Heard. Thank you for your candor.
Secular individuals can no longer post on the forum
- Thread starter Roosh
- Start date
- Status
This is not a sola scriptura forum. This is not a place where you can teach your own private interpretation of the Bible, or the interpretation of a modern teacher. Protestants are more than welcome here, but they will not be allowed to teach heresies that were addressed centuries ago.
Ah yes, the left has gotten so good at “divide and conquer” that they no longer need to actively instigate it. Now you have conservative people kicking each other off forums because they aren’t pure enough. And then you act surprised why conservatives continue to lose the culture war...
Enjoy your safe space. This is completely expected, especially considering your ignorant rants against the Jews that somehow equivocate the Ultra Orthodox with Reformed. Basic facts 101, man. You need to read more.
My advice? Go spend a year or five living in a monastery or helping out at a church. Maybe then you’ll actually understand that Christianity isn’t a tribal identity to bash others with. Perhaps you will realize this when you have been living a religious lifestyle for longer than two years.
Enjoy your safe space. This is completely expected, especially considering your ignorant rants against the Jews that somehow equivocate the Ultra Orthodox with Reformed. Basic facts 101, man. You need to read more.
My advice? Go spend a year or five living in a monastery or helping out at a church. Maybe then you’ll actually understand that Christianity isn’t a tribal identity to bash others with. Perhaps you will realize this when you have been living a religious lifestyle for longer than two years.
Thank you for your clarity Roosh. I have no wish to teach anyone (a man has to find Christ himself) but I am glad I am still welcome as a Methodist. Myself and many brothers here are on a journey and coming closer to Christ it is amazing to see.
Wow, man. Your initial post didn't even hint at this. This is what you said:
Really, the only thing that you said that could even be loosely associated with sola scriptur (sorry my spell check is not letting me spell it out) or doctrinal issues of any kind was the nebulous term "traditional Christian teachings", even though that term- in the very sentence you said it in- went on to infer that you were speaking to the secular community, not the Christian community:
Notice- you didn't say a word about doctrine- not even one word.
Further, if you are going to use the word heresies- and make that accusation- then you need to own it and identify the heresies you are referring to. What are the heresies that you are referring to?
Onto traditional Christian values. Do you consider the Holy Bible to be a traditional Christian value? I do. Check it out:
For those that rely upon man:
So let's come full circle: your initial post said something completely contrary to what you are saying here. That's a punk move. What's with the indirectness? If you really feel like this is a good thing, then you need to own it full and complete- not hint around it female and beta style.
Maybe you need to man up and own your position as opposed to hinting around it.
I'm in support of this change, because I find the greatest problem in the right-wing is hateful souls who wish to destroy rather than build, and that which builds is the love of Christ. The "red-pilled" understanding of the nature of men and women is an important step to seeing reality as it is, but it cannot be used to justify hatred of women or men. It is the way things are, and we should recognize our differences and use them the way God intended, to complement each others strengths, raise families, and emulate Christ in our relationships. Secularism, Atheism, and Paganism is also rampant within this sphere, and those are false gods and destructive ideals. They should be actively stamped out.
For those complaining that this isn't a free-speech forum, kindly consider the situation. This is Roosh's forum, it isn't some corporate globohomo platform that receives your tax dollars and it isn't intended to be a public square. It is more like Roosh's house, and when you are within the home of another, you are expected to respect the homeowner's wishes and rules. You'd want anyone else to do the same in your home.
Christ-centered community is what will save our souls in trying times. Our worldly success is not guaranteed.
Also, in my personal experience, nobody has really come to Christ through the internet. That's what real-life gospel community us for. Instead, internet discussions make for a better tempering of one's faith and learn how to better walk with Christ, and perhaps gain resources on how to be a good steward of the time, money, and other resources we've been given in our age. Because times are changing, and it's difficult to know where we should be when the next chapter begins.
As I stated, this is your forum and I wish to respect your rules. However, I do have a few questions and I'm sure other protestants may feel similarly.
For those complaining that this isn't a free-speech forum, kindly consider the situation. This is Roosh's forum, it isn't some corporate globohomo platform that receives your tax dollars and it isn't intended to be a public square. It is more like Roosh's house, and when you are within the home of another, you are expected to respect the homeowner's wishes and rules. You'd want anyone else to do the same in your home.
Christ-centered community is what will save our souls in trying times. Our worldly success is not guaranteed.
Also, in my personal experience, nobody has really come to Christ through the internet. That's what real-life gospel community us for. Instead, internet discussions make for a better tempering of one's faith and learn how to better walk with Christ, and perhaps gain resources on how to be a good steward of the time, money, and other resources we've been given in our age. Because times are changing, and it's difficult to know where we should be when the next chapter begins.
As I stated, this is your forum and I wish to respect your rules. However, I do have a few questions and I'm sure other protestants may feel similarly.
- What constitutes heresy that should be considered unacceptable within this forum? I'm unfamiliar with orthodox doctrine, but I am aware that there are also conflicts between Orthodox and Catholic doctrine. Would someone get in trouble for advocating for the Catholic doctrine of the Pope's infallibility? Would someone get in trouble for advocating for the Calvinist doctrine of predestination?
- For now, I will merely take the approach of not referencing specific doctrine, choosing to instead reference scripture directly. But, should Protestant's like myself and others reference doctrine or scripture interpretation we believe to be acceptable that you do not, I would appreciate a warning and reason as opposed to a ban. Discussion on where we went wrong and what not to reference in the future would be appreciated, as I would hate to receive a ban on what could be considered an honest mistake as to what we weren't aware was heresy.
- For the record, I am aware of the many shortcomings of Protestants. I myself however consider myself reformed, and within reformed Protestantism, we do have doctrines we hold believers within our respective denomination too, such as the Westminster catechism and the books of church order. Scripture interpretation isn't free game, and we within the reformed community have a systematic interpretation of scripture that was developed by our church fathers that we don't deviate from and hold our churches accountable too in the pursuit of purity.
- So I politely ask, please don't paint us with a broad brush. The media tends to exemplify the worst of the protestants, the "feel-good non-denom progressives" that base their beliefs on fads, and not systematic interpretation of scripture and theology. Many of us are just as passionate about church purity as you are, and I personally want to seek unity through Christ despite our differences in times like these. I know you love Jesus as I do, and we can work together in that.
Well it was nice reading and posting on this forum. Learned a few things and was happy to buy a gold membership.Under the new rules I can no longer participate. Anyone wants me can reach me on GAB... same username.
Seems to me if you lean more secular and still wanna hang out, alls ya gots t'do is stop doling out advice that leads people away from God.
As a woman, one of the things I notice most keenly is how some men will try to advise the young ladies that they don't actually need a Godly man, and that just submitting to a strong/alpha man is enough (or even "better," they might insinuate). This seems to very typically go hand-in-hand with the "old forum mindset" that women are meant to go along with everything their men fancy (I hesitate to say "husbands" because these men are usually scared of legal commitment), including indulging any and all "fantasies" even if they amount to sexual deviance, perversion, degeneracy, etc.
They take the relationship meant to exist between GOD and MAN (wherein man submits unquestioningly to the Will of God as the most high authority) and PERVERT IT by applying this format instead to the relationship between Woman and Man - and cutting God out of the equation entirely, so that the Man himself becomes the "highest authority," submitting to nobody and nothing save for his own disordered desires.
My husband just finished reading The Sea Wolf, by Jack London, to me. The main antagonist, Wolf Larsen, is a pretty good illustration of this mindset taken to the extreme: "might makes right," basically. That worked out for him about as well as can be expected. Good book; highly recommend.
As a woman, one of the things I notice most keenly is how some men will try to advise the young ladies that they don't actually need a Godly man, and that just submitting to a strong/alpha man is enough (or even "better," they might insinuate). This seems to very typically go hand-in-hand with the "old forum mindset" that women are meant to go along with everything their men fancy (I hesitate to say "husbands" because these men are usually scared of legal commitment), including indulging any and all "fantasies" even if they amount to sexual deviance, perversion, degeneracy, etc.
They take the relationship meant to exist between GOD and MAN (wherein man submits unquestioningly to the Will of God as the most high authority) and PERVERT IT by applying this format instead to the relationship between Woman and Man - and cutting God out of the equation entirely, so that the Man himself becomes the "highest authority," submitting to nobody and nothing save for his own disordered desires.
My husband just finished reading The Sea Wolf, by Jack London, to me. The main antagonist, Wolf Larsen, is a pretty good illustration of this mindset taken to the extreme: "might makes right," basically. That worked out for him about as well as can be expected. Good book; highly recommend.
I have challenged the cowardly Roosh to a livestream debate. Let's see if he can man up and accept the challenge.
No objections here. For clarification, does this mean no more discussions about politics? I think the case can be made that almost every political issue is somehow adjacent to Christianity. There's also some great discussions here about economics, will that still be allowed?
In all honesty I think ragequitting is a sign of immaturity more than anything else.
It's a case by case basis, but I only take action when someone is aggressively arguing their non-traditional view point and degrading discourse. Pride and anger is almost always involved. You are free to state your views, but when you are pushing it onto people and causing forum strife, then the suspensions begin. Understand that many individuals join forums like this simply to argue, and they start on their first post.
I agree with this move.
"Let the dead bury their dead" - Luke 9:60
"Let the dead bury their dead" - Luke 9:60
Let this be the beginning:
InspiringPhilosophy
My name is Michael Jones. I plan on creating a new video every month dealing with philosophical and apologetic questions. If you have any questions don't hes...
www.youtube.com
Also this:
The evidence is there.
Actually being scared of legal commitment is many years in the making:Seems to me if you lean more secular and still wanna hang out, alls ya gots t'do is stop doling out advice that leads people away from God.
As a woman, one of the things I notice most keenly is how some men will try to advise the young ladies that they don't actually need a Godly man, and that just submitting to a strong/alpha man is enough (or even "better," they might insinuate). This seems to very typically go hand-in-hand with the "old forum mindset" that women are meant to go along with everything their men fancy (I hesitate to say "husbands" because these men are usually scared of legal commitment), including indulging any and all "fantasies" even if they amount to sexual deviance, perversion, degeneracy, etc.
They take the relationship meant to exist between GOD and MAN (wherein man submits unquestioningly to the Will of God as the most high authority) and PERVERT IT by applying this format instead to the relationship between Woman and Man - and cutting God out of the equation entirely, so that the Man himself becomes the "highest authority," submitting to nobody and nothing save for his own disordered desires.
My husband just finished reading The Sea Wolf, by Jack London, to me. The main antagonist, Wolf Larsen, is a pretty good illustration of this mindset taken to the extreme: "might makes right," basically. That worked out for him about as well as can be expected. Good book; highly recommend.
Threatpoint
When discussing the topic of changes in divorce law we typically talk about divorce theft and how this causes men to be understandably hesitant to marry, as well as the impact it has on men and the…
dalrock.wordpress.com
All roads lead to Duluth.
In the early 1980s a group of feminists put together a model to approach domestic violence called the Duluth Model. Under this new (feminist) model the focus is not on actual violence, but on figh…
dalrock.wordpress.com
This is a Christian blogger which I highly recommend reading for this type of topic. Uses plenty of statistics. The legal system has been taken over by subversives intending to destroy marriage.
An analogy of my approach is like a church. Members of the church can participate in the sacraments, but the catechumens cannot. The latter can humbly watch and learn and participate in fellowship as long as they don't go against church teachings. In recent weeks, however, we had "catechumens" and subverters trying to exert their will on the membership. Some of this was coming from old members who didn't want to "join" the church from its previous PUA teachings while in other cases problems come from new members who immediately tried to inflict harm upon joining. Hence action was required.
I don't know what you're referring to.
Scared is a different beast from cautious. I do understand these points and ideas (believe it or not, I've been studying this stuff pretty intently since I was quite young), but I'm talking about the men who have the sort of fear - of the institution of marriage itself - which, when examined, always inevitably stems from Satanic influence and trauma rather than (and in fact precludes) reason/caution/wisdom.
My first marriage was a great example of the breakdown of the institution of marriage socially and culturally. I knew that was a possibility going into it, and I employed all the caution I could cobble together - but I wasn't scared. Then basically everything that could have gone wrong went wrong, because I GOT one of those men who thought he could make a god of himself to me. I submitted to a man who did not submit to God. That goes bad places real fast.
I'm still not scared of marriage, though. Marriage wasn't the thing that hurt me. So what if I lost 90%+ of everything I'd gained materially over the course of it (men are not the only ones who suffer material losses in divorce)? SIN was the thing that hurt me. My lack of proper discernment in choosing a mate was the thing that hurt me. Not marriage. In fact, marriage might have been the key thing that kept my life from spinning entirely out of control instead of just mostly out of control.
Men may be opposed to marriage for a number of reasons that are sound. After all, not all men are called to marry. But based on my own experiences, I can only conclude that men who otherwise desire but are afraid of marriage are either highly traumatized, or spiritually impoverished. They often don't seem to believe that redemption is possible for women in any way that could affect a material change in their lives and decisions -- and they ALWAYS seem to believe it is more important to retain their material wealth and resources than to risk losing them to start a family. They fear because they lack faith - and they teach others to do the same, because they know no better. THAT is the main problem of it.
Edit: I'd lose everything I ever earned all over again and then some to have the children I have, even if I ended up having to work and provide for them and myself for most of my life instead of being provided for by a good husband (my husband now is wonderful, but I try not to take that for granted). I've suffered and sacrificed, been used and exploited, suffered financial blows that cut a lot deeper than a dent in my savings/retirement plants/lifestyle... and... wait - isn't that what God said mortal life had in store for us? So it's hard to have any respect for "men" who sit there and say "I won't do it if you can't promise I won't get hurt or suffer any losses."
Last edited:
Well, as for your heresies, you're in luck as today is the triumph of Orthodoxy in which we sing the Synodikon of Orthodoxy, which asserts the triumph of Holy Orthodoxy over all the heresies! Here's the first one: (remember to chant it while reading)
As, therefore, we bless and praise those who have submitted their reason to the obedience of Divine revelation, and have contended for it, so following the Sacred Scriptures, and holding the Traditions of the primitive Church, we reject and anathematize all those who oppose His truth, if while awaiting their conversion and repentance, they refuse to repent to the Lord. To those who deny the existence of God, and assert that the world is self-existing and that all things in it were made by chance, without the providence of God: ANATHEMA!
People: ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA! ANATHEMA!
You can read the rest here:
And here's a video which contains some additions the Russians added, given their recent history. (This also disproves the lie that the Orthodox Church is somehow unequipped to deal with novel and new heresies.)
Now as for your second comment on Holy Scripture, but of course! The One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church birthed Holy Scripture. It is a liturgical text used by the Church, and as such, cannot be divorced from this context. Whenever divorced from the Church, it falls pray to innumerable amounts of interpretations and thus loses the truth it reveals. Trying to interpret Scripture on your own leaves Scripture with as many interpretations as there are interpreters. One need only look at the history of the Church to find that every heretic, from the very beginning, up to today - for do not even the Christ hating leftists use "thou shall not judge, and love thy neighbor" to morally shame Christians into open borders and sodomite acceptance? - to assert their heretical claims. From the gnostics, to Arius and Nestorius and on to the Iconoclasm crisis and through the Protestant Reformation - every one used Scripture to bolster their claims. In fact, even Satan quotes Scripture to Jesus! (Matthew 4:5-6) Thus, as you can see, it is the right interpretation of Scripture that is important here, not mere access to it. Here's an excellent video, on the Orthodox understanding of this issue. I strongly recommend you listen, as it will at least give you something to chew over. God bless, brother.
Last edited:
- Status