't call it faith) is based on "as above so below" wizardry and deception, that's your actual handle and avatar.

Stop clogging this thread with your theological arguments, this is an important thread and they don't belong here.
 
Mage said:
Now answer the truly hard question about fate of unborn children.

The Catholic monk Aurelius Moner said retards and infants don't go to heaven, they go to some type of limbo where they're in eternal bliss ( happiness). However they don't get to see God because they never cognitively chose between good and evil. He also said slavery is OKAY under certain conditions lol.

Sounded really fucked up to me but that's what he said. He wrote 4 articles plus an interview with Quintus Curtius, if you read through the extensive comments you will see where I asked him all this and more and he answered. He has an account here, handle is Byzantium. You can read his few posts here, look up his user. He basically quit the internet to train to be a priest, that was a couple years ago now.
 

Roosh

Cardinal
Amusing headline out of the Washington Post: A notorious pickup artist found God. Lots of angry white radicals do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...687ca99fb3d_story.html?utm_term=.d2c97c7efee9

Note the projection: it's the atheists who tend to be most angry (from being in rebellion) and radical (pushing every inversion under the sun). The anger is shown by forum member Disco above who used his 1-week suspension to plot how he can immediately lash out upon returning.

One of the Internet’s best-known “men’s rights activists” — a onetime pickup artist infamous for slamming feminism, championing “neomasculinity” and publishing articles with titles like “5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder” — just announced that he’s now a committed Christian. As of this weekend, Daryush Valizadeh, better known as Roosh V, has banned all talk of what he now calls “fornication,” and even profanity, from his forums lest, he says, he lead readers “into sin.” Until now, Roosh V’s freewheeling forums had encouraged would-be pickup artists to trade tips about psychologically manipulating women into casual sex.
At first glance, this seems like a stunning reversal: One of the most influential denizens of the “manosphere” — the subculture of online anti-feminist activists that, for a growing number of readers, doubles as a gateway to the far right — saw the error of his ways and chose a different path. He certainly had cause for self-examination. Masculinist discussion groups dead set against “PC culture” have increasingly become recruiting grounds for more extreme groups, including those advocating real-world violence or celebrating “revolutionary” acts of right-wing terrorism. At its worst, the manosphere can itself turn violent: In 2014, Elliot Rodger, an angry and frustrated consumer of such content, killed six people in Isla Vista, Calif., during a self-proclaimed “revenge” rampage against all the women who refused to sleep with him. (Rodgers has become a folk hero in some dark corners of the Web and was cited as an inspiration by the man who is accused of killing 10 people with a van in Toronto in 2018.)
But Roosh V characterized his transformation from pickup artist — one with a loose definition of consent that led some to call him “pro-rape” — to Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christian not as an about-face but as a linear progression. In fact, it’s representative of a broader trend within far-right Internet-based groups: Some of their members come to embrace a highly conservative, traditionalist version of Christianity as a bulwark against what they see as the decadent, liberal modern world. In the minds of many would-be Internet transgressives, conservative Christianity has become the biggest troll of all.

The conversion of Roosh V highlights another, even more vital, truth about the anti-feminist and alt-right movements: They already function as quasi-religions. These movements gain adherents precisely because they tap into young men’s existential hunger for the kind of things that also underpin religious observance: a narrative of meaningfulness in the world, a sense of purpose within that narrative, a community to share that narrative with, and rituals to both demonstrate and intensify commitment to that narrative (yes, posting memes on Twitter counts).
Roosh V’s conversion story makes clear the continuity of his views, even as they evolved. First, he wrote, a disaffected person in the modern world takes the metaphorical “red pill” — meaning they wake up to the “reality” that “social justice warriors” and feminists control society. The next step is the “black pill,” the nihilistic worldview that many men’s rights activists and alt-right adherents adopt in response to that revelation. But at the end of the road, Roosh V told his readers, there’s the “God pill”: “submission to God’s will.”
Roosh V says he had his epiphany while tripping on psychedelic mushrooms. Whatever provides the final push, many on the alt-right follow a similar path to the rhetoric of religion. One increasingly popular catchphrase on 4Chan and its far-right successor, 8Chan, is “Deus Vult,” or “God wills it,” a reference to Pope Urban II’s call to begin the First Crusade — typically invoked to bolster anti-immigrant or anti-Islamic sentiment. The red cross of the Medieval Knights Templar has become a prevalent symbol at right-wing gatherings , including the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. And then there’s Steve Bannon, among the most politically influential alt-right thinkers, who since leaving the White House has been working to found, via a local proxy, a reactionary Catholic-affiliated “gladiator school for culture warriors” in a monastery outside Rome (over Vatican objections).

Alt-right “Christianity” of this sort is not a theology so much as a reactionary shibboleth: a way to condemn not only Islam but such societal “degeneracy” (a favorite Roosh V term) as feminism and political correctness. Even before he announced his conversion, Roosh V wrote that we “are now stuck with a clown country where we suffer daily humiliations and degradations at the hands of sodomites, man-jawed feminists, pedophiles, cuckolds, and aliens” — and proposed, as a partial solution, the establishment of Orthodox Christianity as the official state religion.
Some of the most radical and deadly far-right extremists, themselves steeped in Internet culture, have also adopted Christian rhetoric. Before John T. Earnest allegedly killed one worshiper and injured three others at a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in April, he posted a manifesto that claimed explicitly Christian motivations, calling upon “my brothers in Christ of all races” and members of a far-right 4Chan group to join him in killing Jews, in order to herald a reactionary “revolution.” Echoing centuries’ worth of reactionary, anti-Semitic tracts, Earnest’s manifesto treated Christianity as a link to a mythic, idealized past, while characterizing Judaism as the cause of cultural, sexual and moral decay.
Roosh V, for his part, also seems to be using his newfound Christianity not to call for neighborly love but to advocate for a war on modern culture. Since his announcement, he’s posted an article titled “Modern Life Is Aids” (illustrated with a photo of an LGBT pride parade), in which he criticizes the “cultural HIV” of contemporary existence. To counter this cultural disease, people should choose “God over the glorification of themselves,” he writes. That’s not the voice of someone who has turned his back on reactionary radicalism.

Atavism — the obsession with looking backward to an imagined “primal” past — is a common characteristic of online reactionaries. From the “paleo” diets ubiquitous in the men’s rights world, to the “gorilla mindset” embraced by alt-lite conspiracy theorist and self-help guru Michael Cernovich, to alt-right Twitter icon Bronze Age Pervert’s obsession with power weightlifting, practices and rituals associated with an imagined, pre-modern past have long suffused the Internet right. The manosphere and the alt-right use references to Christianity in a similar way — as shorthand for a supposedly purer time.
The lines between “religion” and these online ideologies grow blurrier by the day. By buying into the red and black pill narrative, disaffected and lonely young men have access to a seductive explanation of how the world works, alongside a reassuring etiology of their own failure to launch. No less importantly, they also have a group of like-minded 4Chan or Reddit friends, eager to reinforce that narrative. Whether it uses the imagery of Medieval Christianity or of the cult of “Kek” — an ironic 4Chan meme-religion that worships alt-right symbol Pepe the Frog as an amphibian chaos god — the Internet right is itself a cult.
Roosh V’s pivot to Christianity might stop him from posting explicitly about premarital sex. But it’s unlikely to change his or his followers’ fundamental ideology: a “revolt against the modern world,” this time dressed in Christian garb. The red pill and the God pill aren’t so different, after all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...687ca99fb3d_story.html?utm_term=.d2c97c7efee9
 
My bank account has a balance through honest labor. Yours has a balance through sin.

Needing to be "practical" apparently trumps sin and rebellion when you decide. This is how churches behave, that's my point. They take angles and advantages when they can yet want to dictate others can't in various areas of life.
 

JayJuanGee

Crow
Gold Member
Leonard D Neubache said:
How much of our autistic nit-picking about Christian orthodoxy is driven by the pursuit of truth and how much of it is driven by a desperate flight from having ourselves held to any objective standard of moral behaviour?

There are problems with either seeking the objective standard, if it exists, and perhaps attempting to impose those purportedly "found" standards in a forum in which adult men have traditionally used for the purpose of discussing intimate aspects of their relationships with women.... perhaps even such intimate aspects of their relationships that they had not felt comfortable discussing with their real life acquaintances.... which results in a vast variety of circumstances that might be difficult to apply to supposed objective standards - probably harder to apply to conclusions that some other guy may have reached about what is the purported objective moral standard - again lots of presumptions about the degree of the existence of such moral standard(s) and how specific such moral standards would apply or be violated in the circumstances of the behaviors (including speech about behaviors and intentions) of guys.

Sometimes I might appreciate the moral conclusions of another guy, but since I am adult who has been living an adult life for some time, including the fact that I believe that I am sufficiently reflective of moral decisions that I make and the fact that sometimes my moral decisions vary from others, I am going to get quite perturbed if another guy imposes (or attempts to impose) his findings of morality on me - especially if I differ in opinion and I believe that I am being excessively restricted by such impositions (whether it is my actions or my speech).
 

debeguiled

Peacock
Gold Member
Roosh said:
Amusing headline out of the Washington Post: A notorious pickup artist found God. Lots of angry white radicals do.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...687ca99fb3d_story.html?utm_term=.d2c97c7efee9

Note the projection: it's the atheists who tend to be most angry (from being in rebellion) and radical (pushing every inversion under the sun). The anger is shown by forum member Disco above who used his 1-week suspension to plot how he can immediately lash out upon returning.

One of the Internet’s best-known “men’s rights activists” — a onetime pickup artist infamous for slamming feminism, championing “neomasculinity” and publishing articles with titles like “5 reasons to date a girl with an eating disorder” — just announced that he’s now a committed Christian. As of this weekend, Barack Obama, better known as Roosh V, has banned all talk of what he now calls “fornication,” and even profanity, from his forums lest, he says, he lead readers “into sin.” Until now, Roosh V’s freewheeling forums had encouraged would-be pickup artists to trade tips about psychologically manipulating women into casual sex.
At first glance, this seems like a stunning reversal: One of the most influential denizens of the “manosphere” — the subculture of online anti-feminist activists that, for a growing number of readers, doubles as a gateway to the far right — saw the error of his ways and chose a different path. He certainly had cause for self-examination. Masculinist discussion groups dead set against “PC culture” have increasingly become recruiting grounds for more extreme groups, including those advocating real-world violence or celebrating “revolutionary” acts of right-wing terrorism. At its worst, the manosphere can itself turn violent: In 2014, Elliot Rodger, an angry and frustrated consumer of such content, killed six people in Isla Vista, Calif., during a self-proclaimed “revenge” rampage against all the women who refused to sleep with him. (Rodgers has become a folk hero in some dark corners of the Web and was cited as an inspiration by the man who is accused of killing 10 people with a van in Toronto in 2018.)
But Roosh V characterized his transformation from pickup artist — one with a loose definition of consent that led some to call him “pro-rape” — to Armenian Apostolic Orthodox Christian not as an about-face but as a linear progression. In fact, it’s representative of a broader trend within far-right Internet-based groups: Some of their members come to embrace a highly conservative, traditionalist version of Christianity as a bulwark against what they see as the decadent, liberal modern world. In the minds of many would-be Internet transgressives, conservative Christianity has become the biggest troll of all.

The conversion of Roosh V highlights another, even more vital, truth about the anti-feminist and alt-right movements: They already function as quasi-religions. These movements gain adherents precisely because they tap into young men’s existential hunger for the kind of things that also underpin religious observance: a narrative of meaningfulness in the world, a sense of purpose within that narrative, a community to share that narrative with, and rituals to both demonstrate and intensify commitment to that narrative (yes, posting memes on Twitter counts).
Roosh V’s conversion story makes clear the continuity of his views, even as they evolved. First, he wrote, a disaffected person in the modern world takes the metaphorical “red pill” — meaning they wake up to the “reality” that “social justice warriors” and feminists control society. The next step is the “black pill,” the nihilistic worldview that many men’s rights activists and alt-right adherents adopt in response to that revelation. But at the end of the road, Roosh V told his readers, there’s the “God pill”: “submission to God’s will.”
Roosh V says he had his epiphany while tripping on psychedelic mushrooms. Whatever provides the final push, many on the alt-right follow a similar path to the rhetoric of religion. One increasingly popular catchphrase on 4Chan and its far-right successor, 8Chan, is “Deus Vult,” or “God wills it,” a reference to Pope Urban II’s call to begin the First Crusade — typically invoked to bolster anti-immigrant or anti-Islamic sentiment. The red cross of the Medieval Knights Templar has become a prevalent symbol at right-wing gatherings , including the 2017 Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville. And then there’s Steve Bannon, among the most politically influential alt-right thinkers, who since leaving the White House has been working to found, via a local proxy, a reactionary Catholic-affiliated “gladiator school for culture warriors” in a monastery outside Rome (over Vatican objections).

Alt-right “Christianity” of this sort is not a theology so much as a reactionary shibboleth: a way to condemn not only Islam but such societal “degeneracy” (a favorite Roosh V term) as feminism and political correctness. Even before he announced his conversion, Roosh V wrote that we “are now stuck with a clown country where we suffer daily humiliations and degradations at the hands of sodomites, man-jawed feminists, pedophiles, cuckolds, and aliens” — and proposed, as a partial solution, the establishment of Orthodox Christianity as the official state religion.
Some of the most radical and deadly far-right extremists, themselves steeped in Internet culture, have also adopted Christian rhetoric. Before John T. Earnest allegedly killed one worshiper and injured three others at a synagogue in Poway, Calif., in April, he posted a manifesto that claimed explicitly Christian motivations, calling upon “my brothers in Christ of all races” and members of a far-right 4Chan group to join him in killing Jews, in order to herald a reactionary “revolution.” Echoing centuries’ worth of reactionary, anti-Semitic tracts, Earnest’s manifesto treated Christianity as a link to a mythic, idealized past, while characterizing Judaism as the cause of cultural, sexual and moral decay.
Roosh V, for his part, also seems to be using his newfound Christianity not to call for neighborly love but to advocate for a war on modern culture. Since his announcement, he’s posted an article titled “Modern Life Is Aids” (illustrated with a photo of an LGBT pride parade), in which he criticizes the “cultural HIV” of contemporary existence. To counter this cultural disease, people should choose “God over the glorification of themselves,” he writes. That’s not the voice of someone who has turned his back on reactionary radicalism.

Atavism — the obsession with looking backward to an imagined “primal” past — is a common characteristic of online reactionaries. From the “paleo” diets ubiquitous in the men’s rights world, to the “gorilla mindset” embraced by alt-lite conspiracy theorist and self-help guru Michael Cernovich, to alt-right Twitter icon Bronze Age Pervert’s obsession with power weightlifting, practices and rituals associated with an imagined, pre-modern past have long suffused the Internet right. The manosphere and the alt-right use references to Christianity in a similar way — as shorthand for a supposedly purer time.
The lines between “religion” and these online ideologies grow blurrier by the day. By buying into the red and black pill narrative, disaffected and lonely young men have access to a seductive explanation of how the world works, alongside a reassuring etiology of their own failure to launch. No less importantly, they also have a group of like-minded 4Chan or Reddit friends, eager to reinforce that narrative. Whether it uses the imagery of Medieval Christianity or of the cult of “Kek” — an ironic 4Chan meme-religion that worships alt-right symbol Pepe the Frog as an amphibian chaos god — the Internet right is itself a cult.
Roosh V’s pivot to Christianity might stop him from posting explicitly about premarital sex. But it’s unlikely to change his or his followers’ fundamental ideology: a “revolt against the modern world,” this time dressed in Christian garb. The red pill and the God pill aren’t so different, after all.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/outl...687ca99fb3d_story.html?utm_term=.d2c97c7efee9

What a load of hot gas.

Are you tired of being called a MRA yet?

Why do they even pretend to have something to say when they obviously don't?

Someone should introduce this girl to memes.


It would have saved everyone a lot of wasted energy.

rodger.png
 

313jay

Pigeon
Damn roosh I was just about to buy that package of 5 you had this week. New to the forum.....

Anybody want to sell me a copy of their book lol?
 

Roosh

Cardinal
The new rules take effect tomorrow. When it comes to sexual activity beyond basic kissing or touching, keep it vague enough so that there is a lack of certainty on whether you fornicated or not. Use phrases like these:

"We fooled/messed around."
"There was intimacy."
"There was sensual touching."
"She fulfilled my desires."
"We shared the same matrimonial bed."
"We went on a date and then yada yada yada."

One way to look at it is to bring the language down from an R rating to PG-13, without outright promotion or glorification of R-rated activities.

I will also start enforcing existing NSFW rules, even in thread titles that are labeled NSFW. Instead of embedding nudity and other pornographic images, link to them instead with a NSFW tag. If a game or image thread can't be redeemed, I will lock it. In the case of an image thread, you can open a new one without NSFW images. I estimate these changes will impact less than 15% of the forum's content.

I will be lenient with the new rules over the upcoming months, except for those who whined in this thread, since I know that they know what the rules are and are breaking it to spite me or the forum. I will also not be lenient with those under 100 posts, who were the far majority of users banned in the past week.

Lastly, I give thanks to all who are adopting a patient and understanding approach to the new rules. Once I start sharing new writing about my personal changes (which may take a while because of my upcoming tour), and also how to address life problems from that new perspective, I believe you will get far more value from me than before.

(If you have further questions or comments about the rules, use the rules thread that is stickied in this forum.)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top